How the world became a better place on US Highway 19.

Not 30 minutes after I wrote my last post, I sat in my car in the far-right turn lane of a set of three turn lanes, each lined with cars waiting for green arrows so we could make lefts into each of the three southbound lanes of US Highway 19.

Any set of left-turn lanes makes me anxious. This is because in any set of left-turn lanes, there is at least one self absorbed driver who -- bereft of awareness of anything that isn't inside his or her vehicle -- does not know his or her turn lane is part of a set. So if this person is, say, a guy in a green Mustang in the middle turn lane of three, he may, for instance, turn from the middle turn lane into the highway's right lane. If there are no cars in the far-right turn lane of the three, his lack of awareness is both no biggie and reinforced: he'll have done something he shouldn't have, and without consequence.

But what happens when he turns into the right lane from a middle turn lane when there are cars in the far-right turn lane whose drivers are turning into that lane, too?

Sometimes, a crash. Other times, like today, the world becomes a better place.

The red arrows turned green and all three lanes turned left. The guy in the green Mustang, bereft of awareness of my car next to his, turned from the middle turn lane into the right southbound lane -- my lane. The young woman in his passenger's seat, whose window was down, saw my car. While he ran me off the road, she screamed. He swerved back into the middle, quickly enough that I could merge back into traffic.

And as I did, the young woman and I made eye contact.

Which is when, with such clear compassion, she apologized.

Twice now in two days, I've encountered people who've behaved in ways that so exceed my generally extremely low expectations of the general public. My blood pressure and I have needed this.

How the world became a better place in the frozen foods section.

Pushing a cart and dodging other shoppers, I swiveled into the turn onto the ice cream aisle.

"Popsicles," I said. "Popsicles, Popsicles, Popsicles."

Found them. And simultaneously as I found them, so did a girl who I'd guess is 18 years my junior. This is how the world became a better place in the frozen foods section.

We reached for the freezer door together, and she held it open while I grabbed a box of Popsicles. She reached in and grabbed her own after that. I tossed my box into my cart, which is when I realized.

"Sugar free?" I said. "I don't want sugar free."

So -- while the girl continued to hold the door open for me -- I put that box back and reached for another.

"Also sugar free! Are they all sugar free?"

"Nope!" the girl said, which is when she all but climbed into the freezer to retrieve an out of sight box of Popsicles sweetened with real sugar. She handed it to me.

"Thank you so much!" I said.

"You're welcome."

She smiled.

Who knew shopping for a box of Popsicles would result in the restoration of some of my hope for and/or faith in humanity?

My secret affinity.

Is it as funny to other people as it is to me that I easily wasted at least forty minutes of my day dancing to this song?



Seriously. I have a secret affinity for gospel music. It'd been dormant for awhile, but Whitney Houston's funeral woke it up.

Books in 2012: How Do You Kill 11 Million People?

Several months ago, Michael Hyatt -- a blogger of whom I'm a big fan -- wrote a post about a book called How Do You Kill 11 Million People?: Why the Truth Matters More Than You Think by a guy named Andy Andrews. Based solely on what Hyatt wrote, I bought a copy of the book. I read it -- my sixth book in 2012 -- last night.

My reading it in one sitting, however, is no miracle. Around 80 pages with an average of, like, 14 words per page, anybody who can read can read it in an hour. The book is far more political in nature than I expected, but it's timely, considering our country's impending presidential election. Basically, Andrews uses the number of people killed by Nazis between the 1930s and 1940s to illustrate the power that can be attained and abused by people who are liars. He doesn't take a political side, but points out that "we the people" have another kind of power -- the kind enacted when we use what we learn about the past to prevent a repetition of history.

I think he makes a great point with it, but I think what he wrote requires some clarifying. It easily can be inferred that he's ultimately blaming the fate of people who are deceived on the people themselves, when I think in reality, the entire process of being deceived is far more complex than that. I won't put words in his mouth, but based on what he wrote, a person can infer that he's calling anyone a fool who is deceived. But who's the fool, really? Is it the person, or the people who raised him or her without modeling common sense or critical thought? And are those people the fools, or are the fools the people who raised them without modeling common sense or critical thought? And even then, are they fools, or are they products of another complex system composed of cultural and familial values and beliefs and habits that don't happen to include all that much common sense and critical thought? It's just not simple.

This, of course, is not to say I didn't get anything out of the book. I did. Its point is applicable, really, to multiple parts of life (like mass media, mental health, relationships). A few of the excerpts I underlined are below:

"But in terms of why we do what we do, how we govern each other, what our society allows and why---very few of us intentionally connect the truth of the past with the realities of where we have ended up today." -page 11

"You see, the danger to America is not a single politician with ill intent. Or even a group of them. The most dangerous thing any nation faces is a citizenry capable of trusting a liar to lead them. In the long run, it is much easier to undo the policies of crooked leadership than to restore common sense and wisdom to a deceived population willing to elect such a leader in the first place. Any country can survive having chosen a fool as their leader. But history has shown time and again that a nation of fools is surely doomed." -page 42

"Why do the ages of our world's greatest civilizations average around 200 years? Why do these civilizations all seem to follow the same identifiable sequence---from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and finally from dependence back into bondage?" -page 46

- - - -

To read Michael Hyatt's post about the book, click here.

