Round the World

It doesn't look like much, does it? This type of thing gives me the travel bug, though I think the only place I need to go to now is my bed.

create your own visited country map or write about it on the open travel guide

Movie Recommendations

Video Store: Losing Isaiah. With Halle Berry, Samuel L Jackson and Cuba Gooding Jr plus some whities I don't know and a few cute kids, this drama asks a lot of tough questions about race and society and parenthood. I happen to agree with the whites, but when you see that people of one group all reason to one conclusion (that kids are best brought up in the soundest, safest environment) and that people of another group all reason to another conclusion (that kids are best brought up where they're part of the culture), it's a clue that the logic has a lot more to do with background than with intelligence. See the movie. Rated "R" for drugs and language; no objectionable content.

In Theatres: Big Fish. I don't think I've ever cried in a movie theatre before. This is one of the most extraordinary films that I've ever seen. It bears comparison to "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" in both style and period. It's a father-son film with a lot to say about perceptions of life and family. Somewhere between all the laughs, I had tears running down my face, and the outlandish images and sequences (trees grabbing a man, etc) are somehow congruous. It's definitely worth seeing. A warning is that there is nudity, though it's not obnoxious or in poor taste, and didn't ruin the film.

Response to Comments

To Parker: Woo-hoo! 35% sales tax! (that's about what it would have to be to replace the income tax). Do you have ANY idea what that would do to consumption and the economy???
At best, it would be a major income shift from families with children to old misers, at *immense* implementation costs. At worst, it would send the economy into a depression-esque tailspin, with jobs, businesses and sales moving to Canada and elsewhere - and mostly just evaporating - before you could say "Franklin Delano Roosevelt".

As far as Dubya's critiques, here's the thing: Saddam Hussein was a bad man. However, if we get rid of him, why not all the guys in Africa who do much worse things to their people? Why not North Korea? One word: oil. Now, this wasn't an "oil war" in the classic sense; I've argued that all along. It is, however, a war motivated by the importance of oil. Only someone with an M.D. in Spin can effectively argue that we went after Saddam because he deserved it.
On the diplomacy thing, I really shouldn't have to argue with you, Dubya, but you seem to have bought into the administration's rhetoric wholeheartedly. However, unlike you I have spent time in Europe, Africa and the Middle East since Bush became president, and I've seen what it's done to the perception of America among even our allies. If you really think this is only about liberal Europeans you are very sadly misinformed. This is about any country that wants to control its own destiny. When the U.S. sets the parameters within which the world can operate, that's a serious threat to everyone else.

Here's how I define the liberal elite (which is quite distinct from classical liberalism). A liberal elitist is someone who believes that he knows better than the common man what the common man should do. The implications of this worldview are principally:
- Big government
- Decisions made centrally, not by referendum or with close accountability
- The end justifies the means, since the goal is a society in line with their vision. The vision may be good (no racism, healthy environment, full health coverage), but any standard can be sidelined in the name of the vision.
- The elite believe that they themselves have a fundamental (God-given?) right to govern.

This flies in the face of American democracy. The foundations of that tradition are based in the supremacy of the individual over the whole, and the equality of people regardless of knowledge and "enlightenment", not only regardless of skin color. What's important to the democrat (little "d") is:
- Civil liberties and rights. If the government can take these, it owns you.
- Size of government fluctuating according to need
- Decisions made locally and by referendum, often beginning with grassroots campaigns (e.g. prohibition, abolition, civil rights, women's suffrage)
- The government affirms its subordinance to the people and, in the supreme act of submission, leaves office when voted out. This is the forgotten keystone of democracy.

When applied to foreign affairs, the conflict between liberalism and democracy takes on a different tone, and a lot of democrats become elitists - the Great White Hope. Today we exhibit many similarities to colonial Europeans in our attitudes towards other cultures. Our values have changed, but know anyone who doesn't see the world through postmodern eyes is regarded as backwards.

Bush has become more and more a liberal elitist. He began well, but seems to have been corrupted by power or fear (of more 9/11's). Like the Steward of Gondor, he seeks the weapon of the Enemy.

