Calling Heather Spencer

Heather, I can't figure out how to get to your blog to leave you a message. I can get to your profile, but don't see the link to your blog. Help me! I'm sure it's right there, but I guess I'm too distracted or something to find it. Thank you!

No books here

I don't know when I last read a book just for pleasure. You know, the kind of book that your mind hardly even engages for, about as deep as the kiddy pool at the municipal park. Today would have been a perfect day for it, the temperatures were low and the rain was steady. It would have been delicious to wear my pajamas all day and move from one nest to another with cups of tea and slices of toast and a delightful and 'novel' companion. I guess it just wasn't meant to be.
My life has been so incredibly busy. Honestly. Today I did get to stay home for part of the day and try to get some cleaning done, though I use that word loosely. Mostly it was unpacking from this weekend and grocery shopping and doing laundry. I did have to go into work for a couple of hours. Then tonight we took the dinner I made over to the home of some friends. She had surgery recently and isn't doing too well. She can't really get out so we went to them. And tomorrow other friends are coming. They are actually coming to see their son, a mid, but they need a place to stay and we have extra rooms. But it does mean I'd better get on the stick tomorrow and get things in shape. And figure out what to feed them tomorrow night.
Working takes up an incredible amount of time. I'm not sure I would have taken the job if I'd known how it was going to impact our lives and yet I know I'm supposed to be working with these people at this time. I'm certainly not working for the money, we give far, far more to the church than I earn. It's about the relationships and hoping that I can contribute something worthwhile.
My boss is going through a tough time. First his very good friend's dad was killed in an accident and now his mother-in-law seems to be dying. And in the midst of it all his daughter got engaged. It's an emotional time to say the least.
Well, my Ukraine trip is over, the council meeting is over, maybe things will slow down.

Changes

So much has changed in the month of September...even though it's now October. I don't have lymphoma. What do I have? Who knows! My doc guesses that I picked something up in Africa, I think Sjogren's Syndrome is possible, but it doesn't really matter. Unless I develop symptoms more troubling than those I have now, it's probably not worth it to delve any deeper.
Andy and Betsy both got engaged. It looks like Andy and Megan will be getting married in February. I think Betsy and Eli will be May. But it could be June. Who would have thought a date would be so hard to come by?
Betsy wants to get married, or at least have the reception outside on the land we bought (and are slowly moving to) in Pennsylvania. She would like to have White Sulphur Springs available for use and she wants all immediate family there.
So...May 17th is still baseball (Jeremiah can't come), May 24th Andy is supposed to be underway, May 31, Susannah graduates from high school, June 7 the Lenharts can't come due to a high school graduation. After that, WSS isn't available anymore. Four weekends to choose from, and none of them work. We can't even find a date, how can we decide on reception, and all of those details?

How the mind works...at least mine

I think it's fascinating. When I was told I could have lymphoma or perhaps 'something else' all I could focus on was lymphoma. Last night I found something called Sjogren's Syndrome that also seems to fit the bill. So now, that's what I think I might have. It's amazing what just having a specific alternative does for me. I went from thinking of having cancer, to thinking of not having it. That ought to be applicable to something.

And More Stuff

We're in Cedarville, Ohio right now. Our daughter is here to begin her first year of college. Today was abit overwhelming. I'm used to another college, where the rooms are large and the storage is ample. These girls have to share a room that is....well...small to say the least. They get one dresser to share between the two of them. Four drawers for two girls. That's right. It is amazing though. The other family arrived yesterday and they have come up with some amazingly creative ways to expand the storage space. We are blessed that Christie is sharing a room with their daughter. We bought a three tiered shelf (their idea) put it on a board on top of the desk, and voila! Room for a bookshelf! The dad is putting boards together to form a shelf over the headboards...to complicated to explain, but it will give them a place to put their clocks and a few photos. They found these rolling drawers that area amazing, they go the whole width of the bed. So each girl gets two of those. Anyway, I'm astounded at what we were able to fit in that minute space. But it was very time consuming. Poor Christie was really tired by the end of the day. We left her in her new small group. We'll see her tomorrow morning.
I have a biopsy scheduled for Friday. That is assuming that I can get all my health care switched over. My friend, Charles, arranged it all. He is going to have all kinds of blood work done in the hopes that it's a parasite that I picked up in Africa. But he is going to biopsy several of the nodes, he says it shouldn't be a problem, they will be easy to stick. If the results are not conclusive he'll arrange for a surgery to take one out. Then, he said, he would hand me over to someone who specializes in lymphomas. But he said he wanted to be the one to give me the news. He's really going to a lot of trouble. In fact, he said he had decided to postpone a trip the next week if we can't get it done by Friday. I must say, I'll be glad to know, whatever the outcome. It's just the not knowing that is hard. Not that it will be easy if I find out I have cancer, but at least I will know what the battle is.
But today I realized, I keep thinking about what to do if I do have cancer. I need to think just as much, if not more, about what to do if I don't have cancer. I want to live my life well whether I have five years or fifty. So in a way, this is a good wake up call. Am I using my time well? Am I taking care of my health? Am I eating right? Why would I wait for a disease to make me change those things? So I need to make some changes now. Maybe that way I won't have to face something in the future. So really, this is good, even if it does turn out to be much ado about nothing.
So, this weekend is Christie's. I hope we can make it a good one for her and that she feels loved.

Stuff

A friend just called. He's a good friend to have. He's an oncologist, an expert in his field. He goes all over teaching. Last night he was at our house and took a look at some lumps I found on my neck a couple of months ago. Last night he told me not to worry, that we shouldn't go any farther than we know we need to go, etc. Tonight he called to tell me that he had been thinking of me all day, that he and his wife had prayed for me and that he wanted to help me navigate through this situation. Although I am very grateful for his call, somehow it doesn't make me feel any better. Instead it makes me think that what he felt last night didn't feel normal. Well, in fact he told me that things were not going to end with the CT scan that I have scheduled for Thursday night, that I could count on having a biopsy. Now I know that that doesn't mean I have cancer, but the odds just went up, at least in my opinion. He said I have one of two things, either an infection (which could be something as light as mono) or cancer. He told me to go ahead and change my health care to Johns Hopkins, that way he can help me with scheduling and recommendations. I don't know, somehow that all sounds a little bit ominous.

Finally reading it!

I'm finally reading Blue Like Jazz. I don't have time to really blog about it now, but it's making me think, and that's a good thing. One thing said, simple but profound, "We do what we believe." I like it and I don't like it. It's convicting.

Freedom and slavery

Maybe I'm just dense, I don't know. But something became so clear to me this morning. When the Bible talks about us being free from the slavery of sin, it had always seemed to me that we were just moving from one owner to another. That our ownership was transferred when we became believers.
But this morning I realized it's not that at all. Instead it's as if we are in a kingdom and there are three layers. There is the king, then the owner, then me, the slave. When I am set free from sin it removes a layer. So I am now a free citizen under the king. I have always been under the king and subject to his laws and decrees but now I don't have to obey my old master. So I am free to do the same things but I am also free to not do them if I so choose. So it's not that bondage had been replaced, it has been completely removed.
I don't know if anyone else can see or even needs the differentiation, but for me it was like a light bulb going off.

Committed but not trusting

I'm still reading in the Old Testament. Yesterday and today King Asa of Judah has been in my reading. I'm catching a glimpse of something I've not noticed before and I need to get my mind and heart around it.
What is one goal of many Christians? To be fully committed to God, right? I would say that has been one of my goals. In fact, I think that if I felt I was, I would have 'arrived'. But I think there is another level, as seen in Asa's life, that can be missing, even when I am committed.
2 Chronicles 15:17 says that Asa remained fully committed to God throughout his life. That's awesome. One would think that meant he lived his life fully as God wanted him to, that he lived in victory.
But in chapter 16 it tells how Asa didn't trust God to protect him against King Baasha, but turned to the King of Aram, even though he had seen God's protection against the Cushites. And so, because he had turned to a man for protection, instead of to God, he was at war for the rest of his life. And even in his old age, he refused to go to God for healing when he was sick. he chose instead to consult physicians, but never sought the Lord's help.
I don't want to make the mistake of applying this with too broad a brush, but I think there is a principle here that is important.
I can be committed to God without trusting God. I can try to fix things on my own or go to someone other than God for help. When I turn to someone or something that is really not all-powerful for help my help is temporary and short lived. It's only when I go to the One who can provide complete victory that I will experience true victory. So if I have areas of conflict in my life, I need to ask myself, what or who am I trusting in those areas.
Of course, even when Asa was trusting God, there was conflict in his life. He didn't live in continual peace because of his trust, but God gave him victory at the end of the conflict. And God wanted to continue to do that.
Now my question is about how this verse fits in. "The eyes of the Lord search the whole earth in order to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him." If Asa was fully committed throughout his life, why did this not apply to him?
Anyway, this is one of those things I need to mull over and figure out how to apply. There are areas where I have continual struggles. Is that because I am not fully trusting God? Perhaps it is so. If so, how can I move into full trust? That's where I want to be, dependent on God, not on my own, or anyone else's resources. I just need to figure out how to get there.

A minute ago...