To learn more about the book, click here.

To read about all the books I read in 2012, click here.

 

Books in 2012: Practicing the Way of Jesus

It's fitting that I finished reading Practicing the Way of Jesus: Life Together in the Kingdom of Love a couple days into Lent. Practicing the Way of Jesus -- the fifth book I've read in full this year -- is written by Mark Scandrette, co-founder of RE-IMAGINE and the Jesus Dojo.

The book outlines "experiments" in which Scandrette has participated: short and long term projects, some conducted privately, others in groups, others publicly in his community. A lot of what resonated most with me from the book was focused on the importance and purposes of self discipline and self denial, both of which are big parts of Lent for me. See below for some of my favorite excerpts:

"And yet, a tremendous gap exists in our society between the way of radical love embodied and taught by Jesus and the reputation and experience of the average Christian. ... We can be frustrated by this gap and become critics, or be inspired by a larger vision of the kingdom and get creative." -pages 21-22

"If the invitation from Jesus to practice the Way sounds like a burden or obligation, then we aren't hearing him correctly. The offer of the Rabbi promises the freedom we long for: 'Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden light' (Matthew 11:28-30). ... The invitation to follow the way of Jesus doesn't help us cope with the busy lives we have or support our quest for the American dream. It does offer us a radical alternative to the ways of this world that are making us hurried, weary and tired. We are being invited to discover a way of life, in surrender to the Master, that is more fulfilling and free than any way that we could imagine or make for ourselves." -pages 35-36

"The crisis of evangelism in the Western world is not a lack of information about the gospel, but a scarcity of examples of transformed people who would provoke others to ask, 'How did you discover this remarkable new way of life?'" -page 90

"Think back to the account of Adam and Eve in the garden after they had eaten fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was the cool of the day and the Creator was calling out, 'Adam, where are you?' They were hiding in the bushes, covering themselves with leaves. Who had withdrawn? Was it God? No, Adam and Eve were the ones who pulled away. Nothing, including their disobedience or shame, could keep the Creator from continuing to pursue relationship. Even now we are being invited to step out of the shadows and into the light of God's loving presence. For many generations we have been on the run from God, both in our minds and in our bodies. This posture of hiding is what keeps us from being more aware of God's care and presence. ... We do many things with our minds and bodies to distract ourselves from God's presence. The pace of life in our society and the pervasiveness of media and technology make it challenging to find space to hear God's voice. It is countercultural and it takes immense courage to be quiet in body and mind." -pages 115-116

- - - -

For more information about the book, click here.

For more information about RE-IMAGINE, click here. And for the Jesus Dojo, click here.

Death to self.

Lent is here.

Forty days of death to self.

Of discipline.

Of  more You, less me.

Of empty, quiet stillness.

Forty days in the desert.

The new normal: births outside marriage — Part 2 of 2

In yesterday's post, I wrote some commentary on a recent New York Times article. The story cited a study that says a baby's birth to an unwed mom "used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage."

I don't doubt the study's results are legit. (In fact, I'm responsible for putting birth announcements in the newspaper for the county in which I work, and at least in that neck of the woods, babies with unwed parents far outnumber babies whose parents are married.) I don't disagree that lots of people opt not to get married after conceiving a child or after giving birth. But, as I pointed out in Part 1, the story about this unintentionally implied that marriage and "a piece of paper" are one and the same when, in fact, they are not. Marriage is a miracle that helps us "to overcome self-absorption, egoism, pursuit of one's own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving,*"

Which is awesome.

But as awesome as that is, few people our age are interested in it. Few currently-married couples exemplify it. And so I was compelled to ask a question:

Why?

Unfortunately, I can't answer that. For one, I don't know (at least not with any kind of exactness), and for two, I do know the answer is so complex that I couldn't do it justice if I tried. What I can do is list some factors that, in my opinion, contribute to why few people our age are interested in marriage, and why few married couples exemplify what marriage actually is.

1. People don't know what marriage actually is.

Refer to Part 1.

2. People don't think enough (some can't, some won't).

Part of the story says the following:

A woman, "27, was in an on-and-off relationship with a clerk at Sears a few years ago when she found herself pregnant. A former nursing student who now tends bar, (she) said her boyfriend was so dependent that she had to buy his cigarettes. Marrying him never entered her mind. 'It was like living with another kid,' she said."

Another part says this:

"In Lorain as elsewhere, explanations for marital decline start with home economics: men are worth less than they used to be. Among men with some college but no degrees, earnings have fallen 8 percent in the past 30 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the earnings of their female counterparts have risen by 8 percent."

The point the story makes is that these women aren't marrying the fathers of their children because to do so would be financially irresponsible and/or of no financial benefit. But if our focus is on deciding not to marry a man because marrying him is of no financial benefit, we miss a deeper point. The young woman in the story wouldn't dare marry a man-child who can't afford his own cigarettes, which is good, and I commend her, because she shouldn't. But, then, I'm left wondering: if a dependent guy isn't good enough to marry, why is he good enough to date? Why is he good enough to make a baby with? This points to the deeper point:

There are so many questions to ask before we promise exclusivity to someone and before we make babies with him or her — questions that few are asking.