Foreign affairs: Bush has been the ultimate elitist, writing off those who disagree with him, never stopping to consider that other countries' interests may actually be in the long-run interest of the United States or that other leaders' opinions may in fact be correct. Liberal Europe, incidentally, was his biggest supporter. England, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and a bevy of others all signed on against the will of their populations, as their liberal elitist leaders did what was best for nations that don't know what's good for them.

Education: I agree that schools need cash. But does Washington really know how to control these boards? Sure you need to guard against corruption, but if you don't trust towns and cities to want the best for their children, isn't the battle already lost? And if you believe that a pointy-eared politician in D.C. knows better than Ma and Pa Schoolboard what to do with Junior, aren't you a liberal elitist?

Civil Rights: The liberal elitist Bush says that security is more important than anything. Security for the whole, security for the government, security for the economy. The Patriot Act, unconstitutional detainments of American citizens, and the erosion of privacy rights all make it much easier for the government to impose its will on the people, as opposed to vice versa. The spirit of the Second Amendment is that the people need to have ultimate power on their side. The constitution protects local armies from the Federals; it makes no provision for a Federal army. The government may be able to protect us better if they control us, but a gilded cage is not freedom, and the ends do not justify the means.

Budget/tax cuts: Here the Congress is at fault, but with Bush's strong leadership, ultimately all bucks stop in the Oval Office. Tax cuts are fine - they help contract government, which is much tougher than expanding it. However, Bush has allowed spending to ooze in all sectors in unrestrained growth policy. Now, this is great for the economy - but only in the short run. It's a double dose of stimulants. However, the long term effects are poison, and every advisor in D.C. knows this. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to project debt and debt service rising if the deficit remains. Rather than serving the people with a sober fiscal policy, this government is giving itself job security by making sure everyone votes for them in November. People will dimple chads for Bush all over America because the economy is up, despite 9/11. However, if they could see into the future, I don't know that they'd be so sure, and the Republicans are betraying both their own beliefs and the American people in order to preserve the unique power they have in Washington.

Shameful.

Wow, I Really Am A Deanie

Your Results:

1.	Your ideal theoretical candidate.   (100%)  Click here for info
2.	Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat   (63%)  Click here for info
3.	Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat   (57%)  Click here for info
4.	Libertarian Candidate   (56%)  Click here for info
5.	Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat   (56%)  Click here for info
6.	Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat   (55%)  Click here for info
7.	Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat   (55%)  Click here for info
8.	Bush, President George W. - Republican   (54%)  Click here for info
9.	LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat   (48%)  Click here for info
10.	Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat   (44%)  Click here for info
11.	Green Party Candidate   (41%)  Click here for info
12.	Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat   (38%)  Click here for info
13.	Socialist Candidate   (34%)  Click here for info
14.	Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat   (32%)  Click here for info
15.	Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat   (24%)  Click here for info
16.	Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law   (14%)  Click here for info
17.	Phillips, Howard - Constitution   (13%)  Click here for info

Thanks to Mute Troubadour for the link. This poll asks you to position yourself on a bevy of national issues. No candidate even comes close to matching what I want to see: balanced budgets, social awareness, and sober foreign policy.

Big D

Great article on the Pats defense. For once an analyst who actually analyzes more than he prognosticates. Hat tip to Boston Sports Blog.

Child Prodigy

The New York Times has a child prodigy writing for them. This kid, who hasn't even reached his fourth birthday, is already writing coherent, though inaccurate political commentary.

Howard Dean may not have won a primary or caucus yet, a circumstance that led to a major shake-up of his campaign on Wednesday, but his mark on the party is unmistakable. His defeats are less a victory for the Democratic establishment than a sign of the other leading candidates' ability to adjust, and harness the energy originally tapped by Dr. Dean's insurgent campaign: the anger at President Bush, the opposition to the war with Iraq, the demand for a different direction in domestic policy

What Junior doesn't know is that primary campaigns always skew away from the center, and candidates then swing back to the middle, almost kissing across the halfway line by the time November 1st rolls around. Primary voters are heavily party regulars, and are heavily influenced by the party establishment. In the general election, you can count on all the regulars, and you have to court the swing vote. The regulars understand this centrist dalliance, and are generally forgiving as long as the candidate doesn't make too many centrist promises. Only time will tell (actually, nothing will, since it won't happen) if a Democratic administration goes left or center. A practical concern is that very few Dems have executive experience in a leftist government; Carter left office 23 years ago.

