Viking Restaurant

Billy Joel's New Single!

After almost fifteen years without an original pop single, Billy Joel returns. This is huge for me. And it helps that I really like the song.

ALL MY LIFE
BY: BILLY JOEL

All my life,
I’ve searched this whole world through.
Try as I might,
to find someone like you.
The years drifted by,
but it was always on my mind.
I didn’t know just how long I’d go,
until I ran out of time.

All my life,
I’ve hurt the ones who cared.
One by one,
no loving heart was spared.
I’ve been a wild and restless man,
but, still a man who needs a wife.
That was a dream, and now it seems,
you’ve taken all my life.

For as long as I could,
my intentions were good.
I assumed my affairs would be fine.

But I know very well,
There’s a long road to Hell.
That’s been paved with intentions like mine.

All my life,
I’ve paid for my mistakes.
After a while,
the strongest spirit breaks.
I’ve had heartache and pain,
it cut me deeper than a knife.
But those days are done,
‘cause you’re the one I’ve wanted all my life.

And, I know very well,
There’s a long road to Hell.
That’s been paved with intentions like mine.

All my life,
my stars were surely crossed.
Now and then,
I missed the love I lost.
But, all that changed,
The day you said you’d be my wife.

Who could have known,
that finding you would only take me
all my life?

At Word of Life

I am currently writing this short blog from the campus of Word of Life Bible Institute in Schroon Lake, NY. I havent been here in seven years and needless to say it is a surreal experience being back. I feel like Im in the Twilight Zone. I spent three years of my life at Word of Life, the first three years after high school. I was here as long as I was a student at Covenant College, where I finished my Bachelors. So yes, this is a significant little place for me. A truly beautiful place to. They boast, scenery wise, what is probably the most beautiful campus location of any undergraduate institution I have ever been to. Smack dab in the middle of the Adirondacks, this place is no joke. Well, just had to share the craziness.

dmsthomas@optusnet.com.au

Townes Van Zandt on "If I Needed You"

James 4

Im glad I was reminded of this chapter this week as a followup to James 3 which I already posted.

James 4

Submit Yourselves to God

1What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
4You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?[a] 6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble."[b]

7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

11Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

Boasting About Tomorrow

13Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." 14Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that." 16As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. 17Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.

Damn Shame

I know...more melancholic, self-indulgent lyrics. But hey, its Valentines Day.

I hid out on the front porch
I laid up in my mind
I looked for me a love
The best one I could find
She got herself a ticket
On an international flight

Oh it’s nothing
But a damn shame
Is what it is
Oh it’s nothing
But a damn shame

The smell of burnt exhaust
Drifts into the bar
It’s midnight in California
It’s high noon where you are
Motorcycles and booze
Dirty old perfume

Oh it’s nothing
But a damn shame
Is what it is
Oh it’s nothing
But a damn shame

I tried to go to sleep
In my haunted little room
The shadows are churning
In the passage of the moon
It’d break my heart to tell you
I couldn’t come so soon

Oh it’s nothing
But a damn shame
Is what it is
Oh, it’s nothing
But a damn shame

Tell me one more time
Why you went away
It makes a little sense
In the light of day
When evening comes around
All my senses fly away

It’s nothing
But a damn shame
Is what it is
Oh it’s nothing
But a damn shame

Beaker Sings Feelings

What I need to do is just to lighten up and cool down to the smooth sounds of Muppets jazz.

Hurt

Ive been hurting pretty bad. Yeah, it was a big loss to lose my job, but I can honestly say that its not what Im hurting about. Im hurting because of broken relationships....relationships that I actually care about and would give my left leg to heal.....but there is nothing I can do. Im a pretty selfish guy. Ive come to realize that more and more about myself. I was hurt a lot growing up by several different people. And I never quite got over that hurt. And I think that has allowed me to hurt others more easily. I have this place where I can get to where I can become entirely selfish...where I can hurt other people viciously because I have retreated into complete emotional isolation. I can say anything, do anything to hurt the other person without looking back.

Now I hurt others because I hurt...but I rarely ever allow myself to feel my hurt. I hate to feel it. I suppress it with anything I can get my hands on....music, alcohol, academics, friends, flirtation. Whatever is immediately available to me as a distraction I will readily use. But I dont spare others the same distractions. I hurt them when I want, and I hurt them without mercy, and I dont give a second thought to watching them hurt. I dont feel others' pain well. I am too busy suppressing and numbing my own.