Questions like is this person emotionally, socially, spiritually, financially fit to be my spouse? Would he or she make a good parent? Do I want kids to turn out like this person? Am I emotionally, socially, spiritually, financially fit to be a spouse? Would I make a good parent? Do I want kids to turn out like me?

We need to think about our answers to these questions, which implies we have to answer them. I think lots of humans are so generally horrified that the answer to any of them will be no that we neither ask nor answer them. But know that if an answer is no, it does not not mean it has to be no forever. It means somebody has some work to do — some growing to do. And that's ok, and always will be.

Lots of other humans do think about their answers to the questions, but their thoughts backfire because they are are under the impression that if an answer is no, the act of entering into a marriage — or even just moving in together — will transform the non-marriageable half of the couple into a marriageable one. But that's not how it works.

From the article:

"Almost all of the rise in nonmarital births has occurred among couples living together. While in some countries such relationships endure at rates that resemble marriages, in the United States they are more than twice as likely to dissolve than marriages. In a summary of research, Pamela Smock and Fiona Rose Greenland, both of the University of Michigan, reported that two-thirds of couples living together split up by the time their child turned 10."

This is because when a relationship isn't working, doing something that complicates it never makes it work. We're better off taking something out of the equation (such as one of the people, or sex) and seeing what happens.

Which brings us to a third factor that contributes to why few people our age are interested in marriage, and why few married couples exemplify what marriage actually is.

3. People treat the sacred (sex, in this case) like it isn't.

In our culture, you hit a certain age and the assumption is that if you're dating someone, you're having sex with them. And in an overwhelming majority of cases, that's a safe assumption. It's the norm. Which is one of several reasons we know what the norm isn't: treating sex like it's sacred.

Sex is not kept sacred when it's something we do with every person we date. It's not kept sacred when we participate in it selfishly. It is not sacred when we decide to have sex because we believe we can't not have sex.

"It's impossible to wait" is a lie. Humans, in my opinion and experience, are stronger than that — we can control our appetites. A couple of my favorite quotes about this are as follows:

"Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will's mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains healthy discretion.*"

and

"The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.*"

There are far fewer people who believe that than who simultaneously a) believe marriage is a piece of paper, and b) are currently unfit for a piece-of-paper-marriage, let alone for a real one, who c) are so unwilling or unable to acknowledge that they are currently (and probably temporarily!) unfit for marriage that they d) date while they e) are completely convinced they cannot date without having sex.

And that, over time, combined with a lot of other factors, results in new normals like the one in the article.

- - - -

To read Part 1 of this post, click here.

To read the New York Times story in full, click here.

*This quote comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The new normal: births outside marriage — Part 1 of 2

In a New York Times article from Friday, a study the writer cited says a baby's birth to an unwed mom "used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage."

The story is well written and worth the read. But what it points out is not so much "study reveals a new relationship trend" as much as "study reveals that what most people think is marriage is still not actually marriage."

The story says:

"Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women — nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 — is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change." 

and

"One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education."

and

"Liberal analysts argue that shrinking paychecks have thinned the ranks of marriageable men, while conservatives often say that the sexual revolution reduced the incentive to wed and that safety net programs discourage marriage."

and

"Over the past generation, Lorain lost most of two steel mills, a shipyard and a Ford factory, diminishing the supply of jobs that let blue-collar workers raise middle-class families. More women went to work, making marriage less of a financial necessity for them. Living together became routine, and single motherhood lost the stigma that once sent couples rushing to the altar. Women here often describe marriage as a sign of having arrived rather than a way to get there."

I understand these points.

Marriage does have economic and social rewards. Most women do find men whose paychecks can pay bills to be more marriageable than men whose paychecks can't. Many women who work don't need a husband to pay for her stuff. A stigma once did (and sometimes still does) send couples to the altar with haste and without much thought. But these are just words that distract us from what we really ought to discuss.

The story goes on...

"'Women used to rely on men, but we don’t need to anymore,' said Teresa Fragoso, 25, a single mother in Lorain. 'We support ourselves. We support our kids.'

a) This says marriage is about money. (i.e., "I don't need a husband because I can support myself and my kid.")

"Fifty years ago, researchers have found, as many as a third of American marriages were precipitated by a pregnancy, with couples marrying to maintain respectability. Ms. Strader’s mother was among them."

b) This says marriage is about image. And this still says that when a couple today rushes into marriage because they've found out they're pregnant. (i.e., "We'll be treated better if it looks like we didn't get pregnant before we tied the knot.")

"Even as many Americans withdraw from marriage, researchers say, they expect more from it: emotional fulfillment as opposed merely to practical support. 'Family life is no longer about playing the social role of father or husband or wife, it’s more about individual satisfaction and self-development,' said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University."

c) This says marriage is about self. (i.e., "Marrying this man/woman will complete me!")

And then, like in the story, people -- among them, ones who live like they believe a, b and c are true -- say...