This is a Democratic Party spoiling for a fight. Dr. Dean's rallying cry was, and is, "It's time to take our country back!" Senator John Kerry throws Mr. Bush a defiant challenge that becomes an empowering group chant: "Bring it on!" Senator John Edwards cites his long legal career fighting big corporate lawyers and declares, "I am so ready for this fight!"

For our three-year-old pundit, this campaign may seem like a breath of fresh liberal air. Wake up, Junior, and smell the coffee: comparing the actions of a sitting President to the hot air spouting from candidates locked in the tightest primary race in recent history is comparing apples to oranges. When the sign-wavers go home and the donators close their wallets, when the TV networks go back to J-Lo and the reporters go back to the Gaza Strip, when the chair in the oval office starts to get comfortable, all of this will be forgotten. And if they remember it, to quote C.S. Lewis, they will remember it only faintly, as one remembers a dream.

Their memory will, in fact, be as poor as Robin Toner's. Toner is undoubtedly greater than four years of age, but seems to have forgotten the cyclical rhythm of Washington, much like the pundits who thought the business cycle was gone for good in 1999... and in 1929.

At Least They're Consistent...

Much has been made of the support by certain Democrats of the resolution blessing Bush's action in Iraq, and Ho-D's vigorous opposition to it. Based on the positions summarized on the Post's website, general trends emerge:

Supported unilateral military action in Iraq: Team Bush, Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry
Supported only multilateral action in Iraq: Dean, Sharpton, Kucinich
Wishy-washy: Clark

Supports unilateral negotiation with North Korea: Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry, Dean, Clark
Supports only multilateral negotiation with North Korea: Team Bush, Sharpton
Wishy-washy: Kucinich

Now, I'm a multilateralist. Clearly, of all the candidates, including the President, that leaves me with just one choice: the Reverend Al! Three of the Dems - including the leader - are gung-ho unilateralists, willing to criticize the President at every juncture, but ultimately supportive of American action outside the rubrik of an international movement. A Kerry, Edwards, or Lieberman (especially Lieberman!) presidency would be reminiscent of Clinton, except without Bill's exceptional diplomatic skills. Imagine Bush's (flawed) administration without the balance provided by Colin Powell and others. America under a left-of-center Democrat would fail to create consistent international policy, fall further apart from our Asian and European allies on trade issues (because labor is nearsightedly protectionist). In short, all the negatives of the Bush administration without the positives - values, balance, etc.

Not to say that I like Bush - his "fuzzy math" budget, the Laffer Curve, and federal intrusion into education, municipal funding, etc, make this presidency a lot like Reagan's except without the small-government philosophy. Reagan's excuse was that the Congress was Democratic. Bush's excuse is that his father was too busy running the country to teach little Georgie the fundamental tenets of Republicanism. Laura needs to make a tape of someone saying "Small government is beautiful" and play it while he sleeps every night. Maybe he'd get the message: this isn't a company, and it's not supposed to grow for growth's sake.

Kerry

I openly mocked Kerry tonight in front of my class. Is that wrong?

On the other hand, he is quite a pleasant zombie from the 1960's without a real platform except that his initials are JFK and his running mate when he held executive office was from Brookline, same as the real JFK, and the only JFK who will win ever a Democratic nomination for President.

Dean's done for. He'll stay in the race for a while, with his decent 2nd place showing (expectations totally changed; if this result had come up without the Iowa precursor, it would have sunk Dean under about 6 feet of genuine Granite), but he's not a serious candidate at this point. Kerry has no chance in South Carolina, and as soon as the other candidates turn their guns on him, he'll be crushed everywhere westawusta.