I almost take pride in this as a kind of existential philosophy of life. I am always wrestling with the questions of my own existence, purpose, etc. That is the central question...the most important question.....who am I? Or where I am going? What happens to me when I die? Questions about the identity and purpose of others is secondary. It doesnt affect me as much. Ive got to watch out for #1. After all, who else will?

I hate this about myself. It has caused so much pain, not only in my life but in the lives of others. Just pain all around. I want to be able to fix it but I cant. I want to be able to reconcile but there is no hope for that. I want to be able to change. Its killing me. The irony is that my selfishness only leads to self-destruction. It doesnt do me any good. I just hurt others and hurt myself more.

I need to feel the weight of this. Its so hard to. I dont know why it has always been so hard for me to just break down and grieve over my sin. I always try to stay rational, to stay in some amount of control, to preserve some sense of all-rightedness. But I need to break over this. Ive caused some serious hurt to some people this year. Ive been incredibly selfish. I have not obeyed Christ's call to love, which is the very sign of being His disciple. I have cursed Christ and grieved His Spirit because of my lack of love.

Something happened to me a as a kid, not sure what, but I just kind of hardened. I went from being a very emotionally sensitive person (extremely so I am told) to being somebody who feels uncomfortable when i get emotional. Maybe thats a somewhat normal thing for guys to go through, but I think my case is a bit extreme for some reasons. Last night I cried...a lot...throughout the whole night. It was weird and hard and very unsettling. I had a pain in my stomach that wouldnt go away and wouldnt allow me to sleep. I just couldnt handle the idea that certain relationships just cant heal....that I can really destroy a relationship this side of the grave so much that it can never be restored. I think part of me wants to try to destroy relationships and then prove to myself that they can later be restored. I know that sounds kind of sick and weird, but I live in a family where all of the relationships have been destroyed to some degree and so I need to have hope that they can be restored. Therefore I am almost compelled to live out the same pattern in other relationships...destruction and restoration. I cant just settle in a relationship before the destruction phase because I know it has to come eventually. I feel compelled to get the destruction part over with and test God to see if He can actually restore it. I guess i just know I am prone to mess things up, and I need to know, in very extreme ways, that God wont let me mess things up so badly that they cant be fixed. And so I test God. I test Him to the limits, hurting and destroying relationships as much as possible, and then staring back at Him as if to say "Go ahead! See if you can fix that one!"

And when He doesnt fix it, I cast the blame on Him. Its so backwards. Rather than take full responsibility I blame God for not putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. I dont bear the weight of my sin. I dont fully take it in. I have caused this hurt to happen. And now the consequence is that I and others must hurt. And theres no easy way out of it. I do believe in the reconcilation of all things by Christ, but it is obvious that His reconciliation does not keep us from hurting here in the present and bearing the temporal consequences of walking over other people.

I dont know what to say. I am somewhat silenced. I want to hope so bad. There are things I still hope will happen that I have no reason to hope for, but its hard to kill hope sometimes as much as it is hard to kill hurt. I think hurt and hope persist with about as much furiosity. Neither are suppressed lightly.

A Great Scene

A great scene from "Say Anything." Lloyd Dobler certainly knew how to get a girl's attention and to get her back. Too bad this only works in movies.

James 3

James 3

Taming the Tongue

1Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. 2We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.
3When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. 4Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

7All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. 10Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. 11Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring? 12My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

Two Kinds of Wisdom

13Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. 16For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
17But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

Leaving

Today I left my position at Covenant College as an admissions representative. I think I need to say in some public record, since many questions will be asked as to why I left, that Covenant College is completely free of any fault in this regard. I made some foolish decisions recently and as a consequence it was decided that the best course of action would be withdrawal from my position. I really am in complete agreement with this decision and am 100% on board with it emotionally, mentally, the whole nine yards. I dont want to go into it much further. I would just ask two things of those who know me. 1) Dont assume in any way that I have been wronged or mistreated by Covenant College. 2) Please give me as much benefit of the doubt as possible and dont assume the worst about what my actions indeed were.