"'I’d like to do it, but I just don’t see it happening right now,' ... 'Most of my friends say (marriage is) just a piece of paper, and it doesn’t work out anyway.'"

When the goal of a wedding revolves around money, image or self, I don't blame women or men for a second for not wanting that stuff. I don't want that stuff, either.

That stuff is a sheet of paper.

That stuff is not marriage.

Marriage is the miracle in which two become one. (Note: It is not 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, but 1 + 1 = 1. A spouse cannot and will not complete you, nor should he or she be expected to.) It is the mutual gift of self, given in love, which is patient and kind, neither boastful nor proud nor rude. It doesn't demand its own way or act pissed off about and/or keep track of it every time it doesn't get its way. It stands for justice and truth, it doesn't give up or lose faith and it sticks around, with hope, regardless of circumstances*.

Marriage helps us "to overcome self-absorption, egoism, pursuit of one's own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving,**"

Which is awesome.

So why, then, are few folks our age interested in it? And why do so few married couples reveal this in their relationships? I'm of the opinion that it's pretty complex.

Check back tomorrow for part 2.

- - - -

To read the New York Times story in full, click here.

*Within reason. If, for instance, you live with an abusive spouse, hope won't cut it. Your spouse needs help, and you need a safety plan. Click here for more information.

**This quote comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Red is for blood.

Despite the post I wrote last night (not to mention today's date), it didn't dawn on me until I arrived at work that today is Valentine's Day.

Which is why I was horrified to realize I am wearing a red sweater.

Realize that the red and the pink and the chocolate and the "Hi, significant other! I'll treat you like you're special today because Hallmark says I should." of the Valentine's Day in which the Americans who celebrate it partake have this much to do with Saint Valentine, whose feast day is today: ZERO PERCENT.

Sorry to disappoint.

But my day was saved by friend and fellow blogger SVB:

Me: I'm so ashamed. I accidentally wore a red sweater today and I did not intend to look festive.

SVB: If people ask about your sweater, you can just tell them you are celebrating St. Valentine's imprisonment and eventual bloody ending.

 Martyrdom > consumerism.

Just sayin'. Thanks, SVB!

Valentine's Day.

I traditionally don't celebrate Valentine's Day. (That I've been single most Valentine's Days as an adult is a coincidence.)

But one Valentine's Day does go down in Arleen history as the best I ever had.

1999.

I was a seventh grader with braces and glasses, in denial that I had curly hair. One morning, a few weeks before our class's Valentine's Day party, my homeroom teacher -- Mrs. Svendsen -- passed out a sheet of paper. On it was a list of every student in our class. Our instructions were as follows:

Next to each student's name except your own, write a good quality about him or her. 

And without knowing why, we did. 

Which is why on Valentine's Day, when Mrs. Svendsen handed us each a sealed envelope, we were not expecting what we found inside it.

I wonder if Mrs. Svendsen expected it to mean as much to us as it did (at least, it meant so much to me). 

Thumbs.

If you are wondering whether what my thumb is doing is a fluke in the photo with the essay of mine that appeared in today's paper, wonder no more.

"I bet people will think my hand is deformed," I said to my friend Ster about this yesterday.

Nah, she thought. Couldn't be. But upon further exploration, she sent the following:

"Now that you mention it, I am kind of concerned about your thumbs." -Ster

Best. Response. EVER.

Facebook is going public; not me.

Click here to read my latest column, online now and in print in the Perspective section of tomorrow's Tampa Bay Times.

It's about my belief that even as part of a culture that loves social media and smartphones, another way of life is possible.

Books in 2012: Rome Sweet Home

Until I was 10, I thought everybody was either Catholic (like my mom's side of the family) or Jewish (like my dad's). My horizons widened when, in fifth grade, my parents pulled me out of public school and put me in the private, non-denominational Protestant school where I studied through my senior year of high school.

Every time a teacher discovered my Catholicism, what followed was one of three things: 1.) acceptance of me as a fellow Christian, 2.) fascination with and/or fear of the mystery that is my church or 3.) an unending aggressive attempt to persuade me to become Protestant. And the third response, to the chagrin of the teachers who tried it, ultimately achieved the exact opposite of its intended purpose.

At school, somebody would protest something Catholic and at home, I'd study up. I'd read from the Bible and from books in my mom's collection. I'd listen to cassette tapes of talks about the Church given by people like a professor named Scott Hahn. And the more I studied and read and listened, the more grateful I was for getting to grow up Catholic. So when recently, I stumbled upon the book Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism by Scott Hahn and his wife Kimberly, I got warm and fuzzy feelings as well as the urge to read it. As of tonight, it is the fourth book I've read start to finish in 2012.