In other news, Dr. Howard Dean was called upon to use his skills as a physician. Specifically, he was asked to certify that the cadaver found under a bridge in Derry indeed belonged to the Campaign to Elect Joe Lieberman. Dean did a quick autopsy, and found that not only was the body certifiably dead, but it had in fact never actually been alive. Li'l Joe could not be reached for comment.

Chad Prepares For Another Hanging

The 2004 chad-punching competition is about to begin in earnest. The worst part is, I'm totally uninformed. I only found out what day the New Hampshire primary was half an hour ago, and it's today!

Go Dean!
Go Dean!
Go-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o DEANIE!

Patch Adams

I didn't know feel-good movies could make me feel good. Or maybe it was the company. In any case, my favorite line is, "Wow, and I thought only I could repel women with such raw efficiency!"

On the downside, I'm beginning to get that bad feeling that comes when you stop enjoying the weekend halfway through Saturday night because it means Monday is only a day and a half away. It can be worse: I remember times when I've felt like that halfway through Friday night. I hope this doesn't stick; since I got back from D.C., I've enjoyed school and life in general a lot more than in the past, and the onset of Monday hasn't been such a dread occurance - I've even relished it at times! However, when things are lousy, it sucks to be a postmodern intellectual, because escape is virtually impossible on this side of sobriety. How do you forget your worries when you know all along that you're doing what you're doing to forget them?

I appreciate the ensuing comments about turning to God; it's what I'd say if I read this drivel. And I think I honestly want to turn to Him; or at least I want escape and I hope I can get that in God. So far, however, I've been a crappy disciple, and I feel like Lee's Summit, Missouri, is a million miles away.

Intellectually, I can reason effectively that my feelings of distance from God and depression are illogical. For someone with an eternal lifespan and promise, why should temporary setbacks affect my state of mind or being? Rather, eternal truths determine my identity and destiny, and should determine my actions and attitudes. Unfortunately, it's much too easy to allow circumstance and emotion to guide thought and deed.

One way in which I have at least improved is in diagnosing imprisonment. Freedom, as the Bible defines it, is not liberty, though the two have become synonymous in our individualistic culture. Rather, it's a submitted state that offers freedom of mind and action from things that tend to enslave us, including emotions, our past, sin, others' opinions, legalism, etc. The best allegory is Gollum; he needed to be freed from the Ring, while our cultural mores would be insensed and demand that Gollum be allowed to choose the Ring if he so desires, little understanding that the decisive will itself can be enslaved and prevented from seeking freedom for the whole. Humans need a higher power to free us, because our own nature is enslaved and will not find freedom unless the enslaving agent is destroyed by another. For me, whereas I've clung to my depression (and I use this term loosely) in the past, at least I now know that joy won't come by satisfying it but rather by abandoning it and making no provision for fleshly emotional self-indulgence. Unfortunately, doing that has proven a lot more daunting than writing it, and knowledge continues to be no substitute for action.

%#)%&@($#%&

After hours of trying to do linear algebra, I'm about ready to kill someone. Specifically, my lousy prof, who doesn't teach us what's in the book, leaving us to figure out what the heck the questions are asking us on our own.

Cycle of Re-evaluation

What are you building with your life? Are you a sluggard? Who controls your time? What are you pursuing with your life? How is God glorified by your daily activities? What's the point of this activity? Could I be doing something better with my time? What about social justice?

These questions and others have been driving my self-consciousness the last few weeks (and years), and I'm taking the concrete step of backing out of a small group (which was really cool) and thus freeing up my Wednesday nights. I'm also trying to get out of my pointless "Energy and Environment" class. More importantly, I'm thinking about the social situations where I spend my valuable free time. Who do I want to hang out with? Do I need to be in "the crowd"? I'd really rather not think about this stuff. What I want is just to live - to wake up in the morning, to worship God, to work, and to be with friends and family without constantly examining myself. Postmodernism has gotten the better of me. Whereas the glory of God and the gospel of Christ deserve my constant attention, self-analysis does not. There's a place for it, but it's like a bad song playing in your head day in, day out, and wears down your motivation with questioning. Lord, let my mind dwell fully on you, and let my own pursuits fade, since they are but a passing fancy in comparison to the everlasting glory that is to be revealed.