Its funny how the situation that happened this week could have had an entirely different result if any number of small factors had occurred differently. It reminds me of the movie "Babel" which I saw recently. In "Babel" you watch a situation escalate into the worst possible scenario, and you keep saying to yourself "If just this had happened" or "If just that had happened" or "If only that person could have understood that other person just a little bit better" then everything would have worked out much better. But I have to remind myself that even though this situation could have turned out a lot differently if I had just made a few simple choices differently, this situation did happen the way that God intended. Each factor fell into place the way it did for a reason, each step was taken with a purpose. That is hard to believe sometimes. I am so tempted to believe its all just chaos, and that the situation just took the worst possible turn by mere chance. If only I had refrained from saying that one thing when I said it, or doing that one thing when I did it, it would have turned out so much differently. And it would have. This really could have been avoided very, very easily. It kills to know how easily it could have been avoided. But then thats where my faith in the providence of God needs to be tested and strengthened...knowing that even though things could have worked out differently, they didnt, and for a reason.

Well I am already starting to see what some of those reasons are and I am excited about what God is going to do in the process. Will definitely keep you posted.

Psalm 139

Psalm 139

For the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.

1 O LORD, You have searched me and known me.
2 You know my sitting down and my rising up;
You understand my thought afar off.
3 You comprehend my path and my lying down,
And are acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word on my tongue,
But behold, O LORD, You know it altogether.
5 You have hedged me behind and before,
And laid Your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is high, I cannot attain it.

7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 Even there Your hand shall lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall fall[a] on me,”
Even the night shall be light about me;
12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
But the night shines as the day;
The darkness and the light are both alike to You.

13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[b]
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand;
When I awake, I am still with You.

19 Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God!
Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men.
20 For they speak against You wickedly;
Your enemies take Your name in vain.[c]
21 Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me, and know my anxieties;
24 And see if there is any wicked way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting.

You May Be Right

I had posted nother nostalgic Billy Joel moment from that same Long Island concert of 1982. But they removed the video shortly afterwards from Youtube so I decided to put up the official video for the song instead. "You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for"...It was during this phase that Billy really aspired to be a rock and roller in order to lose his "soft rock" image that he couldnt shake ever since "Just the Way You Are." Always really liked this one.

Obama For President

Barack Obama announced today that he is running for president. I say more power to the guy. Hes obviously got some flaws, but he's a smart, fresh voice...one of the better candidates we have to choose from if you ask me. I also love that he rarely wears a tie.

Obama's "Call to Renewal" Keynote Address

This is a fantastic speech on the relationship between religion and politics. I find certain points by Obama to be highly commendable, although I cant say I agree with the whole thing. Wont go too much into it here. Read it for yourself:

'Call to Renewal' Keynote Address
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Printable FormatWashington, DC

Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here at the Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference. I've had the opportunity to take a look at your Covenant for a New America. It is filled with outstanding policies and prescriptions for much of what ails this country. So I'd like to congratulate you all on the thoughtful presentations you've given so far about poverty and justice in America, and for putting fire under the feet of the political leadership here in Washington.

But today I'd like to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we've been seeing over the last several years.

I do so because, as you all know, we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible; and we can raise up and pass out this Covenant for a New America. We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won't have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.

I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.

Indeed, Mr. Keyes announced towards the end of the campaign that, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.

Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously, to essentially ignore it. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, and his arguments not worth entertaining. And since at the time, I was up 40 points in the polls, it probably wasn't a bad piece of strategic advice.

But what they didn't understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God. He claimed knowledge of certain truths.

Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, he was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.

And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?

Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.

But Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.

Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.

And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I.

It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.

I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst.

And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.

And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.

And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.

Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.

You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values.

And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway.

I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.

And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.

Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.

This goes for both sides.

Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives.

So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:

"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you."

The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be "totalizing." His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.

But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor went on to write:

"I sense that you have a strong sense of justice...and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded....You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others...I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.

Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you.

Soul Force at Covenant

For those who dont know, I currently work as an admissions representative for a small, Presbyterian liberal arts college on top of Lookout Mountain, GA called Covenant College. Ive spent most of the past six years of my life involved with Covenant in some form or another. Ive been educated by Covenant and Ive worked for Covenant and Ive met the majority of my friends in this life at Covenant. Deep down inside, I really love Covenant and I still commend highly the quality of education that can be received here.