Ten minutes ago there were half a dozen things flitting around in my mind that I wanted to blog about. I'm going to have to try and remember them.
Maybe it's that my brain is just tired. Not from too much activity but just from lack of sleep. We went down to Birmingham this weekend for a wedding. We saw so many of our mids from the class of '05 and their spouses. It was great. But there were some gapping holes...some of them are in Iraq and they were missed. I'm not sure that the mids (they will always be mids to me, even if they make Admiral someday) know how much they are loved by me. Their lives move on, and that's good, but I long to remain a part of their lives. I think it's much the same with parenthood. It's a process of letting go. It's a challenge to do that gracefully. And it's a delicate tension to show interest and care without being intrusive.
There were two babies there. I spent a good bit of time with one of them in my arms. The most precious memory I carry is of one of them that had been asleep on my chest. She woke up and my first thought was "I hope she doesn't cry." Instead she pulled her head back, looked me in the eye and grinned at me. It was a sweet moment.

I've read a couple of good books lately...a biography of Lady Emma Hamilton., Paradox of Choice, Freakonomics, and now I'm reading The Earth (World?) is Flat. The bio was a little embarrassing to check out of the library, but I'm glad I did. It was easy to read and really opened my eyes to some things.
First, debt is not an invention of the 20th century. I was amazed at how people even then lived on the brink of financial ruin. And decadance does not belong to our culture. It is intrinsic to human nature. It also made me think about morality and circumstance and the impact of one on the other.
Paradox of Choice is great. I don't know how many times I've mentioned it in conversation. It seems that some of the principles mentioned are applicable to multiple life situations.
Freakonomics was interesting reading. I'm just not sure about some of it. He says that who you are (genetics) makes a difference to how your children turn out but that what you do is irrelevant. On the other hand he says that the upsurge of abortions in low income areas has dramatically reduced crime in our nation. So then, by his logic, is he saying that those in low income areas are inherently criminal in their nature? If so, I don't buy it. They are no more so that any of us. And I cannot believe that the way we train our children makes no difference. Nonetheless it was an interesting book. I just wish I knew enough to check his 'findings.'
I'm now reading The Earth is Flat. It's a bit of a tougher read if only because I really don't understand the Internet. I had no idea prior to this that the World Wide Web and the Internet were two different things. I didn't even know that fiber optics transferred information through pulses of light instead of electrical currents. I feel a little dumb. So in that sense I'm really glad Im reading it, it's just not as easy as the other books.
While we were at the wedding we met the guy who led the groom to Christ. I started talking to him and found out that he and his wife have a ministry to nomadic homeless kids. Pretty incredible if you ask me. As he talked I was amazed that this subculture exists in our country and I'm not even aware of it. These kids hop freight trains and hitchhike to travel the country. They get together by the thousands in national forests for gatherings. It's almost a tribal mentality. We were touched by what he had to say.
As we drove back to our hotel we were telling our girls about what he and his wife do. We said that these kids travel, often by night, with just their backpack and sometimes a dog. They look unkempt, that's often on purpose. The smell of soap gives them away to search dogs. Just as we were talking we passed a young man walking by the side of the road with long hair and a backpack. We saw him walk into a gas station. My husband followed him in and said, "I'd like to buy you ten dollars worth of food." The guy said something to the effect that he didn't know what to say, no one had ever done that before, he couldn't think of what to buy. So my dh helped him make some choices. Then he told Dale (the young man), "Remember that God loves you, and when you get to the end of you rope, Jesus will be there for you."
I hope I remember to pray for Dale.

Another day

It has been beautiful in Annapolis. The weather has been cool, the sun warm, the skies blue. Even the rain we got was the best kind, a torrent of water whipped by the wind and lit by lightening. And then the next morning the cool temps and blue skies were back again. I'm enjoying every minute of it.
Tori had a softball game today. Softball doesn't seem to be the fastest moving sport. Maybe that's just my ignorance, but it seems like about five minutes of exciting play packed into two hours. But usually Tori has at least one play that is enough to get my blood pumping. Today there were three. First, the ump called a strike on a ball that was down at her ankles. Okay, so that wasn't her play, but it did get me excited! But then when Tori was playing second base, she made the most amazing catch. It should have been on tv. She had to jump to get the ball and then she fell with it and I think she rolled, but she held on to the ball. And then she had a great line drive, but that catch was the best of all! Thursday night we go to hear Christiana's choir. She'll be singing the high C part...I'm not musical but I'm guessing that not everyone can do that. I know I love to hear her sing. She just doesn't like to sing solo's though I know she could. It's fun how different our kids are.

Psalm 13:2

How long must I struggle with anguish in my soul, with sorrow in my heart every day?

Headlines for the Halvos

Betsy is sick with a fever of 103.

Paula has found three ticks after a walk in the woods in Tennessee. One spot is bruised where the tick was imbedded.

Tori has a fast pitch softball game.

Jackson was found floating in his crate this morning. When will that dog be trained?

Christie continues to take AP tests.

I constantly have questions as I read the Bible. Several came up this morning. In 2 Samuel 24 it says that God caused David to take a census and then His anger burned against him. In 1 Chronicles 21 it says that Satan caused David to take the census. Which is it please? The two are quite different. Several times it says that God sent an evil spirit on Saul. Do we have a problem with interpretation here or what?

I pray regularly for wisdom and understanding in reading Scripture. I'd better keep praying because I have so many questions.

Forgiveness in letting go

I was just washing my kitchen floor. Deep subject, right? But as I washed I had to move the rug in front of the sink and I felt the frustration, the tension, once again.
I used to have some padded carpet pieces that I loved. My floor is tile and I have feet and a back that are often in pain. Those padded rug pieces saved me. They weren't beautiful to look at, though they weren't ugly either, just sort of nondescript. But I loved having them there. Then someone threw them out. To my knowledge there was no good reason. I was left with hard, cold tile under my feet. I was angry. I fumed. When the one who did it didn't seem to care I got frustrated. I got angrier. They should admit that they had done wrong, that it was unloving, and they didn't.
To make matters worse, for a gift-giving occasion, I was given a rug I don't like and that doesn't have padding to put in front of the sink. It doesn't match my kitchen. But I was supposed to be thankful for it. I wasn't.
And so today, probably three years later, that rug still causes my grief. What a waste.
The person who threw out my rugs was wrong to do so. Sure it would be nice if they realized it. But it's up to me to let it go. I can't force someone else to my viewpoint nor convince them of their guilt if they don't want to be. All I can do is let it go. Not deny it was wrong. Not say I'm making a mountain out of molehill. But after I've confronted the fact that it was a wrong thing to do I only punish myself by hanging onto that hurt. It's not good for my blood pressure and it's not good for my heart.

Hypocrisy and Christianity

Well, maybe not necessarily hypocrisy, but certainly failure. I can tell you dozens of stories of failure just in my own life. If you expand that to my acquaintances the number increases accordingly. So what does that mean? What does Christianity have to offer?
I come up with one thing, and one thing only. Forgiveness. Our very failures prove the fact that Christianity is all about. We can't do it. None of us can. How can I possibly look at the world and believe that mankind is intrinsically (sp?) good? How can I look at myself and believe that? The honest truth is that I can't. Even at my best I have problems forgiving, I take offense, I make poor choices, I give in to the temptation of the moment to indulge my tongue or my heart or my whatever.
So what's the point? The point is that it isn't me. It's that it doesn't have to be me. Sure, I fail. In fact, I sin. I don't just 'make mistakes' I downright do wrong things. And that's why I need a Savior. Not because I will then be perfect, but because I will be shown mercy and grace and forgiveness. It's too good to believe.

Back from the beach

Well, today I had to go. I wanted to go, in one sense. It's been something like nine days since I left my daughters at home and that's a long time to be gone. And my new puppy was waiting for me at home (see my 365 blog for a photo) so that was a draw. But in my opinion the only thing that could have possibly made the time better was to have a couple of folks there that couldn't come. But the time was great. If there was discord, I was oblivious to it and that's amazing with fourteen women in such a limited area. Of course, there was always the beach to go walk on if you felt hemmed in, so that was a good thing.
Laura won the prize for making best use of the beach. Karen gets the prize for the most daring (though I must say, Laura was right there with her), Carol the most enthusiastic about the hot tub, I don't know who would win the earring contest.
I really couldn't have asked for a better weekend. There was laughter, theology, sharing, book talk, an interesting dvd that I had never heard of (of course there's nothing unusual there!) and the chance to know some incredible women better. In case you can't tell, I had a great time! I found out I was an ENTP instead of an I/ENTJ. My sister figured it out, and I have to say, the description definitely fits. I have about a dozen new books to read and I came home with a couple of books that I've wanted for a long time. Sigh. It's okay that the retreat is over. That's part of life. But I am looking forward to next year's already!

I got my dog!

But I haven't seen him yet. Last night my husband drove up to the Philly area to pick him up. I kept asking if he was cute and the answer I got was, "The night's dark and he's black...I can't see him." Since he's a puppy, I'm going to assume he's cute!
But now I have the hard job of deciding on a name. It's a much harder decision than one would think. For me, the name has to have a reason for being chosen. These dogs are believed to have come from Norway originally so a Norwegian name would be good. But many Norwegian names, that have wonderful meanings, such as 'Son of the eternal king' aren't pleasant to the ear. The name that corresponds to that meaning is 'Arkin'. Then I would consider a historical name. Churchill was suggested, and I like it, but it doesn't roll off of my tongue easily...I just can't see yelling 'Churchill' to have him come. Then a name might be good that depicted his size, which will probably be over 150 pounds. But there isn't really much to choose from...Big? Monster? Bear?
So names I have considered seriously are Jackson (for Stonewall), Ole, a Norwegian name, Loki, the equivalent of a Norse Puck, Bjorne, Norwegian for 'bear', Hobbes or Luther, to go with our old dog, Calvin and actually countless more. I haven't reached a decision though. Hopefully when I see him, I'll recognize him and know who he is!