I am not as into apologetics now as I was when I was a Catholic in a Protestant school (though I do explain, defend and question when necessary). But the book brought back memories of the years in which I was a little Catholic apologist and brought up points about why the Catholic Church teaches what it does that I hadn't thought of in years. And their story -- how the Hahns met and how they loved and the twists and turns their lives took later -- is pretty riveting. For most of his life, Scott was the kind of Protestant who so disliked the Catholic church he'd call it the whore of Babylon. He was a Presbyterian pastor, a Calvinist and on a mission to persuade all the Catholics he met to become Protestant. Kimberly, the daughter of a Presbyterian pastor, wasn't as anti-Catholic as her husband. But she never would have dated a Catholic, let alone married a Catholic. Which is why she was horrified when her husband became one. And she surprised everyone, when a few years later, she followed suit. Scroll down for some interesting points I dog-eared and/or underlined:

On studying what the Catholic Church teaches about contraception:

"Did our use of birth control reflect how God saw children or how the world saw children? ... Perhaps it was more of an American attitude than a godly one to think of our fertility as something for us to control as we deemed best." -Kimberly, page 36

On sola fide:

"We gradually became convinced that Martin Luther let his theological convictions contradict the very Scripture that he supposedly chose to obey rather than the Catholic Church. He declared that a person is not justified by faith working in love, but rather he is justified by faith alone. He even went so far as to add the word 'alone' after the word 'justified' in his German translation of Romans 3:28 and called Saint James 'an epistle of straw' because James 2:24 specifically states '...for we are not justified by faith alone.'" -Kimberly, page 41.

On sola scriptura:

"In my church history class, one of my better students ... said, 'Professor Hahn, you've shown us that sola fide isn't scriptural---how the battle cry of the Reformation is off-base when it comes to interpreting Paul. As you know, the other battle cry of the Reformation was sola scriptura: the Bible alone is our authority, rather than the Pope, Church councils or tradition. Professor, where does the Bible teach that 'Scripture alone' is our sole authority?'
I looked at him and broke into a cold sweat.
I had never heard that question before. In seminary, I had a reputation for being a sort of socratic gadfly, always asking the toughest questions, but this one had never occurred to me.
I said what any professor caught unprepared would say, 'What a dumb question!' As soon as the words left my mouth, I stopped dead in my tracks, because I'd sworn that, as a teacher, I would never say those words.
But the student was not intimidated---he knew it wasn't a dumb question. He looked me right in the eyes and said, 'Just give me a dumb answer.'" Scott, pages 51-52 (Hahn stumped several of his Protestant preacher and professor friends with the same question. None were able to answer it.)

On a day Scott spent with Dr. John Gerstner, a "Harvard-trained, Calvinist theologian with strong anti-Catholic convictions" -- a meeting the Hahns hoped would convince Scott to stay Protestant:

"'Dr. Gerstner, I think the primary issue is what the Scripture teaches about the Word of God, for nowhere does it reduce God's Word down to Scripture alone. Instead, the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is to be found in the Church, her tradition (2 Th. 2:15, 3:6) as well as her preaching and teaching (1 Pet. 1:25, 2 Pet. 1:20-21, Mt. 18:17). That's why I think the Bible supports the Catholic principle of sola verbum Dei, the Word of God alone, rather than the Protestant slogan, sola scriptura, Scripture alone.'
Dr. Gerstner responded by asserting---over and over again---that Catholic tradition, the popes and ecumenical councils all taught contrary to scripture.
'Contrary to whose interpretation of Scripture?' I asked. 'Besides, church historians all agree that we got the New Testament from the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgments to Rome for the Pope's approval. From 30 to 393 is a long time to be without a New Testament, isn't it? Besides, there were many other books that people back then thought might be inspired, such as the Epistle of Barnabus, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. There were also several New Testament books, such Second Peter, Jude and Revelation, that some thought should be excluded. So whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn't teach with infallible authority?'
Dr. Gerstner calmly replied, 'Popes, bishops and councils can and do make mistakes. Scott, how is it that you can think God renders Peter [the first pope] infallible?'
I paused for a moment. 'Well, Dr. Gerstner, Protestants and Catholics agree that God most certainly rendered Peter infallible on at least a couple of occasions, when he wrote First and Second Peter, for instance. So if God could render him infallible when teaching authoritatively in print, why couldn't he prevent him from errors when teaching authoritatively in person? ... how can we be sure about the 27 books of the New Testament themselves being the infallible word of God, since fallible Church councils and Popes are the ones who made up the list?'
I will never forget his response.
'Scott, that simply means that all we can have is a fallible collection of infallible documents.'
I asked, 'Is that really the best that historic Protestant Christianity can do?'
'Yes, Scott, all we can do is make probable judgments from historical evidence. We have no infallible authority but Scripture. ... Like I said, Scott, all we have is a fallible collection of infallible documents.'
Once again, I felt very unsatisfied with his answers, though I knew he was representing the Protestant position faithfully. I sat there pondering what he had said about this, the ultimate issue of authority, and the logical inconsistency of the Protestant position.
All I said in response was, 'Then it occurs to me, Dr. Gerstner, that when it comes right down to it, it must be the Bible and the Church---both or neither.'" -pages 74-76

On yielding to God:

"My dad could sense the sadness in my voice.
He asked, 'Kimberly, do you pray the prayer I pray every day? Do you say, Lord, I'll go wherever you want me to go, do whatever you want me to do, say whatever you want me to say and give away whatever you want me to give away?'
'No, dad, I don't pray that prayer these days.' He had no idea of the agony I was enduring over Scott's being Catholic.
He said, genuinely shocked, 'You don't?!'
'Dad, I'm afraid to. I'm afraid if I prayed that prayer, that could mean joining the Roman Catholic Church. And I will never become a Roman Catholic!'
'Kimberly, I don't believe it will mean you will become a Roman Catholic. What it means is that Jesus Christ is either Lord of your entire life, or he isn't Lord at all. You don't tell God where you will and won't go. What you tell him is you're yielded to him.'" -page 115-116.