My Sister Rocks

My sister rocks. I'm running out the door to get to a meeting late without dinner, and she hands me a mug of hot chicken soup on the way. Did I mention that she rocks?

Vogon Airlock

It's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse, that I wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was young.

Age before beauty in Iowa

Yesterday in Iowa, Kerry and Edwards suddenly joined the race for President. Both will undoubtedly have fond memories of the cornfield state forever, as Iowan Dems gave the two senators a shocking upset over the feisty Howard Dean (can we just start calling him Ho-D?).

The Post reports that the Senators' victory was spurred by large numbers of late-deciding voters. Only 30% decided more than a month ago, and many of them were the Deanies. Apparently the old hands, who understand the role of the august Iowa caucuses, knew to hang tight and play their cards only on election day. New Hampsters are well-known for last-minute support casting, and with Dean's balloon of invincibility popped, I predict he'll come in a distant second in New Hampshire, if not third or worse.

Clearly, Republicans for Dean need to rally, if the '04 is going to stay interesting. So start talking it up out there: Dean is the only man who can beat Bush. And practice in front of the mirror so you can say it with a straight face.

Clear Vision

Just got in from an excellent conference out in Lee's Summit, a sprawling tentacle of Kansas City. My visceral distaste for highway-driven, butt-ugly sprawl aside, it was an excellent conference. Here's the top 10 list:

10. Now on sale, Kansas City Chiefs merchandice!
9. Not thinking about homework, teaching, or work. A pleasant retreat from a brain standpoint.
8. Good seminar called "Roadblocks" on how to deal with the enemy. The balanced, godly view of the Devil and how to resist him that I'd been hoping for, since I've let spiritual warfare slide in the few years.
7. Getting a peace about my plans - I didn't hear from God, but I also didn't hear anything from Him or through speakers that caused me to question my short- or long-term plans much.
6. Breaking a sweat in worship. By the end of Saturday night, the sanctuary smelled like a locker room.
5. The Pit. Sinking your teeth into meat slathered in a savory Midwestern barbeque sauce...mmm. Nothing like this in the East, and if there were it would cost twice as much.
4. Tom Eaton. "I'm gonna take the gloves off here. Are you a sluggard?"
3. God-centered conversations with other New Englanders. Props to my pals!
2. Prayer time for all the NewFrontiers church plants and worldwide vision.
1. Hosts Linda and Mark, plus their kids and dogs. Totally serving - gave us the keys to the car, cleaned the master bath for us to use, put food in front of us incessantly. Even rooted for the Pats in the playoffs.

She said yes!

It's on, folks, congratulate me. I'm so psyched, and I'm looking forward to getting into it next week. Folks, you wouldn't believe it, but I officially have a job, at Emerson Investment Management in downtown Boston. I'll be making enough to support my habit of overinvolvement, and I'll be working enough to curtail some of my overinvolvement (or fail all my classes). By the way, "she" is Melissa Davenport, my new boss, and a very pleasant and professional woman.

Space for the deficit

New plan for the burgeoning U.S. budget deficit: blast it into outer space.

BBC reports that the American president has proposed blasting the deficit into the stratosphere. "The deficit is getting so big," he said, "we can't even fit it in Texas anymore! In fact, we've decided to send it to outer space." Fortunately, the deficit space program, nicknamed Operation Black Hole, won't go to waste. Colonel Lance Lourde of the Bush Budget Space Cadets has agreed to ride the deficit as far as Mars, then jump off and take a look around. That's noble of him, because by all indications, the deficit won't be coming back down any time soon.

Introducing: Binks

My friend Stacey, aka Binks, has a journal. She's a friend from back in high school, and now she's a junior at Gordon College.

Thank you sir, may I please have another!

Yessir, we like the cold, sir. One more cold snap would be wonderful sir. Yessir, that's right sir, temperatures need a second digit like fish need bicycles! In fact, sir, I think that all temperatures should be preceded by a little dash, "-" like so. Sir, it's a pleasure, sir, and I'll be wearing two pairs of pants tomorrow, sir, simply because I like it sir!