Beach house babes

I'm at the beach house with thirteen friends from my internet community. It's been fun. I was actually a bit worried because I often need to withdraw when with a large group for an extended period of time but it's really been okay, even good, this time. I think maybe being in my own home instead of someone elses somehow makes a difference. But these ladies are also very easy to be around, and interesting to boot.
I wish I had more time to get to know them, individually instead of in large groups but I'm thankful for this. I like it when I meet someone and I think, "If we lived closer, she'd be my good friend." It makes me feel like there are undiscovered riches out there. Of course, interenet friendships are great, but for me at least, they still don't have the same commitment as a friendship irl. I can simply not log onto the interenet for days at a time. If I'm going through a rough spot, no one need know, and if it's a time I feel like I have nothing left to give, I can simply not engage. Life, at one time anyway, was not like that. Folks lives intertwined whether they liked it or not. Secrets were known by the family and the community and that carried with it both blessings and curses. Even enemies were familiar and there is an extent to which the familiar is comfortable, even if disliked.
But our world today keeps us at a safe distance from all but the most intimate relationships. To practice commitment is a discipline, not a necessity. I don't need, in a physical sense, any of these ladies, and so every day I have to decide, as do they, whether to make the effort to engage or not. Our lives don't naturally entertwine. In a place like suburban DC you see that so clearly. Even those you know irl make contact with only one facet of your life. Gone are the days of the local school, the community church, the small town diner. Instead we have a wealth of choices, each of which takes us into a different sphere of people. And though that gives us variety and the ability to find just what we want in any given area, it also robs us of the dimensionality and depth of seeing people and knowing them in the different aspects of their lives. And it seems to me that we are poorer for it.

Choice

I was just reading a book on the irony that the more freedom we have in choices, the more of a burden it is. I think I have known that instinctively for a long time. I have two different commisaries I can shop at. One is large and has almost everything you can imagine. The other is small with limited choices. I almost always go to the small one, it's easier for me. I don't have to make as many decisions, weigh as many options, have as many doubts on my final selection. But there are so many good points in this book. Some of them I have done, some I need to practice and some were new to me.
Unfortunately, it was a library book. I'm going to have to buy my own copy so that I can underline and make notes to my hearts content. Reading a book that I can't mark up I lose countless profound, wise and insightful thoughts. : ) And then of course, I never think of them again. I did make mental notes...pages 26, 61 and 103 all had something I wanted to talk about. But now that I look back on those pages, I'm not sure what it was. Aah, the mind is a terrible thing to lose!

Randomness and the bigness of God

I was walking on the beach today sorta, kinda gathering shells. It wasn't so much of a determined hunt as a casual look. Anyway, it was interesting how the shells sort of congregate in certain places. They are stretched along the shoreline where they have been left by high tide, but there are also places where beds of them have been built up. I thought about how we can predict high and low tide and even when to expect big waves but we can't really predict where shells will end up. But, then I thought about it a bit more and realized that really we could if we had more infomation. If we knew where the shells were on the ocean floor, and what the currents would be and what force they would move with then we would know exactly where those shell beds would be.
But, then I thought about a shell, carried by the waves for it's predetermined spot and a dolphin swimming by and that particular shell hitting the dolphin and it's course being changed. So it's trajectory has been changed. But was the dolphin also following laws that appear random but really aren't?
So...what I came to is that what may appear random really isn't...it's just that I don't have enough knowledge to understand what is at work. And then there are things that can change even the results of those laws.
In respect to God, it helps me in a sense. What looks unexplicable may not be, there just may just be such a vast body of knowledge that I don't understand that I can't find the meaning or the reasoning that is really there. And though God does follow His own laws, there are also ways that the outcome can be changed. There is more than one set of rules at work.
Anyway, those were my beach thoughts. Not very developed, just sort of random. : )

Prayer and gratitude

Last night I walked out on the pier with my husband. I asked if they ever saw dolphins up close out there and they said yes but not usually that time of night. So inside, I just said "God, if you want to give me some dolphins that would sort of be a 'freebie' for You. I mean it wouldn't change history or anything or even have to effect anyone else." And wouldn't you know it, a whole pod of dolphins came in really close.
Then, this afternoon, walking on the beach, I found a huge shark's tooth. I didn't pray about that one. So I began thinking about prayer, gifts from God and thankful hearts. Did God cause me to find the shark's tooth? I don't know. But what I do know is that whether He caused it, or allowed it, or didn't really care one way or the other, my heart should still be thankful. Because whether He had anything to do with the shark's tooth or the dolphins, I have eyes to see, and legs that let me walk on the beach and hands with which to pick up shells and focus my camera. And none of that is because I deserve it. And whether I find what I'm looking for or not, I have so much to be thankful for.

Global warmning and the media

My son wrote this paper on how the media is handling the issue of global warming. I thought it interesting. (Of course, being his mom and all, there is no prejudice!)