For more information about the book, click here. For all the posts about books I read in 2012, click here.

Pain.

"Because we are offered so many things that are immediately satisfying (albeit in a superficial way), it is hard to remain spiritually hungry. We give answers too quickly, take away pain too easily, and too commonly stimulate ourselves with nonsense. In terms of soul work, we dare not get rid of pain before we have learned what it has to teach us. Much that we call entertainment, vacations, or recreation are merely diversionary tactics, and they do not 're-create' us at all. The word vacation is from the same root as vacuum, and means to 'empty out,' not to fill up. One wonders how many people actually have such vacations!

We must be taught HOW to stay with the pain of life, without answers, without conclusions, and some days without meaning. That is the path, the perilous dark path of true prayer. It is how contemplative prayer differs from the mere recitation of prayers (which can actually be another diversionary tactic instead of any kind of self-emptying)." -Richard Rohr

Always be working.

As I kid, I had two primary chores (among many miscellaneous others):

folding laundry and emptying/loading the dishwasher.

Most days, I had two primary goals:

to not fold laundry and to not empty or load the dishwasher.

With three words at a time, I'd put off my chores:

"In a minute!"
"One second, please!"
"I'm busy now!"

My dad often had three of his own words for me:

"Always be working."

Oh how I disagreed. How I knew the work would never end and that to acquiesce to a suggestion like "always be working" meant... I always would be working. How I did not imagine that in 2012, at 26, as a writer and a grad student, I'd discover that finally, I agree with my dad.

I know now that he didn't mean "never take a break." He meant "do what you need to do first and do what you want to do later."

Because if you do what you want to do first, you'll run out of time to do what you have to do. Then you'll have to rush and it'll be reckless and you'l be stressed.

Because if you do what you want to do first, you might not enjoy it as much. You'll be preoccupied by knowing there's stuff you've got to do later (especially if it's stuff you don't want to do).

Because it feels really good when at the end of the day -- as a result of doing what I have to do first -- I have time left to work out, read for leisure and write on my blog.

This is not to say it isn't still a challenge.

Most afternoons, when I get home from work, I say, "In a minute!" to myself when I want to watch back to back episodes of the Waltons instead of making flashcards.

Gratefully, most afternoons, I shut off the TV and think of the following:

"Always be working."

A reflex.

Allow me to reenact a segment of a phone call to my desk at work:

Me: "Hi! How are you?"
Caller: "Fine. How are you?"
Me: "I'm good. How are you?"

Awk-ward.

Plus any indication of a sincere interest in her state of being is thwarted when it becomes clear that "how are you" has become a reflex. In the moment, it's equal parts embarrassing and hilarious. In retrospect, it's a little scary. What else do we say (or do) so much that it loses meaning (or we lose awareness of it)?

The bee.

In the heat of Florida's version of February, I leaned over my aging car's engine to check the oil (Don't be fooled -- it is one of only two things I do to cars. The other is pump gas.). Afterward, I walked up the driveway toward the open garage. This is when I first encountered the bee.

Please note that since childhood, I've been averted to things that creep, crawl and fly, and more so if the things that creep, crawl and fly are covered in fuzz. The black and yellow bee flew past me, and into the garage.

Which is when I noticed the fuzz that covered it. Already, I didn't like the bee, though he or she was tiny and in no way apparently interested in me. So I stood on the line between the driveway and the garage and watched. The bee, I learned, intended to land on every thing in the garage at least once.

"Frick," I said. But I tried to be patient. I paced.

He or she spent a couple seconds on the treadmill. A couple more on the bike. A couple on the fridge. A couple on the bench. Then the bee flew toward the clothes line. This was a problem for me, in part because the laundry area of the garage is way back (it's a big garage) and it's way hard to coax a bee into flying from there to where I stood. This was also a problem, however, because of the dream I had a couple nights ago, in which -- in my garage -- I discovered a bee inside the dress I was wearing. In the dream, I naturally spent the entire ordeal standing completely still while thinking really hard about whether a way exists to get a bee out of your dress without ripping the dress off your body.

But back to the bee. I was able to brush off thoughts of the bee dream. Surely, the dream was not a premonition and certainly, I would not leave my driveway post until I saw the bee leave the garage, which, therefore, would prevent the bee from making a home out of any of the clothes drying on the line. And, in fact, the bee then flew from the laundry area to continue carrying out its M.O.

A couple seconds on a stack of books. A couple more on a Rubbermaid bin. A couple on the recyclables, which -- if you haven't seen my garage -- are very close to the line between it and the driveway.

I got brave and walked past the bee, into the garage. I leaned toward the bee.