Now for my first few years at Covenant, I really did believe that Covenant was a progressive, culturally sensitive institution that defied almost all of the stereotypes of Christian colleges in America labeled as "fundamentalist." I believed that while Covenant was conservative in its theology, it was aggressively seeking to engage the wider world around it in a meaningful and thoughtful way. I still do believe that this is the intention of the majority of the faculty at the school. However, there have been some administrative decisions made in recent years that have caused me to reconsider just what kind of school Covenant is. Is it the culturally engaged, stereotype defying institution that I once idealized it to be? Or is starting to show signs of a serious strain of fundamentalism and of a backwards subcultural mindset?

Now dont get me wrong. I dont think things are that bad yet. Covenant is still one of the best Christian colleges one is going to find in terms of its balance of conservative, Reformed theology and intellectual and cultural awareness. But there are some warning signs to be cautious of. Recently, the school banned students (with only inconsequential exceptions) from consuming alcohol while in foreign countries. In my opinion, this is a poorly conceived move on Covenant's part considering that it goes against all of Covenant's views on cultural participation and engagement. Covenant is merely setting up its own subcultural enclave in a foreign country when it refuses to ackowledge that country's existing cultural laws and mores. It is not illegal for students to drink in many of these foreign cultures nor is it wrong. So why does Covenant make it wrong for its own students while they live in these cultures? Well, Covenant argues that because students are not allowed to consume alcohol while on Covenant's campus they should not be able to do so while thousands of miles away. The rules should be consistent. Ive actually heard that word a lot around Covenant in regards to this new rule: "consistent."

I once attended an extremely fundamentalist Bible college before I attended Covenant and they used the same word a lot. That word provides a very typical argument for most fundamentalists circles, even outside Christian circles. Every group has its laws, but then sub-groups like to take those laws and extrapolate whole new laws based on the need to be consistent. This can be a never-ending process. For example, my old Bible college believed that Christians should do nothing that could remotely offend or give the impression of wickedness to the outside community. Therefore it seemed "consistent" with that principle that students at the school shouldnt be seen going into movie theatres where it might be supposed that they were going to watch movies containing lewdness. And to be "consistent" with that rule, it was ruled that students shouldnt be allowed to attend movie theatres even when at home under their parents' auspice on summer break.

Now Covenant, of course, bears very little resemblance right now to this kind of extreme fundamentalism. I was refreshed to come to Covenant when I did, and to thrive in an environment of Christian liberty and cultural and intellectual consciousness. Nevertheless, Covenant is making some shady moves in the wrong direction if you ask me. Their decision to ban alcohol consumption in foreign cultures is a solid step away from the kind of intelligent and carefully considered application of Biblical principles to life that I used to praise at Covenant. Rather, it just demonstrates a blind enforcement of "consistency" that compromises Covenant's commitment to training thoughtful, complex students who can interact with the world around them on realistic terms.

This brings me to my primary concern. How will Covenant handle the fact that that the Soul Force Equality Ride will be visiting its campus on April 2? Will it instill in its students a sense of cultural protectiveness as they interact with homosexual activists? Will the subtle message be "You can talk to them and be nice to them but make sure to keep your guard up?" After all, this is the kind of mentality present in the new alcohol abroad policy. They are in essence saying "You can live next to them and talk to them in the marketplace but certainly DO NOT accept any invitations to drink with them!" It concerns me greatly. The Soul Force visit is a great opportunity for Covenant to show to Soul Force that it stands heads above other colleges in its willingness and competence to engage other cultures and mentalities outside the Presbyerian world. Will Covenant utilize this opportunity? Will they treat this group not just with a protected sense of civility, but with a genuine vulnerability, humility, and grounded openness? Will they be good listeners? Will they truly engage? Conceding any kind of ground to an open homosexual in a thoroughly Christian environment might seem to some a threat against the "consistency" of a tightly knit, uncompromised Christian lifestyle in the clouds. But I hope Covenant students truly wont see it that way, and that they will step out and allow themselves to be challenged by this truly unique opportunity.

Billy Joel/Angry Young Man

After finally watching a Youtube clip of Billy Joel's National Anthem performance at the Super Bowl from the other night, I have been put into a nostalgic Joel mood again. This happens to me somewhat often, at least twice a year, where I go back and visit his music, the music that taught me to love music. In terms of pop music icons, nobody goes back farther with me in life than Billy. I had bought all of his albums by the time I was twelve and at that time there wasnt a song that I couldnt sing along with by heart. Billy Joel, despite having imperfections, has been and will always continue to be my favorite musical performer.