Introduction
The mainstream media outlets in America have received much criticism for their pre-invasion coverage of the conflict with Iraq. Critics believe that the vast majority of U.S. news organizations did not fulfill their role in challenging arguments for war. Gilbert Cranberg a former Editor and now Professor of Journalism provided this critique and challenge in an article posted on the Nieman Watchdog web site, “An explanation is due also for how the U.S. press helped pave the way for war. An independent and thorough inquiry of pre-war press coverage would be a public service. Not least of the beneficiaries would be the press itself, which could be helped to understand its behavior and avoid a replay.”
Despite this and other criticisms, the mainstream press, particularly newspapers, face the risk of repeating many of these same mistakes in their coverage of global warming. The function of the press as critic is a non-partisan function. A critical and rational analysis of evidence, motivations and history before the invasion of Iraq would have served the needs of all Americans, regardless of politics or ideology. This is not because better pre-invasion coverage would have necessarily prevented the war. While that may have been the outcome, it more certain that it would have tempered expectations, it would have forced better discussion of outcomes and it might have better prepared the public for the full difficulty of the effort. The same is true of the global warming issue. As with the issue of Iraq, the purpose of the essay is not to determine which side of the global warming debate is correct. The purpose of this essay is to draw lessons from the pre-Iraq war debate, to critique current press coverage of the global warming debate, and to highlight specific areas that might benefit from more critical reporting.
The Lessons of Iraq
Polls have demonstrated that most Americans entered the war with Iraq with very incorrect impressions of our actual motivations. Many protestors of the war have accused the Bush administration of lying about why we entered the war. But American’s misunderstandings went well beyond even the most specious claims of the Bush administration. Ari Berman, in a New York Opinion article cited a Knight Ridder/Princeton Research poll in which “44% of respondents said they thought ‘most’ or ‘some’ of the Sept. 11, 2001, highjackers were Iraqi citizens.” This poll and others have revealed the great extent of public misconceptions about our fundamental motivations for the war. Better knowledge of the exact reasons we entered the war would have, at the least, dispelled the misconceptions that many of the early supporters of the war held.
While the simple charge of war critics is “Bush Lied, People Died,” perhaps, and most likely, the reality of the situation is more complex. It seems apparent, that no matter the veracity of the administration’s claims, that had the press been more critical and informative it would now be held in higher esteem among the general population. Instead, many feel that the mainstream newspapers became caught up in the public fervor for invasion, and failed to fully perform their watchdog function. The lesson is important. The press is the primary and most powerful agent of critique in our society, and as such holds great responsibility to provide critical evaluation of social movements and expert claims. This is a powerful and challenging responsibility. It is easy, with perfect 20/20 hindsight to criticize the actions of the press in the case of Iraq. In reality, performing such a challenging societal mission is overwhelming. This makes the importance of learning from past experiences all the more critical. This is why I argue that the American press once again faces the risk of succumbing to a herd mentality in the debate over global warming.
Justifying the Comparison
I must briefly justify my comparison of Iraq and global warming. Yes, the “war in Iraq” differs greatly from the “war on global warming,” however, the two do have several important similarities. Both were long-dormant issues that suddenly surged in the public consciousness. Both were billed by assertive advocates as having potentially catastrophic consequences for all Americans, unless dealt with immediately. Advocates of each have resorted to similar rhetorical techniques. I am not alone in making this observation. Washington Post staff writer Colum Lynch made a similar comparison in a March 2nd article, where he wrote: “In outlining his concerns, Ban [the U.N. Secretary General] described global warming as a ‘grave and growing problem,’ echoing language used by Bush to justify the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.” I don’t want to make any judgment as to whether the claims about Iraq or the claims about global warming are true or false. I do believe that they have a similar nature.
The solution to both problems requires vast economic, political and global resources. Both efforts depend greatly on long term public support. Both of these issues bear great potential consequences for the entire U.S. population. Finally, both are highly complex issues in which decisions must be based on both a partial knowledge of the truth and projections about the future. Events such as these require special care on the part of journalists. I argue that on such critical issues, journalists can best serve the public by delaying judgment as long as possible and promoting the maximum debate.
Critique of Current Reporting
This is not an argument for or against theories of anthropogenic global warming. I recognize that such a determination on complex scientific issue of this magnitude is beyond the scope of this essay. Unfortunately, many reporters don’t seem to share a similarly hesitant approach to forming a strong opinion. Many trends in the current reporting suggest that the majority of mainstream reporters have already and prematurely, formed consensus in favor of global warming as scientific fact. At some level, this is not surprising. In his book, Reporters and Officials, Leon Sigal discussed conventions in reporting that cause consensus forming, “Reporters and editors…almost imperceptibly forge a consensus about what is news…reporters do not work alone, but in groups; and in the course of events, the group subtly molds individual values into group judgement.” (p. 39). Time and temperature may eventually bear out the current dominant perspective, but premature consensus risks weakening the reputation of the field. Even if this apparent consensus among journalists is proven correct, there is value in protecting the integrity of journalism by ensuring that debate is enhanced by reporters. If the Iraq war provided a lesson to journalists, it is that even a sure thing is not a sure thing, and that even expert opinions should not be taken at face value. The public and policy makers rely heavily on journalists to provide them with important facts upon which important and costly decisions are made. Global warming is no exception.
The mainstream press faces increasing competition from internet sources, online magazines, and blogs. Relevance for newspapers lies in their ability to provide verification as well as news. Many consumers recognize the danger of uncorroborated online reports. Thus, to maintain their status, newspapers must be the most trustworthy source of news available and relied upon to provide high editing and fact checking standards. The debate over global warming that is so often ignored by reporters will not be ignored by questioning readers. Instead, they will turn in even greater numbers to the plethora of informative, if unverified, web sources. By failing to promote debate, failing to question those that claim the mainstream and relying too heavily on “expert” sources, the traditional newspapers miss the opportunity to cement their role as reliable and critical facilitators of debate.
My primary criticism is that too many reporters have reached consensus on the incredibly complex policy issue of global warming. Research has long shown that reporters form internal consensus based on shared sources, and that their reporting often reflects this internal consensus. This is reflected in the narrow scope of global warming reports. Increasingly, articles refuse to question statements that assume global warming and claims of minor proofs. Many journalists have begun to treat the scientific confirmation of global warming as fait accompli even though much about the theory is still undetermined. Few articles even question the silliest and most absurd claims of global warming evidence. Note these less-than rigorous reporting implied by these headlines from recent Washington Post articles found online:
-“Scientists Start Polar Study Amid Global Warming”
-“Global Warming Effects Hunting”
-“Global Warming Hits World’s Largest Tiger Reserve”
-“Mild Weather Takes Edge Off Chinese Ice Festival: Residents of Tourist City Blame Global Warming”
Even the recent, and controversial, International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) report summary claims only a half a degree Celsius change in temperature over the last 100 years. This is hardly the sort of global change that would introduce the apparently sudden and visible environmental effects highlighted in some of these articles. The perpetuation of what appear to be no more than local myths has reduced a potentially serious phenomenon to a boogey-man, responsible for all quirks of weather and nature. Too many reporters have made light of the issue. If true, global warming and the efforts against it are anything but minor or simple. They are potentially devastating and costly. Yet as this next headline demonstrates, many reporters don’t see it that way:
-“Al Gore, Rock Star: Oscar Hopeful May Be America’s Coolest Ex-Vice President Ever”
This issue is far too serious for such light journalism. The environmental and economic consequences of global warming, if true, would dwarf the cost of the Iraq war. Yet an ex-vice president pushing for a war and warning of potential nuclear attack would not be billed as “the coolest ex-vice president ever.” Articles about global warming should fight the misunderstandings about the evidence for global warming, the popular myths about global warming and the hip attitudes that blur the issues. The nature articles listed above don’t probe the science behind the claims they make, instead, they are justified with anecdotal tales from indigenous residents. In the article about declining hunting, by Beth Druff-Brown, links to global warming are supported by stories such as this, “Simon Nattaq lost both feet to frostbite when his snowmobile crashed through the ice, made thin by rising Artic temperatures.” As tragic as this story is, it reduces complex science to what is essentially almanac style weather predictions. In fact, these stories seem to contradict what real science reveals about the Greenland glaciers. A NY Times blog by John Tierney highlights a recent discovery that the glaciers are melting more slowly than the last several years, not more quickly. This story does not mean that global warming isn’t taking place, but it does point out the difficulty in making projections and predictions. Even the IPCC report, which many claim is too radical, paints a picture of slow change, not the dramatized version of overnight environmental chaos that so many perpetuate. Certainly, there is no evidence to support many of the local claims of evidence of global warming, that seem to be so obvious that no scientific instrumentation is needed.
Let’s assume, for a moment, that the earth is warming. Journalists still have an important role to play as critics. An issue this chic is wide open for abuse. Popular social movements of this magnitude are invariably manipulated by opportunists for financial or political gain. Note recent New York Times articles that identify the various new advocates of global warming:
- “As the Climate Heats Up, Lawyers Sharpen Their Wits”
- “Evangelical’s Focus on Climate Draws Fire of Christian Right”
- “Warm Winters Upset Rhythms of Maple Sugar”
- “Political Money and the Oscar Aisle”
- “A Coal Executive with a Cleanup Mission”
If the lawyers at the top of the list don’t demonstrate that global warming is becoming a financial issue, maybe the coal executives do. Even if global warming is to be assumed, journalists still have a critical role to play in clarifying what impact it actually has, and in downplaying the hype and profiteering. Realism and debate will lead to good decisions by the public, less fear and better policy decisions by the politicians.
Redefining the Role
There are three primary areas the press should address in the global warming debate. First, Journalists must dig into and present the evidence for and against anthropogenic global warming. While John McCain’s recently claimed that the debate on global warming is “over,” such a pronouncement should not be sufficient grounds for reporters to stop reporting on real science. As legitimate as McCain’s opinion is, I would consider Richard Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at least as legitimate a source, as is Dr. S. Fred Singer, of George Mason University, both of whom disagree with Mr. McCain.
While many reporters have increasingly marginalized skeptics as outside of the “mainstream” or outside of the “consensus,” they are mistakenly expressing opinion, not reporting fact. Global warming must be presented as the complex issue that it is, and the science behind it is very critical to good policy making. There are many legitimate questions about the science behind global warming, the causes of global warming and even the predicted effects of global warming. A recent Washington Times article by Al Webb included this insightful quote from scientist Philip Stott, “The [climate] system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on [carbon dioxide] production would be or, indeed, of continuing to produce [carbon dioxide].”
Journalists should be the last to accept any position as beyond criticism, particularly on issues so complex as weather systems. The global consensus on intelligence was what led to the invasion of Iraq, and yet in that case, the consensus turned out to be wrong. The failure of the press to challenge this consensus and to document dissenting opinions led to many social myths and popular misconceptions about what the intelligence really supported. The same will happen with global warming if reporters marginalize skeptics and others who are out of line with the perceived “mainstream.” Surprisingly, it is not U.S. newspapers that are providing a forum for dissent and debate. It is in places like the Czech Republic and in Britain that real debate is being fostered in the newspapers, television, and among politicians.
I don’t believe that many decision makers or members of the public understand all the science behind the debate, so they need to be able to read reliable sources that more fully explain it. They need to know about the accuracy of the predictions and the models used to test global warming. How can they account for systems that weathermen can’t predict three days into the future? Why were widespread predictions that 2006 would be a record setting year for hurricanes so dramatically incorrect? It is difficult for many to believe that predictions 100 to 200 years in the future would be any more accurate. This is where an active and independently minded press can make a real contribution. While National Geographic News reporter Kate Ravilious has reported on evidence that the Sun may be contributing greatly to the earth’s recent rise in temperature, most of the press in such papers as the New York Times and the Washington Post seem to have ignored or belittled such alternative theories. While it is legitimate to question these outside views, and even to cite their relative lack of scientific support, they should not be disregarded completely.
Second, journalists should investigate what groups and individuals are driving the surge in this debate. Has there actually been a tectonic shift in scientific consensus over the last few months, or are there ideological, political, financial or power agendas driving this sudden surge in concern. Who are the forces behind the science, what groups fund it? Skeptics, for example, point out that the IPCC is not a scientific body, but a political body. I would like to see a quality article that examines this claim. I have read claims from at least one scientist who claims that many scientists’ names were used in an IPCC report that they didn’t support. Many political groups have joined the global warming movement. Probably, many of them have joined because they truly believe that global warming is a threat that must be stopped. There are probably also other groups that have different political motivations. It doesn’t seem impossible that the political implications of global warming would greatly enhance the cause of anti-capitalist groups and others. This is a charge that has been bandied about the internet, yet I have not seen any treatment of this accusation in the primary newspapers.
Why have so many politicians recently endorsed theories of anthropogenic global warming? Are they truly convinced or are they (as politicians are prone to do) riding the tide of social concern? Fear is a powerful political tool. Journalists have an important role to play in challenging fear mongering. Just as threats of nuclear attack should be treated seriously but not blown out of proportion, neither should threats of global environmental collapse. This debate can never be about pure science, there is too much at stake and too many non-scientific parties involved. Journalists, however, can help to keep other interests in their place, and help filter the distractions from the legitimate scientific issues of climate control.
Third, with every major social movement there have been opportunists who have looked to promote fear to make a buck. Journalists have an important role in identifying profiteers to seek self-promotion with meaningless “green” efforts. What are the consequences of global warming and how can Americans make sense of the efforts to prevent it. We need to know the difference between pandering and meaningful and effective efforts to implement change. Is global warming something that can reasonably be prevented by everyday efforts, or will we require new technology to reduce greenhouse gasses. As lawyers, corporations and rock concerts increasingly bill themselves as “green,” it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the activities of profiteers from the efforts which are sincere and valuable. Criticism should be equally applied to proponents and dissidents of global warming theory. True power and the solutions to this threat lie in robust public discussion and excellent critical news reporting. Journalists have an important role to play in illuminating the profiteers and those who cheapen the issue.
Finally, reporters must help the public determine the consequences of global warming and we can actually do about it if it is happening. This is perhaps the most important role of the press on this issue, providing perspective and context. We, as citizens need to know what all of this discussion means. With all of the debate over details flying about, Americans cannot put it all in perspective if not aided by the press. If we decide that we must prevent global warming, we must know what the economic costs will be. We must develop an understanding of how to begin addressing the problem. We need to better understand the role that developing nations like China and India play. Fortunately, there have been some articles that model perspective yielding reporting. Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post recently provided insight in his article, “Global Warming and Hot Air,” which points out the extreme difficulty we face in doing anything to stop global warming. He writes, “You should treat the pious exhortations to ‘do something’ with skepticism, disbelief or contempt.” He goes on to explain the motives of politicians, companies and editors, calling them image conscious and superficial and explains the harsh reality of global warming responses. In his mind, there is very little that individuals can do. We need more reporting that will help us begin to build a realistic understanding of the problem.
While we may decide we want to stop global warming, reporters need to also explain the costs outside of the U.S. To slow or stop emission would seemingly mean to slow or stop third world development. Some reporters have begun to highlight some of these costs. An example of an excellent article is in the Christian Science Monitor, entitled “How Green is Nuclear Power?” The article, written by Mark Clayton, goes beyond claims that nuclear power is carbon-free and looks at the overall environmental and financial costs of nuclear power as an answer to global warming. The article evenhandedly details the positions of proponents and opponents of nuclear power in a way that should serve as a model for other written treatments of global warming issues. This is the sort of perspective that journalists should provide to the citizenry. We need to know all of the risks, all of the costs and all of the projections before we as Americans can tell our political and corporate leadership what we want them to do. This perspective can best be provided by the U.S. media, by traditional newspapers that have the credentials to examine the speculation, to verify the sources and to challenge the claims with the facts.
Conclusion
I don’t know with any assurance if global warming is taking place or ever will take place. If it will, I really don’t know what it will look like, or what it will mean. I don’t want reporters to try to sum it all up in a simple answer, either. Journalists have an opportunity to ask the hard questions, the probing questions on this issue that most citizens don’t get to ask. Good journalists will buck the social trends, commit to finding the factual answers and resist the easy reliance on spokesmen representing various interests. To do anything less is to become the pawns of the most persuasive rhetoricians. Like anyone else, reporters face peer pressure and restrictive professional conventions. It demands great fearlessness to challenge convention. Unfortunately, many of the headlines that I have highlighted in this essay are anything but fearless. Perhaps, though, in this case reporters will resist social momentum and challenge the myths to find the scientific reality.
While many reporters continue to provide good, critical articles on the many issues of global warming, many more seem to have relaxed their skepticism. Reasonable, questioning reporting must not be allowed to diminish if journalists hope to demonstrate a better performance on global warming than many Americans feel they provided prior to the invasion of Iraq.
We as Americans don’t need more people to tell us their personal opinions. We have more than sufficient politicians, pundits and bloggers doing that already. We do need reporters who will ask tough questions, who will challenge the conventional wisdom, who will reveal hidden motivations behind the sources, and who will serve as bulwarks against excesses of popular consensus.