"A shot across the bow"

No time to do this injustice justice, but the idea of having a congressional advisory board to "ensure" government-approved use of Federal grant money to academic programs is not a shot across the bows of the "radical Middle East studies lobby" that neocon Daniel Pipes describes, but a shot across the bow of academic freedom. If Congress wants to cut funding, that's one thing. But to channel funding to congressionally-approved programs only is a serious violation of academic honesty and is basically a bribe to grant-hungry researchers to put a pro-U.S.-policy slant on their work. It won't kill academic freedom or anything, but it's fair warning to anyone who wants to challenge policy that they are not approved and that the government will actively fund their competitors.

God forbid anyone criticize the war in Iraq or America's Israeli policy. And if this blog disappears tomorrow, y'all know why.

Chops' Law

A new physical law: the amount of email that you don't want and that requires significant work to read through is directly proportional to the degree to which you desire to receive other email. The latter email will not be received. Someone from BU's School of Theology said she'd get back to me today re. a speaking engagement; no such luck. There are a few other emails in the same vein that I need in a bad way, and none of them are materializing either. Nor, according to Columbia University, are my GRE scores or a recommendation letter from Professor Andrew Sum.

Why does everything in my life require input from a half dozen sources and output to two dozen?

Oh Boy

Boy, boy, crazy boy.
Get cool, boy!
Got a rocket in your pocket,
Keep coolly cool, boy!
Don't get hot,
'Cause, man, you got
Some high times ahead.
Take it slow and Daddy-o,
You can live it up and die in bed!

Boy, boy, crazy boy.
Stay loose, boy!
Breeze it, buzz it, easy does it.
Turn off the juice, boy!
Go, man, go.
But not like a yo-yo
Schoolboy
Just play it cool, boy,
Real cool!

Cheers.

Eskimo Up!

To Cowboy Up is one thing. To Eskimo Up is something different. - Ron Borges, Boston Globe.

Censored

Not that they've done anything recently, but ESPN's page 2 just has too many inappropriate images and articles to justify keeping it on the link list. Great humor and sports analysis, yes, but put a milligram of dog crap in a gallon of the world's best ice cream & I wouldn't touch it. More than a milligram here, and the principle applies.

Pats v. Titans

The Patriots are playing a home game on very unfamiliar turf. Two weeks after avenging a 0-31 first-game loss to Buffalo with a 31-0 last-game win over Buffalo, the Patriots are overdogs. Wait, that's not a word. They're whatever is over an underdog. So unfamiliar is it to be favored in a matchup, that we then fans don't know what to call them. We're encouraged every time somebody picks the Titans to win, because that's a story we know: the "No Respect Patriots" turning the world upside down like so many Continentals under the command of General George Belichek, er... Washington.

Welcome, Patriots nation, to a new way to win. Command and control. Conquest. Domination. We identify the enemy. We study his habits. We challenge him to enter our icy fortress, then laugh him all the way back to Tennessee or wherever, vanquished but not ashamed. I mean, is there any shame in losing to the best team on earth? No, but the hard facts of winter will be felt elsewhere, but not New England. Here, we play to win, and victory is our middle name.

Caught!

In his "Media Notes" column, Howard Kurtz begins:

There must be a reason that three of the biggest pundits on the right have suddenly declared a preference for Howard Dean winning the nomination. Here are some possibilities: 1) They have undergone an ideological conversion on the road to Damascus. 2) They're bored with the primaries and just want the other Dems to fade away so they can get on to the main event. 3) They believe Dean's going to win and don't want to seem out of the loop. 4) They're not totally sincere.

Like I said, we've been caught. Our little cabal - Republicans for Dean - wasn't ingenious enough to slip past the watchful eyes of those who know a strategy to marginalize the Democrats for a decade when they see one.

I'm The Internet-Addict Test!

I love in-jokes, especially if they help highlight the marvellously geeky cultural differences between my internet clique and the rest of the world.

Click here to find out which test you are!

What Famous Leader Are You?