Over the years Ive had to suffer some disillusionment and disappointment when it comes to his music. Ive had to realize that his music doesnt consitute the creative critical peak of 20th century pop music, Ive had to realize that he is not the most technically proficient piano player in the world, and Ive had to realize that, yes, some of his songs are just kind of bad. Ive also had to come to terms with Billy as a human being. I used to think he was perfect, no kidding. But now Ive come to see that Billy, though he writes great music, also drinks too much and crashes into trees. But the disillusionment I have encountered with Billy is the same disillusionment that I have felt throughout all of life as I have grown older. Life isnt perfect. It doesnt always come together as nicely as a well orchestrated pop concert. As Ive watched Billy fail, Ive watched myself fail and Ive come to forbear with us both.

But even now, I have an incredible amount of respect for Billy Joel. I continue to love his music in all phases of life, and I continue to like him as an artist. I have seen a lot of interviews with him, and he is always a delightfully sharp, witty, and funny guy. I think hes possibly one of the most, if not the most brutally honest performers in the industry. He knows who he is, just a mediocre looking guy who writes catchy pop songs that in the grand scheme of life arent that important. He's managed to stay uncommonly normal. And I always see and hear in his music a very realistic appraisal of the temporality and finitude of human life. I think at the end of the day, if I ever got to meet Billy Joel, he might shrug me off. I think he does that to a lot of people, because hes just not interested in pleasing everybody. But I like him for that. And I think thats what has given so much longevity to his career. I do hope he'll record at least one new album of original material before he dies. But that might be wishful thinking at this point.

The video in this blog is of Billy at a 1982 Long Island performance, and I consider it to be "vintage" Billy, his most classic period. It was the point in his career where he had written the majority of his most popular songs, and so he was able to fill a night with just hit after hit after hit. And I loved his look back then, the unkempt suit with the tennis shoes. Thats how I always think of Billy Joel in my mind. In the video, watch out also for the wild drumming of Liberty DeVito and the hot sax playing of Mark Rivera. I was able to see both of these guys up close along with Billy when I saw them live in Nashville a few years ago from the front row. It was amazing. Billy walked up and shook my hand after peforming "Piano Man." The song posted above is "Angry Young Man," a favorite of mine. Ive always liked the following lyrics:

I believe I've passed the age
Of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too,
I had my pointless point of view,
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.

So enjoy.

Sam Harris on Theodicy

Well, Ive been reading more from Sam Harris today and I came across an article that was particularly startling and unsettling. I had just posted a few weeks ago about the silence of God in suffering in light of the Hurrican Katrina disaster. And so I was interested to see Harris use the same example and to express some similar frustrations. And I must confess, my tendency is to want to answer Harris right away, to defend my faith at the drop of a hat. But Im not sure if thats always the right response. I think perhaps the objections in this article should silence me before they inflame me to speak out. There is a magnificent weight to his concerns, to the reality of human suffering that occurs throughout the world at all times. And yet, after I pause and consider, I conclude that what Harris fails to understand is the nature of justice. He simply does not concede that God could allow human suffering without Himself being evil or at least powerless. Harris does not consider a third option, that God wills human suffering because He is just. Somehow the sin in the Garden (and I confess that this is difficult to emotionally comprehend) was of such a brutal nature that all the human suffering that has followed has been of just consequence. I can understand why Harris wouldnt even consider this to be an option as it bears a hint of ridiculous audacity. It does often seem ludricous to me that humans are getting what they deserve, when the consequences of sin seem to so grossly outweigh its original grievance. Nevertheless, who am I to question that fact? I would be God if I understood correctly the nature of divine justice. It is enough for me to realize that justice accounts for suffering (although inadequately to our limited understanding) just as easily as divine malevolence or weakness. I would appreciate it if Harris could at least concede this, even if he is unwilling to accept it. Nevertheless, I think Harris gives us good reason to pause, and to pause for significant duration, to meditate on what the reality of human suffering in the world really does say to our often unscrutinized faith.

The following is the article itself:

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings.

The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend.

Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm “of biblical proportions” would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina’s path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. And yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that eighty percent of Katrina’s survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.

As hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran. Indeed, their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence: their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace.

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is -- and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.

Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.

There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value. It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.