In Texas

I'm in Texas and it's hard to get onto the Internet. The past three days I have been in Salado at the Stagecoach Inn and true to the name, they are living in bygone days. There was no internet access. Today I went to a coffee shop with my laptop and spent more than an hour trying to get on-line and for some reason couldn't. I don't know if it was my computer or their server or what. I do know that it was frustrating.
I did have a chance to try and get some photos of the bluebonnets...but, it decided to rain today, the day I had set aside to go out. And now it's supposed to rain the rest of my time here. Sigh of frustration.
I was the youngest one at the reunion though! We decided that it was very fitting that I be there since it was the class of '48 and I am 48. I was sort of an honorary member for this reunion. My dad sold quite of few of his book, which is great. One of the ladies who had read it couldn't quit raving about it.
Well, I'm really tired. No questions tonight. Oh wait, this came up today. Give a one word answer to this question. What did Jonah preach?

War View and How Far is Too Far?

My church, through families in it, has 'adopted' five or six of the 'lost boys' of Sudan. It is so cool. And because of that we have an active ministry in Sudan. We have dug a well and are building a hospital for a village.

Six or so of our men were just over there. One of the Sudanese men asked one of our church men what he thought about the war in Iraq. Our man said he didn't know anymore.
The Sudanese man said something to the effect of, "When your President showed that he was courageous enough to go into Iraq, it stopped our war and the killing here in southern Sudan."

I found that interesting.

And then, how far is too far? I read this article this morning. A sheep that is 15% human? I know that they say the purpose is to make organ transplants better for humans, but I think this crosses the line. As much as I love the Chronicles of Narnia, here on earth there is a clear line (in my mind) between human and merely animal. What are we doing? The ends does not always justify the means. If it did, and you took it a logical conclusion, and human life is dispensible, then it would make sense to take one person, divide up their organs and save multiple lives. Not a dead person, a living one. If it's simply a matter of keeping the largest number of people alive for the longest time, that's where we would be.

God gave us knowledge and wisdom. But He also gave us responsibility. How do we decide the proper use of the intelligence we have been blessed with? What are the guidelines we need to use? How do we know when to say 'enough is enough'?

Two more spring photos

First things first. I was nominated for the Thinking Blogger Award which originated here. It was given me by my cyber friend Matt who's site is here . Two ironies. First, I didn't even think anyone really read my blog and two, ever since being nominated my time to post has sort of disappeared. Isn't that the way it is. Anyway, thank you Matt, for the honor I appreciate it. It just goes to prove than even high school drop outs can think, I guess!

Okay, so lots of thoughts. Too many to post in the time I have. But I'll touch on a few of them.

First, in my reading of Joshua, there are several times that God sends natural disasters or occurrences. In chapter 10 it says that He sends a hailstorm that kills more of the enemy than the soldiers did. So I have to ask myself, how does that work? Was that just then? Did God use the atmospheric conditions to cause a hailstorm? Did He supernaturally bring it out of nowhere? Is every disaster the result of the direct will of God? Does God usually just let things happen and then every once in a while, intervene? I'd appreciate any thoughts. Of course, the easiest explanation is that the people just thought that a naturally occurring storm was the work of God, but if I am to believe that the Bible is literally true, I don't see how that can be the answer.

The power of names. That's the other thing I've been thinking about. I'm finally going to get my dog, on or around May 1. I am definitely letting my heart rule my head, this is crazy. He's going to be big, he will probably drool and I will have black dog hair all over my house. But that isn't the point. The point is the effort I am putting into choosing his name. He's just a dog, but I want his name to be right.
So that makes me think of something I've often thought of in the past, especially this time of year. The word 'Easter' comes from the word Ishtar who was the goddess of fertility. I wonder how God feels about that? The crowning work of His love is named for a false god. I can't believe that's good. God puts a lot of stock in names. If He didn't, He wouldn't have always been giving folks new ones. So is it honoring to Him to use that name for the day that Christ rose from the dead. I do sometimes call it Resurrection Sunday but it's often awkward. So many things bother me that don't seem to bother the rest of Christendom. I'm not sure why. Am I being legalistic and picky, or is there something to this?

You know, I don't think I should have gotten the thinking blogger I think I should have gotten the questioning blogger. I don't post thoughts so much as questions. If only I could find some of the answers. These things are hard to talk about because people often become defensive. I don't know how to couch my questions with people IRL the right way I guess. It seems like people feel threatened.

Well, we are heading back to church for a lunch about the missions trip to Sudan. Our church here is very contemporary. I didn't expect them to do much other than a Sunday service to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. But they are doing some awesome things. A Maundy Thursday celebration, a Seder supper, a celebration of art with the resurrection theme, other things that I would have expected of a more liturgical church, but not ours. I'm so disappointed we will be at the beach. If it weren't for our kids, I think I would cancel our plans just to be here. I think we perhaps put too much emphasis on the birth of Christ and not enough on His death and resurrection. I am so glad to see this in our church.