What Classic Movie Are You?

Thanks to Mute Troubadour

Math

It's been a long time since I did a math class. Two years and nine months, in fact. And now I'm doing problem sets again... wow. Feels like high school: turn on the music, sit down and muddle my way through all the even-numbered problems or whatever they assign. The worst part: it's two classes, neither of which I am fully prepared for in terms of prerequisites. Both, however, are needed for graduate school, so here's to multivariate calculus and linear algebra!

Contemplating suicide

I've only been in Boston for 21 hours and I'm already stressed and not enjoying the plurality of my responsibilities. It's not fun to be on call all day or to have to remember a zillion things. If it doesn't get better, or at least lead to good results, I might commit suicide. Don't worry, not the physical kind. Rather, social suicide or leadership suicide. I know it would burn people, but at a certain point, I've gotta say no, even if I said yes before. I love everything I do - the problem is in the doing.

Unfortunately, I think leadership suicide is mostly a pipe dream. My sense of commitment and responsibility is too great for me to back out of commitment.

Theology shift

This past weekend I attended the excellent New Attitude conference in Louisville, Kentucky. There were about 2,800 other Christian singles (mainly) in attendance, including my sister and tons of people from the Sovereign Grace fellowship of churches.

The subject was relationships, and the emphasis was on our view of God in relationships, hence the title: "Is He Enough?" Remembering the sufficiency of God puts both success and failure in romance in perspective, as the eternal marriage of the Bride to Christ far overshadows all our earthly loves or losses. The main text was Psalm 73; give it a read.

One of the messages was specifically on the defining marriage Biblically. Our culture's confusion on this topic stands in sharp relief to the clarity of scripture. However, while I agreed with everything the Dr. Al Mohler said - including that delaying marriage for those whom God has intended it is wrong, I felt he didn't quite finish the message. I also felt his message was symptomatic of a theological shift, because I've heard the same theme from a number of Christian leaders of late, and it's a very different tune than they played just a few years ago.

When I was younger, the main theme I heard was, "Use your single years to glorify God, and don't spend the whole time you're single trying not to be that way." As a non-dater, that appealed to me and I have definitely spent my recent years pursuing lots of opportunities from God to move towards His vocation for my life. Now, the message has changed to, "There is no Biblical category for enduring singleness except lifelong celibacy, and unless you're called to that, you should be preparing for and seeking marriage." Now, in principle I agree with both messages, and I don't think they are contradictory. Becoming more mature and more godly and better prepared for a career and family are equally good applications of the two messages. What really has changed is not the values or actions; it's the theology. Specifically, I Corinthians 7, long a controversial chapter, seems to have undergone another interpretational iteration. I think The Message paraphrase is particularly helpful in putting the chapter into modern English without losing the original meaning. Normally I wouldn't reprint it here in its entirety, but I will in this case, because if you took the time to read what I say on this issue, you should take the time to read what God says.