Sullivan vs. Harris

Ive been reading this fascinating debate on religious belief between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris. Although I consider both of these men to demonstrate profoundly erroneous thinking, I am similarly awed by their level of intellectual honesty and articulation. I am shamed at my own lack of ability to articulate as effectively the reasons for my faith. Sullivan, in particular, impresses me with his grasp of the contingency of humanity and of the limitations of reason and with his rejection of fideism. Dont get me wrong, these guys say some silly stuff. Sullivan's argument that all the world religions could conceivably lead to the same God and Harris' argument that the Bible is an easily improved upon human accomplishment both betray some naive assumptions.

These guys make it clear that there are only three categories of belief pertinent to their discussion: fundamentalism, religious moderation, and atheism. By necessity then, I am forced into the fundamentalist camp. Reminds me of the discussion on Ryan's blog. It makes me sad that I cant be considered outside of this camp when engaged in wider circles of religious discourse. Honestly, at this point in my life, Im more sympathetic with Andrew Sullivan than I would ever be with Jerry Falwell or James Dobson. Nevertheless, my core beliefs are closer to Dobson's than to Sullivan's. I cant deny that even if I do feel a greater psychological affiliation with Sullivan. For the sake of upholding the authority of Christ and His Word, cast me in with Jerry and James. Sure, it feels like having to go the lame youth group charades party when youd rather be at the Smashing Pumpkins concert with your friends from school, but hey, thats just the nature of the beast.

In other news, and I dont mean to make light of this by putting it at the end of this post, but I do feel compelled to share that Alan Groves , an OT professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, passed away of cancer on Monday evening. Our prayers should be with his family and with everyone in that community. I understand he was a pretty incredible guy. When things like this happen, I am strengthened in my resolve to be a fundamentalist and to cling to the power and hope of the resurrection.

So Damn Happy

I guess Im just a big fat jerk, but this is how I tend to feel about most of my failed relationships with women. I was thinking today that relationships to me are like violins: I know other people are great at them but I'll never understand them. And Im just as happy watching others perform them while not knowing how they work:

The sad thing is I'm so damn happy
Who'd blame her if she were to slap me
The sun should not shine when there's rain
I should be in a lot more pain
At least I should feel slightly crappy
But the sad thing is I'm so damn happy

And the worst thing is it's so much better
That admission would upset her
But it's true and it's beyond belief
What I feel is sheer relief
I may regret the day I met her
And the worst thing is it's so much better

It's comic that it's all so tragic
It's that hum-drum novel old black magic
Let's have a laugh after we cry
Let's hope we live before we die
The silly clown's red nose is runny
And it's tragic that it's all so funny

It's crucial that it doesn't matter
Vows of love are idle chatter
To feel this good has to be bad
I'm so damn happy that it's sad
Dear listener would you like to slap me
And the sad thing is I'm so damn happy
Yes the sad thing is I'm so damn happy

Back From Boston

I hate having to blog after long stints of not blogging because I feel the need to write a book about all the different things that have happened to me during my blogging respite. Its particularly hard when Ive been on vacation, because so many things tend to happen to me while on vacation. I do a lot of thinking, a lot of talking, a lot of walking, a lot of people watching, a lot of reading, and in the end, not a whole lot of sleeping.

I just got back from Boston, where I spent ten days doing all of these things and more. I spent quite a bit of time in Cambridge and I visited classes at Harvard Law School, Harvard Divinity School, and Weston Jesuit. I also spent a few days on the campus of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, and I visited a lot of classes there as well. Basically, Ive been in school all week. So naturally Ive been thinking about school: why Im not in school, why I wish I was in school, why I need to make more money so that I can afford to be in school, etc. There are not many things I like to do in this life that I am any good at it. But I like school and and I think Im pretty good at it as well. Its pretty hard to hang out in a place like Boston, where every other person you pass on the street is in school, without succumbing to the sin of envy

I feel like Boston has a way of making the average Joe seem unattractive and unintelligent. It seems like every other person up there dresses really well, looks really good, and appears well educated. And yet I cant say I was particularly covetous of it all. Even the highest eschalons of our society seem vacuous and unfulfilling when you get up close. No, I wasnt overwhelmed with self-loathing and envy. Rather, I just felt depressed. Life seems incredibly temporal if you think about it too much, which I often do.

Speaking of the temporality of life, an estimated 1000 people died in Iraq last week. Think about that one for a bit. -