"Get. Out."

He or she didn't leave.

I said it louder.

"Get. Out! Get out of my garage!"

Still didn't leave.

Bees, I thought. They never listen! I got frustrated.

"FRIIIIICK." I said. While the bee dilly-dallied, I wandered to the laundry area. The tables had turned.

Come on, bee, I thought. This is my garage. I work out here. I do laundry here. I cannot have you here when I do these things. I probably stomped my feet. I may have shaken a fist.

"GET. OUT."

The bee flew the line between the driveway and the garage. I watched until I no longer saw the bee.

Which is when I saw what I hadn't once seen throughout the entire encounter with the bee:

My neighbor. I'm pretty sure she saw everything...

except for the bee.

Books in 2012: I'll Quit Tomorrow

Through reading glasses* under a porch light in the backyard**, I spent a lot of last night reading I'll Quit Tomorrow: A Practical Guide to Alcoholism Treatment. I finished the book late this morning. Assigned reading for my substance abuse counseling class, the book is designed for substance abuse counselors, originally published in 1980 and written by Vernon E. Johnson, "founder and president emeritus of the Johnson Institute in Minneapolis," a treatment facility for alcoholics and their families.

I didn't expect to enjoy the book, because I judged it by its cover (no offense to its designer, should by way of internet miracle, he or she stumble upon this post). But now, I am really glad that my professor assigned it. What the future holds regarding the population of people with whom I'll work as a therapist has yet to be revealed, but should I wind up working with alcoholics or their families, some of what I got out of this book -- the third book I've read in 2012 -- will help me do it. And some of the excerpts I'll share below might resonate with anybody who has or hasn't been affected by alcoholism.

"The obvious question at this point is, 'Why don't these people see what is happening to them and quit drinking?' ... However, as one might expect, it is the wrong question. ... If you drop 'and quit drinking' from this inquiry, then you get to the real question: 'Why don't they see what is happening to them?' The answer is, they can't. ... Their defense systems continue to grow, so that they can survive in the face of their problems. The greater the pain, the higher and more rigid the defenses become; and this whole process is unconscious. Alcoholics do not know what is happening inside of themselves. Finally, they actually become victims of their own defense mechanisms. ... Not only are they unaware of their highly developed defense systems, they are also unaware of the powerful feelings ... buried behind them, sealed off from conscious knowledge, but explosively active. Because of this, judgment is progressively impaired--and impaired judgment, by definition, does not know it is impaired." -pages 27-28

"Now another powerful system of defense, equally unconscious, swings into action, namely, projection. Projection [in the realm of alcoholism, anyway] is the process of unloading self-hatred onto others. Again, the alcoholic does not know what is actually happening. The more hateful alcoholics unconsciously see themselves to be, the more they will come to see themselves as surrounded by hateful people. 'They are always trying to run my life,' or 'They are messing things up and making it harder for me!' ... In any case, this load of self-hatred must be dumped in order for alcoholics to survive." -page 31

Regarding what the wife of an alcoholic husband might say:

"... she reaches the point at which she actually says, 'I couldn't care less what happens to him.' Whereas, of course, all sane persons do care when the very structure of their established lives is being seriously threatened. If it were true that she did not care, it would be a mark of illness, not health. What she must learn is how not to be careless, but how to care and still cope." -page 95

And this is true regardless of whether you are or know an alcoholic:

"To put it exactly, the goal is to help the patient learn to discern accurately what his own behavior does to the other person emotionally. It is essential to know one's own feelings at a given moment, but in a life in relationship it is necessary to sense with equal accuracy the feelings of the other person. More particularly, it is important to recognize how one's own behavior influences someone else's emotional response. ... It is obvious, of course, that without personal insight empathy is impossible. One must be in touch with one's own feelings in order to have any real appreciation or understanding of another's." -pages 96-97

*It's true. I have reading glasses.

**Also true. We can do that in February in Florida. :)

Contraception.

One word describes a recent set of posts about contraception on a blog I frequent called Bad Catholic, written by a guy named Marc Barnes:

Brilliant.

Barnes, who I think might be a genius, is a college kid at Franciscan University of Steubenville and a clearly Catholic Christian whose humor (even if often sarcastic and occasionally irreverent in inexplicably appropriate ways) gets me every time. His recent two posts about contraception explain why the Catholic Church is opposed to it and expose the reality that until relatively recently, so was every Protestant church. Both posts are so very worth the read. 

From part 1:

"The natural end of sex is both unity and procreation. Love and life. Shocking, but true. If this is denied, and it is claimed that sex is solely about making babies, then you’re a jerk in the vein of Henry VII, and a Puritan besides. If, on the other hand, it is claimed that sex is solely about pleasure, one must contend with the shocking fact of what — precisely — leaves a man and enters a woman.

To argue otherwise is to look at a farmer casting seeds upon fertile ground and claim that he is casting the seed for the pure joy of seed-casting. This is not to say there is no joy, even a wild joy, to be found in planting a field. It is simply to note that it would be an insane man who would plant his field by the logic that throwing seeds is fun, and then become shocked and annoyed when his field bore grain in due season. Every part of the action of sex speaks to the creation of new life."