Internet connectedness

I've been having internet problems. I think I've got it taken care of after spending some quality time with a very patient man in India this morning. First it was intermittent and then last night as I was posting here I totally lost the connection and couldn't get it back. I was so frustrated. Computer problems usually mean hours on the phone squinting to see numbers and letters to small to discern (at least at my age) without a magnifying glass and endless minutes as I wait for my computer (old and slow) to reboot. So, I didn't respond well. I was frustrated and too often that means I get frustrated with other things that would normally not bother me. What a duality I have in me. On the one hand I have tried to live my life trusting it to God and His sovereignty and love for me. And then I encounter something like this and I can't even trust Him in it. Instead my humanity rises to the surface with irritation. It's sad.
So...I had posted several things here. I'm not sure I remember all of them. I know one thing was about our attitude towards money. I'm at the end of Deuteronomy now, I actually just got into Joshua. But at the end of Deuteronomy it makes several points that I think are valid as I look at finances, in light of the talk I'm going to give on wealth and poverty. The first is that we are to acknowledge that God is the source of all we have. It's so easy to take pride in ourselves, to think that if others just had our attitude or abilities or wisdom, they wouldn't be in the financial spot they are. The truth is that any of us could lose everything we have at any minute and no matter what we do, there is no guarantee of prosperity. So, number one, give credit to our Provider. The second was to give the tithes and then celebrate with your family the bounty God has provided. (All of this is obviously Paula's paraphrase, I don't have my Bible in front of me.) It actually commands that, to celebrate. So obviously it's okay to enjoy at least a portion of what God has given. We don't need to feel guilty if we do something just for fun. We don't need to beat ourselves up if we eat out knowing that there are people starving somewhere. But then it also talks about giving an extra offering for several groups, including the foreigner, widows and orphans. So while we are allowed or encouraged to enjoy the gifts God has given, we are also commanded to share generously, not just the minimum. I guess, as with all things, it comes down to the heart attitude. Am I greedy and self indulgent or do I care about the welfare of others who are less fortunate. It is surprising to me how often God tells us to give to the poor. Not in order to win them to faith, not for any motive, just to do it. I was raised that everything should be done in order to get people to become Christians, so to just do a good deed without specifically telling them about Christ and the good news He brings was almost wrong. But I'm not seeing that. What I'm seeing is that there is value simply in the physical act of caring for the needy.
Last night we went to the Boys and Girls Club of Annapolis. We fed about fifty kids and played with them and gave them lunches for the next day. We didn't preach or teach, we just gave. Part of me thought we should be sharing Christ, but part of me thinks it's okay to just give. I know that ultimately they need Christ, but maybe last night wasn't the time. We are going to see if we can sponsor one or two of the kids. Have them over to our house, take them to do things, just befriend them. It was so awesome to see our girls playing with them and interacting and enjoying it. They wanted to do it. I am so grateful to God for that. It made me so happy. Instead of having a bad attitude they entered into it with enthusiasm and hurt for the kids who were obviously love hungry. I'm so grateful that they have tender hearts.

Katie's birthday

Today my oldest daughter turns 24. It's hard to believe.

I remember the day she came from Korea. We waited in the airport, with love and excitement mixed so thouroughly that the air was thick with it. For us, it was a dream delayed. Katie was supposed to come a month earlier, but on the day of her anticipated arrival we received word that she was too sick to travel. I fell apart, pretty completely. But now she was arriving. On the drive to the airport, I warned Art not to expect much. To be prepared for a wasted, moth-eaten bundle of rags with no comeliness to draw us. How shocked I was to find in my arms a chubby bundle of contentment, sucking on her two fingers. Why, she was the most adorable child that came. How could we have been so fortunate as to get the most beautiful child there? (Looking back, I wonder if every waiting mom felt that way?)

I remember the years of her increasing imagination. Stories of monkeys in trees and monsters with pink eyes and amazing feats. Years of spontaneous hugs and exuberant energy and determined willfullness. Her voice was a delight, every note hit with perfection and sung with earnestness. I remember a youth filled with talent and ability and enthusiasm and laughter.

There are years I'd rather not remember. Years of conflict and pain and misunderstanding and despair. Times of rejection and anger and apparent hatred. Years of wondering what had gone wrong and where I had failed.

I remember watching and waiting and praying as she discovered her own path. Of giving up on making her stay with me on mine. Of releasing her from my control, but not from my heart.

I watch now with wonder as she comes home with joy, wanting to be with us. I store up memories of her calling with excitement to share news with us first because she knows we care most. I stand amazed and silent as she pays verbal tribute to her upbringing and exonerates us of our guilt. I watch in wonder as she seeks our counsel, treasuring our views. I delight in the dimension she adds to our family, a spice that gives it depth.

I wait with anticipation to see how she will grow. To see the path she will take, to find how she will give and contribute. I remember the little girl entrusted to our care, completely dependent in our arms. I remember the love and excitement with which I anticipated the future. It's still there.

Babysitting today

I'm away from home, babysitting. This darling little girl usually takes a three hour nap, but of course today is the exception. That's okay though, she's really good. Right now she is very happily entertainng herself with Thomas the train engine and gang.
I read my Bible at home prior to coming and couldn't post right away. But I've gotten to the parts where it keeps saying 'the life is in the blood'. That could have profound implications. If it's literally true, and I don't see why it wouldn't be, then life does not begin at conception but on the day that the blood is formed in the fetus. I think that is somewhere around day eight. That is a huge difference, especially in cases of rape.
I'm going to be teaching our church's ladies Bible study one week on wealth and poverty. Should be interesting because there are so many verses and perspectives on the subject in Scripture. I always feel the weight of the responsibility to accurately teach God's Word and not lead anyone astray.

Continuing thoughts

It's funny, I didn't expect this blog to become a Bible journal, and yet that seems to be the main thing I write about. It's just that I enjoy putting down my observations and questions as I read. So, before I get to that, I think I'm finally getting my puppy! He will be ready to be 'adopted' on May 1. After Art said I could get one, I began having second thoughts. But, you know, when I was a kid, I was afraid of growing up. I didn't want to be like the adults I knew who were always governed by what was practical. And so I'm going to go ahead and do the heart thing instead of the head thing. I'm getting a puppy. A beautiful, big, impractical Newfoundland!

My dh and I are in an era of our lives I would call one of 'plenty'. That is, we have more than enough to supply our needs and even our wants, because our wants aren't extravagant. So I really liked these verses I read yesterday from Deuteronomy 8.

"Beware that in your plenty you do not forget the Lord you God and disobey his commands...for when you have become full and porsperous and have built fine homes to live in...that is the time to be careful. Do not become proud at that time and forget the Lord you God...Do not forget that he led you...he gave you...he fed you. He did this to humble you and test you for your own good. He did it so you would never think that it was your own strength and energy that made you wealthy. Always remember that it is the Lord you God who give you power to become rich...It is not at all because you such righteous, upright people...I will say it again: The Lord you God is not giving you this good land because you are righteous, for you are not-you are a stubborn people...you have constantly rebelled against him. (Chapter 10) Therefore cleanse you sinful hearts and stop being stubborn. Be careful to obey all the commands I give you; show love to the Lord your God by walking in his ways and clinging to him."

I have been thinking about the OT and the NT and how much we can apply, or rather how we can apply the OT. Obviously, Christ changed things. In the OT, the Israelites were to set up an earthly kingdom. Jesus makes it clear that the kingdom of God is within us. So the way God was working out His plan was manifest differently.
The most obvious example is the change from an eye for an eye, to turn the other cheek. So I think we are inconsistent in how we apply the OT. We pick and choose and say that one verse is for today and another isn't. I know people who will say that the OT prohibition on taboos is still applicable but think nothing of wearing a poly/cotton shirt, which is prohibited in the same chapter. The missionaries to Hawaii tore down all the idols and temples and I can see why if we look only at the OT. But Paul took a different approach. So I need to figure out what we today (or at least I today) am to do with the OT and how I'm to apply it to my life.

So, on a different level, I am babysitting all day today and tomorrow. I have a steering group meeting that I have to prepare the food for on Saturday and company coming in on Friday night, possibly for dinner. And Katie is coming over on Sunday to celebrate her birthday. I haven't gotten her a gift yet. I don't know when I'll have the chance either. And I need to get Andy's gifts wrapped so that Betsy can take them tomorrow when she heads down. Andy is in KC right now. I'm hoping things will become very clear to him this weekend.

I woke up this morning from a nightmare and I couldn't shake it and I was pretty much a basket case for a while. Not so good. I don't know where these dreams come from. But I wish they would stay away.

Pity party?

Reading in Deuteronomy 3 and 4 it seems as if Moses is at his most human. He's whining about not getting to go into the promised land! If I remember correctly it was because Moses struck the rock and in so doing dishonored God by not trusting him, that he wasn't allowed into the promised land. But even Moses, Godly, humble and patient man that he was, couldn't resist the temptation to blame someone else. He says it in 3:26 and then again in 4:21. "The Lord was angry with me because of you." Wow. It started in the garden of Eden and it's here with Moses. So I have to wonder, what am I blaming on someone else that I need to take responsibility for?

That's the kind of question that I ask myself and never discipline myself to take the time to answer. Because it does take time to answer that kind of question. Time to think and ponder and pray. That meditative time is something I want to incorporate more of into my life. I'm at a place now where I have the luxury of doing it. Instead I'm afraid that I fritter away my time. I don't want to waste my time.

Also, there is a verse here, 4:9 that seems to speak to the distance that we often feel from God. It says, "Be careful never to forget what you have seen the Lord do for you." If God was going to be constantly interacting, I don't think there would be the call to remember, because it would be present, not past. But it seems as if it is natural, in God's view, for there to be times when He is not obviously present. It is during those times that we have to live on the 'storehouse' of the knowledge of what He has done in our lives and in the lives of our parents and others. It's so important to share with our children the times that God has answered prayers, or spoken to us, or changed us in a way that we couldn't have changed ourselves.