1Now, getting down to the questions you asked in your letter to me. First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations? 2Certainly--but only within a certain context. It's good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. 3The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality--the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. 4Marriage is not a place to "stand up for your rights." Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. 5Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it's for the purposes of prayer and fasting--but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. 6I'm not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence--only providing my best counsel if you should choose them. 7Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me--a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others. 8I do, though, tell the unmarried and widows that singleness might well be the best thing for them, as it has been for me. 9But if they can't manage their desires and emotions, they should by all means go ahead and get married. The difficulties of marriage are preferable by far to a sexually tortured life as a single. 10And if you are married, stay married. This is the Master's command, not mine. 11If a wife should leave her husband, she must either remain single or else come back and make things right with him. And a husband has no right to get rid of his wife. 12For the rest of you who are in mixed marriages--Christian married to nonChristian--we have no explicit command from the Master. So this is what you must do. If you are a man with a wife who is not a believer but who still wants to live with you, hold on to her. 13If you are a woman with a husband who is not a believer but he wants to live with you, hold on to him. 14The unbelieving husband shares to an extent in the holiness of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is likewise touched by the holiness of her husband. Otherwise, your children would be left out; as it is, they also are included in the spiritual purposes of God. 15On the other hand, if the unbelieving spouse walks out, you've got to let him or her go. You don't have to hold on desperately. God has called us to make the best of it, as peacefully as we can. 16You never know, wife: The way you handle this might bring your husband not only back to you but to God. You never know, husband: The way you handle this might bring your wife not only back to you but to God. 17And don't be wishing you were someplace else or with someone else. Where you are right now is God's place for you. Live and obey and love and believe right there. God, not your marital status, defines your life. Don't think I'm being harder on you than on the others. I give this same counsel in all the churches. 18Were you Jewish at the time God called you? Don't try to remove the evidence. Were you non-Jewish at the time of your call? Don't become a Jew. 19Being Jewish isn't the point. The really important thing is obeying God's call, following his commands. 20Stay where you were when God called your name. 21Were you a slave? Slavery is no roadblock to obeying and believing. I don't mean you're stuck and can't leave. If you have a chance at freedom, go ahead and take it. 22I'm simply trying to point out that under your new Master you're going to experience a marvelous freedom you would never have dreamed of. On the other hand, if you were free when Christ called you, you'll experience a delightful "enslavement to God" you would never have dreamed of. 23All of you, slave and free both, were once held hostage in a sinful society. Then a huge sum was paid out for your ransom. So please don't, out of old habit, slip back into being or doing what everyone else tells you. 24Friends, stay where you were called to be. God is there. Hold the high ground with him at your side. 25The Master did not give explicit direction regarding virgins, but as one much experienced in the mercy of the Master and loyal to him all the way, you can trust my counsel. 26Because of the current pressures on us from all sides, I think it would probably be best to stay just as you are. 27Are you married? Stay married. Are you unmarried? Don't get married. 28But there's certainly no sin in getting married, whether you're a virgin or not. All I am saying is that when you marry, you take on additional stress in an already stressful time, and I want to spare you if possible. 29I do want to point out, friends, that time is of the essence. There is no time to waste, so don't complicate your lives unnecessarily. Keep it simple--in marriage, 30grief, joy, whatever. Even in ordinary things--your daily routines of shopping, and so on. 31Deal as sparingly as possible with the things the world thrusts on you. This world as you see it is on its way out. 32I want you to live as free of complications as possible. When you're unmarried, you're free to concentrate on simply pleasing the Master. 33Marriage involves you in all the nuts and bolts of domestic life and in wanting to please your spouse, 34leading to so many more demands on your attention. The time and energy that married people spend on caring for and nurturing each other, the unmarried can spend in becoming whole and holy instruments of God. 35I'm trying to be helpful and make it as easy as possible for you, not make things harder. All I want is for you to be able to develop a way of life in which you can spend plenty of time together with the Master without a lot of distractions. 36If a man has a woman friend to whom he is loyal but never intended to marry, having decided to serve God as a "single," and then changes his mind, deciding he should marry her, he should go ahead and marry. It's no sin; it's not even a "step down" from celibacy, as some say. 37On the other hand, if a man is comfortable in his decision for a single life in service to God and it's entirely his own conviction and not imposed on him by others, he ought to stick with it. 38Marriage is spiritually and morally right and not inferior to singleness in any way, although as I indicated earlier, because of the times we live in, I do have pastoral reasons for encouraging singleness. 39A wife must stay with her husband as long as he lives. If he dies, she is free to marry anyone she chooses. She will, of course, want to marry a believer and have the blessing of the Master 40. By now you know that I think she'll be better off staying single. The Master, in my opinion, thinks so, too.

Paul - and God's - preference is clearly seen. Singleness is a better gift, just as prophecy is better than tongues (c.f. I Corinthians 14). Now, that doesn't mean we should all seek it. As I pondered this yesterday on the flight home, I was convicted of pride. My proud assumption is that if celibacy is better, then I should be one to go after it. It had never really occurred to me that verse 9 might apply to me, even though I'm more romantically inclined and emotional than most of my guy friends. Now, this isn't to say I've come to a conclusion on the matter, but I am trying to make a more humble evaluation of myself.