From part 2:

"Not one, single Protestant denomination before the 1930′s held that the use of artificial contraception was anything but sinful. May I ask, what on earth has changed, besides the fact that we now live in a culture that really, really wants birth control?"

Before you click off my site and on to Barnes's posts, you should know that because the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception does not mean the church expects couples to have sex so willy-nilly that they wind up like the Duggars. The church does teach that if a couple is sexually active, it should a) be married and b) be open to children (Click here and refer to the third question the priest asks an about-to-be-married couple right before the vows at a Catholic wedding.). But the church is not opposed to family planning. It is not opposed to your own deciding when you will and won't have kids. It is opposed to your own deciding when you will and won't be fertile (as well as to rendering a womb unsafe for and/or discarding fertilized eggs [which are a.k.a. super tiny babies]). Sex, according to the Church, is for babies and for bonding, until God says otherwise.

So much more I'd like to say about sex and contraception. In due time. But in the meantime, if you're wondering how a couple can decide when to and not to have kids without deciding when to and not to be fertile, click on the third and fourth links below for a couple old posts about natural family planning. But first, go read Bad Catholic:

Click here to read Why Contraception Is a Bad Idea #1 — Natural Law in full on Bad Catholic.

Click here to read Why Contraception is a Bad Idea #2 — Scripture Prohibits It in full on Bad Catholic.

For more about natural family planning, click here and here.

Social Media: The Beginning and the End.

Happy anniversary to me!

Today, I celebrated my second anniversary as a person who isn't on Facebook. It was magical -- dancing, flowers, chocolate covered smartphones. You name it.

All right, actually -- I woke up, went to work, had a bagel. But when I thought of it, I read THIS, the first Facebook story of mine to be published. I wrote it in 2005, a) before I was good at writing and b) because I -- adorably -- thought this new "server" called "thefacebook" (Yes, kids, it was called that.) was fascinating. Little did I know "fascinated" would morph over time into "passionately against" and play a giant role in my life and career. Anyway, once again -- seven years later -- my apologies to Bobby Lewis (That'll only make sense, friends, after you read what I wrote for the Oracle.).

But back to my day -- I quietly reflected on what I really can't believe: it has been two years.

Two years since, when I tried to quit, Facebook said this:

I wonder if they DO miss me.

Sneaky, sneaky -- but, "Sorry, Facebook," I said. "Olivia, Manny, Olivia, Kim and Laurel will have to suck it up." I pressed on toward deactivation.

Obvs, "I spend too much time using Facebook." So I selected it. Which I figured would finish the process. Only, I was wrong.

"I know me better than you do, FB. It'll never work." -Me.

Needless to say, I had to know what other ploys to coerce a person into not quitting helpful hints Facebook planned to offer. So, I tried a couple other selections:

and

Silly Facebook.

Unconvinced, I continued toward deactivation. One step remained:

What you can't see under the security check is something like
"I've been trash talking social media for years. It's time to
practice what I preach."

I just had to type "opposition uncled," and it would be finished. I would have no Facebook account.

And so...

Please don't email adawg85@hotmail.com. I don't remember the password.

I did it.

I really did it.

And I really don't miss Facebook.

Social Media: Man Without a Facebook

Best. Trailer. Ever. I've posted it before, but it gets me every time.

Guy 1: "Just send him a message on Facebook!"

Guy 2: "BY GOD, WE'RE FRIENDS IN REAL LIFE."

Social Media: What he said!

Watch this:



What he said.

Social Media: A Happy Anniversary.

A line lies between the world of regular people and one where lots of regular people fear to tread. Two years ago this Friday, I crossed it. Some friends cheered me on. Some tried to stop me. Others haven’t spoken to me since. In some opinions, what I did is absurd. But in my opinion, what I did isn't so bad.

I quit Facebook.

In honor of this -- the anniversary of one of lots of steps I've taken away from social media -- several posts this week and next will further fuel my passion for steering clear of the stuff (and possibly frustrate the folks who don't share my sentiments).

Stay tuned.

Fall upward.

"Did you know the first half of life has to fail you? In fact, if you do not recognize an eventual and necessary dissatisfaction (in the form of sadness, restlessness, emptiness, intellectual conflict, spiritual boredom, even loss of faith, etc.), you will not move on to maturity. You see, faith really is about moving outside your comfort zone, trusting God's lead, instead of just forever shoring up home base. Too often early religious 'conditioning' largely substitutes for any real faith.

Usually, without growth being forced on us, few of us go willingly on the spiritual journey. Why would we? The rug has to be pulled out from beneath our game, so we redefine what balance really is. More than anything else, this falling/rising cycle is what moves us into the second half of our own lives. There is a 'necessary suffering' to human life, and if we avoid its cycles we remain immature forever. It can take the form of failed relationships, facing our own shadow self, conflicts and contradictions, disappointments, moral lapses, or depression in any number of forms.

All of these have the potential to either edge us forward in life or to dig in our heels even deeper, producing narcissistic and adolescent responses that everybody can see except ourselves. We either 'fall upward,' or we just keep falling." -Richard Rohr