Later, "If you search for Him with all your heart and soul you will find Him." Doesn't seem to agree with the TULIP model, that verse.

Why do we still honor all of the Ten Commandments except the one about the Sabbath day and keeping it holy? Even if we agree that it's now Sunday instead of Saturday, why is it not set aside as a day of rest dedicated to the Lord? It's interesting that eight of the commandments are 'do nots' and only two are 'do' commandments. Do we just ignore that commandment because it's harder to keep?

I just recently faced up to my own priorities. I was going to go to Viet Nam on a mission trip. I really wanted to go. But I realized I couldn't do both that and go see my folks. I thought about the verse that says But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' and I felt convicted. I love my parents, it's not that at all. I want to go see them. But I was so busy doing 'Godly work' that I wasn't giving them the honor and attention they deserved. So I took the loss of the money I had put down and cancelled the trip. The money isn't really a loss anyway, I'm sure the mission group can use it. And as often as my thoughts turn toward Viet Nam, I know I made the right choice.

I just have to add one more verse, that doesn't seem to me to fit in with TULIP theology.
Deut 5:29 Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!
It sounds an awful lot to me like God desires something He has put in the ability of man to give Him, that is, obedience. There are just so many little verses like that throughout the Bible. Little snippets that just don't fit into the narrow parameters of man made systematic theology. Anyway, I'll save that for another time, maybe another place.

Orphans and widows

I found out today that you can build an orphanage in India, that will house 25 children for $7,000. That's it. $7,000. And then it would take another $7,000 a year to keep it running...food, salaries, everything. My daughters go to a private school. If each of the kids there gave up four Starbucks coffees a year and gave the money to a project like this, instead, it would cover the cost. Or two nighttime movies. Or one pair of inexpensive jeans. Amazing.
My dh and I are one on this. We want to be involved. Isn't that what true religion is? Taking care of the orphans and widows?
It seems like there should be a way to incorporate the two. Maybe use widows who would otherwise be homeless to be caretakers for the children. It would provide work for them and love for the children. I'm wondering how one could visit different orphanages to see what works. I know there are good ways of doing things and bad and it's probably better to do nothing than do it incorrectly, I think you could do more harm than good. But there must be a way to find out what works. I want to figure it out.

"Every man...knows there is that within him which falls far below even his most careless public behaviour, even his loosest talk...We have never told the whole truth...I do not think it is our fault that we cannot tell the real truth about ourselves; the persistent, life-long, inner murmur of spite, jealousy, prurience, greed and self-complacence, simply will not go into words."
C.S. Lewis

As I read this today, I said, in my spirit, "Yes!" I can't even own up within myself to just how much there is within me that is ugly. I am frightened of and disgusted by my own nature.

But I'm not sure about the 'every man' concept. I don't think most people have that same feeling about themselves. And that's okay. I'm just not sure whether that nature doesn't reside in them or whether they are just unaware of it. But when I have tried to express this idea on one or two occasions, I have been met with a blank stare.

It's not my business though, to try and see what is in others. I have a big enough job asking God to look inside of me and scour me out, painful as that may be and then use me as He wants.

A few of the other pictures I took today

My Bible study journal

Bible study thoughts

I guess that's the title I should have given my blog. I'm usually motivated to write when I read something I don't understand. I have always felt like Bible study leaders felt threatened by me. If I ask unorthodox questions they seem to feel threatened and like I am just a trouble maker or trying to be disagreeable. Maybe to them the answers are obvious, I don't know, but I've learned to keep my mouth shut in most groups. I can remember only two teachers who have even not only welcomed my questions but seemed to delight in them. I wish I could find a teacher like that now. Of course it could also be that my questions are just boring to others and they don't wonder about them at all. I would love to have a Bible study group of strong Christians where we could talk about these things. Another reason I often stay quiet in Bible studies is so that I won't hinder the growth of younger or less secure Christians. I would hate it if my questions caused them to doubt.

In Numbers 33 it says that God had 'defeated the Gods of Egypt' when he killed the firstborn sons in every household.
Okay, this as well as several other passages treat the gods as if they are real, not just the figment of man's imagination. What glory is there in defeating something that doesn't exist? Wouldn't it say something more to the effect of 'God proved the God's of Egypt were man's vain imaginings' instead of talking of defeat?
I think too often we pooh-pooh the idea of 'real' gods, instead we settle in comfortably with the idea that money and television and power are our gods. And those things no doubt are. But even in them I think there is perhaps a spiritual god behind them. Spiritual warfare is real. In other cultures at least, curses often work. It's not that there is no power in the forces of evil, there is. It's just that God's power is far greater. And because we are covered by the blood of Christ, Satan and his minions can't prevail against us. It's a bit frightening to even write about. I don't want to draw any negative attention to myself or my family. But we are in Christ Jesus so there really should be no fear.
Later in 33 God says, "If you fail to drive out the people who live in the land, those who remain will be like splinters in your eyes and thorns in your sides." I believe the OT is literally true. But I also believe it is often symbolic. This is one of those places. When we come into the fullness of the Gospel (coming into the promised land) we still have work to do. One of those jobs is to rid ourselves of certain things, (in NT jargon, 'put off' or 'rid yourselves') If we don't do that, those very things will be constant pain and irritation to us. The sooner we destroy them, and root them out, the sooner we will live at peace.

Personal thoughts
On another level, much lower I'm afraid, I was confronted with an aspect of my character, or personality, that I'm not sure I like.

There is something in me that really doesn't want to take classes. I haven't figured out the root of it yet, I think it has several dimensions. Things I think I believe, even if they aren't valid are:

If someone has to teach you then it's not really yours

If I don't have instruction and do well, then I've done very well. But if I take a class and do well, then I have no excuse for not having done very well.

So, I think at the root of both of those road blocks is the ugly sin of pride. Sort of a reverse pride, I guess. Feel of failure in the second and wanting complete ownership in the first.

In the first, I think that deep down I believe that creativity and intelligence should be instinctive and self-contained, not grow out of the thoughts and ideas of others. But I guess that's hogwash. Everything about life, whether we like it or not, is influenced by others. I think this might have it's roots in a story I wrote as a child in fourth grade. I got a very good grade on it. But the teacher had obviously never read Lewis or she would have flunked me for plagiarism. I didn't copy anything verbatim, but I definitely took many of his ideas and wove them together. When I later reread the story I was ashamed of what I had done, though at the time I don't think I had realized it was wrong. But I saw myself as a cheater and was chagrined.

On the second, I have a deep fear of failure. Instead of causing me to try harder, it generally causes me to not put forth much effort at all. If I haven't really tried, then I can't fail, right? But if I give something my all, if I really want it and I don't acheive it, then it would be awful. I haven't sat down and looked at 'awful' to see what the reality of that would look like. I think I need to do that. I would, no doubt, find that the consequences wouldn't be so bad at all. So that is a task I am going to assign myself.

I remember when Art began buying so many properties and I was always in stress that several would be empty at the same time and we wouldn't be able to pay all the mortgages. When I finally thought through what could happen, I got to the fact that we could lose everything we own. And in the end I realized I could handle that. And so, that worry was pretty much banished. I had faced the fear, imagined it and overcome it. If it came to pass, I knew that I could deal with it. I think that's what I need to do here. It's pride that makes me want to excel and false humility that keeps me from trying.

As long as I am judged on the basis of being a high school drop-out I'm quite impressive. I'm far more intelligent and well read than statistics would lead one to expect. But if I have an education, ah, then I've raised the standard, and I think I'm afraid to see how I will do.

I don't think that if I get this right in my head I will necessarily return to college. But I will be thinking correctly, and that will be a very good thing.

Numbers

From reading the Old Testament, I can understand the fanatacism of many of the Puritan type leaders. In Numbers 25 the story is told of Phineas and his fury at seeing an Israelite man bring a Midianite woman into the camp and into his tent. It says that he "thrust the spear all the way through the man's body and into the woman's stomach." Yikes. And then God says that Phinehas had turned God's anger away from Israel by showing 'passionate zeal' on His behalf. So I can see why people looked for the cause of God's anger against them when a plague broke out.
I guess the problem is that this isn't the way God works anymore. The New Testament doesn't show any of this that I can think of. Christ never tried to change society that I can see, He tried to change people. There is such a difference between Old and New, I'm trying to get my arms around it. But I remember being surprised, when I read straight through the OT the first time how much love and grace was found there. Not so much in Numbers but in Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Also, it's interesting that the sons of Korah were not killed in his rebellion. It almost looks as if they had separated themselves from him and so they didn't bear the consequences of his sin.
And then I have always found the story in chapter 27 interesting where the daughters of Zelophehad came and asked for their father's property since he had no sons. God changes the rules! From that time on, daughters could receive the inheritance. So, I have to wonder. Why didn't God put that in the law in the first place? Surely He hadn't just overlooked it. : ) He knew what He was doing when He wrote the law. So what is the lesson here for me? To go ahead and ask? That I don't have because I don't ask? It certainly elevates the role of women in society and culture. I'm just not sure why He waited until they brought it up to address the issue.

Moses didn't get to go into the promised land because he failed to demonstrate God's holiness to them at the waters. I'm not sure quite how he did that. I mean I know that he struck the rock instead of speaking to it, but after all he had done right, that seems so small. I want to understand why it was such a big deal. I think of the times I haven't demonstrated God's holiness both in my home and other places. It makes me cringe in fear and sorrow. My actions have often smeared the name of God...my selfishness, losing my temper, my depression. God forgive me.

When Joshua was chosen to lead Israel, he already had the Spirit in him. I don't think the Spirit was given then as it is now. I wonder if it was Joshua's faith as a spy that caused him to be filled?

God says, "the offering you you present to me by the fire are my food" which I find interesting. Jesus said something like, "My food is to do the will of my Father." I never think of "God" as needing food of any sort.

I have to stop now, but I may add more later.

Today

Today I had Bible study. I like my study and I like my small group. We are an interesting mix. We have a South American young lady, new to our country, a young woman pregnant with her second child, a great lady that I already love that is a 'biker chick' type (although she's selling her bike), we have the pastor's wife, the co-owner of two very successful fast food franchises, a lady who moved here from eastern Europe at 19, and elderly woman, widowed once and married twice and me. It's a pretty diverse group.
But anyway, today as I drove there I felt happy. Just really happy. That may not strike you as unusual, but for me it's not the norm. In fact, I called my dh to tell him so. I wondered if other people feel that way often. I don't know. I guess we can never know the baseline for others. And so we don't know how successful they are being in 'overcoming' since we don't know where they started from.
But feeling happy felt so stinking good. I wish I could be there all the time.

Balaam and more

Reading about Balaam in Numbers, he doesn't sound like such a bad guy. In fact, if I had no other verses, I would say that he had behaved in a righteous manner. He refused great riches when bid to do what God said not to do. He said only the words God told him to say. He sought God every time.
But later, Balaam is killed in Numbers 31 by the Israelites.
It is only in other verses that we find that Balaam turned the Israelites away from God by tempting them to eat food sacrificed to idols and with sexual sins, probably including temple prostitution. And we find that Balaam was coveting in his heart the riches that he turned down. I am glad God gives us the extra verses because if it weren't for them, I would think of Balaam as a hero.
Balaam is mentioned 59 times by name. That's an awful lot, and yet we don't study him a lot. The most I knew about him for years was that he was the guy the donkey talked to.. But I'm thinking this is an incredibly valuable story.
Our actions can all be correct. Our words can sound righteous. But if we harbor the wrong desires in our hearts, in the end, they will take contol of us. I have no doubt that this is what brings down so many church leaders. Now, we all have sinful desires that creep into our lives. I don't think there is anyone that doesn't. But the key is to not hide them. If nothing else, take them out and put them in the full light of God's Word. Look at them honestly for what they are. Confess them to another, if at all possible. Be honest.
But I think what Balaam did was to try and hide his own desires from himself. He felt them, but he hid them behind a false self-righteousness. He wasn't just all talk, he even had the right actions. But in the end, his secret desires destroyed him.

Perceiving our badness

Here is a quote from Lewis.

"When we merely say that we are bad, the 'wrath' of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from God's goodness. To keep ever before us the insight derived from such a moment as I have been describing, to learn to detect the same real inexcusable corruption under more an dmore of its complex disguises, is therefore indispensable to a real understanding of the Christian faith."

Okay, this is where I am. I don't pretend to have explored the depths of my own sin. But what I've seen of it is enough. I have had my eyes opened enough to catch a glimpse of my own failings, utter and complete, and that is enough. I don't want to see any more because I am dismayed at the bit I have seen.

But I have to wonder. Are all as sinful as I? The Roman Centurion was called a 'righteous man' if I remember it correctly. I want to cling to the idea that everyone would do the same as I given the same circumstances. But I think that is really just another sign of sin in me...pride. I cling to finding some excuse for my wrongdoing.

I don't think this really makes any difference. I am desperately in need of a Savior and I've been given one. My mind shouldn't even wonder about the failings of others. It's enough for me to know that I have been given a way of escape.

So I guess, in a twisted way, it is a gift that I have seen my failings so clearly. If I were a 'better' person, I might not realize that I had such a need of Christ, so much to be grateful for. It's had to think of being thankful for being revealed in my sin, and maybe I'm wrong in that, and yet it makes it so much easier to be grateful. I have so much more to be grateful for.

This little thought process hasn't been very succinct or straightforward. I guess what I am saying is that though everyone falls short of the glory of God, not everyone is equally sinful. I have seen that I am about as sinful as they come and totally without excuse. I am grateful (which seems a strange thing to be grateful for) that I have seen my total failure to be righteous. Seeing my sinfulness makes it so much easier to be grateful to God. I'm not saying that my sin is good, only that it has revealed God's goodness. Which is all in Scripture, now that I think about it, it's just that it has come to life for me.

Prayer

Tonight we had our pastor and his family for dinner. They are a lot of fun. He just got back from a mission trip to Sudan so he was bursting with stories. I had planned to have a Mexican Fiesta, but found at church this morning that he's getting over the stomach flu, so I had to quickly change the menu to something bland. That was no fun!

But just before they got here I checked my emails. I got one from H. Her humvee was hit by an IED. She sounds shaken and bruised, both physically and emotionally. Praise God that no one was killed. Praise God for the extra armor they have put on those vehicles. Praise God for every day that He sustains our lives in big ways and small. I know that she is struggling. I can't put her struggles on my on-line log, that would be an invasion of her privacy. But I hurt for her and I want to help. I want to help her in her life and in her walk with God. I want to help her be freed from the demands that she places on herself and help her understand grace. I want to be salt and light and love in her life.

Optimism and other thoughts...Numbers 14

There was a post at LP recently that got into the topic of positive thinking. It was a good reminder for me because my mind is often fill with negative thoughts, especially about myself and my abilities. Allowing those thoughts to fill my head undermines what I am doing and colors my thinking with grey.
In the OT, the Israelites seemed to consistently get it wrong. They had a few shining moments when they trusted God and had their confidence in Him. Take Jericho, where through obedience they did the impossible. But they immediately followed it up with Ai. And they suffered a crushing defeat because they began to believe that the victory was theirs and not God's. And then as they came to the promised land, God promised it to them, but they listened to the negative voices among them. So God basically said, "Forget it, you aren't going to have victory if you go in now." At that point they became optimistic, decided they could do it, even though God said He wasn't going to help them for another forty years, and they once again suffered defeat.
All the positive self-talk in the world wasn't going to help them if God wasn't with them. In fact, that is the root of pride, isn't it? To believe that your future lies in your own hands? That you are in control of your destiny? On the other hand, it is the sin of lack of faith to be filled with doubt when God has said go ahead.
So there are two different problems at the ends of the spectrum. At the one end we are full of pride, trusting in ourselves and at the other end, we are empty of faith, lacking trust of God. So, I'm thinking that the issue isn't positive thoughts or talk, the issue is, in whom do you have your confidence? We ought to have the most positive views in the world about God and what He can do, but being cognizant at all times that He is the reason for our confidence, not our confidence itself. It's sort of like believing that our cheering will win the game for the team, rather than cheering because we know our team has what it takes to win.
So I do think that positive self-talk is important. Too often, I fall prey to lies that fill my head. But confidence and optimism are useless if not based in truth.

Different topic. I came across a few more verses today. One I love. "Please pardon the sins of this people because of your magnificent unfailing love..." Magnificent unfailing love. What an incredible phrase. How could that not bring hope?
But it also, for me, brings up some theological questions. Not that verse, but the whole passage. God tells Moses that He IS going to destroy Israel with a plague. Period. No maybe's. Then Moses intercedes in their behalf. And then God says that He will pardon them as Moses has requested.
How do TR's deal with that? I've heard them explain it away, but it sounds just like that...that they are explaining it away. And later, Moses says, "The Lord will abandon you because you have abandoned the Lord." That sounds an awful lot like they rejected what was being offered. What happens to irrisistable grace?
It seems like there are many verses, throughout Scripture that put pinholes in the ultra reformed theology. But because the TR's have few proof texts they throw out, without putting them in context of the whole Bible, they can neatly package everything up. I think it's much more complicated than that.

And another idea I'm grappling with is the idea of God's omnipresence or immanence. It is a basic tenet of Christianity that God is everywhere and in all. But I can see that there are few complexities to that. First, in the OT at least, God dwelt in certain places, in the tabernacle, on the mountain, and I'm sure in some others I'm not thinking of right now. So was it that He dwelt in His fullness in those places, but just roamed in the others? Or was He only in those places it talks about Him being? And did that change in the NT? I'm sure it's possible that it did. In the OT the Spirit was sent and removed from people's lives. In the NT we are assured of the Spirit's presence in our lives, and indwelling, as believers. But where does that leave the unbeliever. I have always understood that God did not dwell in them. So is that at least one place that God's omnipresence does not not extend? And God cannot tolerate the presence of evil. So does the presence of evil drive God's immenance from that place? How do those two ideas coexist in harmony. What I am not talking about here is pantheism. I'm not even hinting that God's presence in something makes that thing God, any more than ice tea in my pitcher turns the pitcher into a beverage. It is simply a place where the tea resides. But are there places where God does not dwell?