Le Sigh

I am teh evil person who has neglected to update their blog. Bite me.

As an interesting note, my local poetry group is doing this gig in February, in which you can read love, or anti-love poetry. I am slightly confused on this score---does this mean anti-LOVE poetry, or anti-love-POETRY? Same difference, I suppose, though I could probably complain more about love poetry, than love. Sadly, I have never fallen in love, despite the fact that I have diligently searched for someone I could fall in love with. What can I say, I'm picky!

And, what is love poetry about? Is love poetry really supposed to be about the person you are in love with, or is it about you, and how you can express your love in language? You know, the great exaltation of your love, you much you LOVELOVELOVE the person who are...in love with! As if love was a heroic exercise---like defeating a great enemy or something.

But, still...I enjoy love poetry that makes me fall in love, just a little, with the subject. I want to know that they're beautiful, even if they're not, I want to know their delicate charms, even if their charm lies in clumsiness, I want a little collections of facts that are totally irrelevant to love itself, but somehow seem to make it live.

The Tall and Short of It: Appearances

Anyone who has a visible disability. Anyone who is different---taller. Fatter. Missing a limb. Using a wheelchair. Has eyes that are two different colors. Wears clothing that differs from the norm. Anyone, in short, who attracts attention. We all know it.

I was perusing an interesting post on the blog, Feministing. http://feministing.com/archives/006185.html

It was written by a tall woman. Taller, in fact, than many men. And one paticular paragraph caught my eye

"I've come to realize that I can learn a lot about people I meet by how they react to my height. Lately, having just moved to a new place, this has been happening a lot. Most of them will wait until the second or third time we've hung out to casually insert into conversation, "So.... how tall are you exactly?" This is a question I realize probably occurred to this person within the first few minutes of our meeting, and the time elapsed until they ask it aloud is the time it took them to feel comfortable around me."

Anyone is slightly unusual or different recognizes this situation. You're causally chatting with a stranger, in line, or you both just happened to be surveying the grocery store's array of pickles, and they started to talk. Then, comes the moment. Their voice becomes just slightly apologetic or embaressed, and their eyes flick from your face to the pickles, and back again. And then they ask,

"So...why do...what happened...how did...I hope you don't mind but I wondered....is it hard to X when you're Y?"

Or:

"I knew someone like you once, and they..."

Sometimes I don't care. But more and more, I just get this tight clenching in my stomach, and I want to get my pickles and abandon them in mid-sentence. The realization that this whole time, they were just working up the courage to ask you a question, a question that you've probably answered dozens, or even hundreds of times before. You realize that, to this person, no matter how polite or kind, you are reduced to your missing hand or your wheelchair. Your clothing. They noticed that you were different, and that was all.

You glibly answer the question---the answer has been rehearsed and acted out so many times that you can get it under a minute by now. You try to be soothing. Underlying your words, a slight panic, and reassuring messages.

Don't be afraid of me.

I'm not that different.

Really, I'm just like you.

If you succeed, they relax, you chat for a minute or two more, you get your pickles, and you leave. But sounding in your mind again is that eternal message: you're different, you're different, and that scares me. You're different, and I'm unsure if you're really quite human like the rest of us.

Some people never manage to work up the courage, and they stare at you from around a corner, or from the corner of their eyes. Sometimes, your eyes meet, and they stare blankly for a moment, startled. Then they jerk away, quickly assuming a causal, I wasn't staring at you face.

Some people translate their fear into mockery, or rudeness. I was in the mall, and a boy, passing with his buddies, called out, "Hey Amish!" I was surprised enough that I didn't say anything; either about his jerkiness or his improper grammar. I am not Amish. The Amish don't deserve to have their name used as an insult.

Another time, a college age guy felt that it was appropriate to, as I was sitting, obviously reading in a Barnes and Noble, call out "Amish?" Next time, I might just yell back, "Stupid?"

You're torn. You don't want to be a jerk. You don't want to be rude. But a natural defensiveness developes. You remain cautious when you begin to speak, wondering if they just want to satisfy their curiosity. If the inevitable question will be asked once more.

This has made me very aware---and wary---of judging or asking anyone about their differences. I don't want to be one of the faceless people who feel it is their right to single you out for your difference---to ask, to interupt, to sidle up in a friendly manner until your question has been worked up to, and answered.

I have a face. I have a name.

And so does every different person in this universe.

Know it, and think before you speak.

Paradise Lost, Prada, Poetry

When you're debating over whether to blog your experience of Paradise Lost, lament your idiotic lust of handbags you will never own, or the poetry reading at your local Borders, you know that you need to stop right there. Just dropping a note to let people know that I am alive and intend to 'blog Paradise Lost' in my next post. I feel guilty, as though I were coping that guy who blogged the Bible, but since iyov asked...

http://www.blogger.com/profile/16900943829679088001

Paradise Lost and Personal Libraries

I always buy books thematically. About six months back, it was poetry. Ted Kooser expanded my shelves, Garrison Keillor's Good Poetry suddenly arrived, I memorized long passages from Beowulf. Then it swung to early American history, and Alexander Hamilton and debates about the constitution started arriving in the mail. Then, a fit of children's fantasy took over, and their shining covers still brighten my shelves. After that, Greece and Rome (I bought the Iliad, technically poetry, but it's the same idea) Bibles have now taken a large chunk out of my pocketbook, and I still can't resist them, especially if I find them used.

Now, it is come full circle to poetry. It started with the Norton Critical Edition of Paradise Lost. Brand new from Borders, and jammed with all those wonderful juicy extras that Norton always includes, it cost me $10. That's right. $10. Try your Borders, that's a steal.

I am currently trampling my way through, recording some observations in a separate notebook, refusing to defile those shining margins. At least, until I've read through it at least once. When Milton's sentences have thoroughly saturated my mind, I pick up Wordsworth, his Prelude, in another Norton Critical edition.

I resisted temptation mightily when trying to decide between Wordsworth and Tennyson at the bookstore; I love Tennyson, one of the few poets that I do love, and yet I knew that I needed to broaden my horizons. I hadn't read enough of Tennyson. I nearly hurled both of them back onto the shelf and grabbed Robert Browning, but I knew, deep inside, that it was a compromise. I don't dislike Wordsworth or Browning, I simply love Tennyson very much.

At least I have decided on one thing: I will purchase my poetry more systematically. Because those Norton Critical editions are well-designed, jammed with extras and extraordinarily cheap (usually from $12-14, with a few in the $20s) I intend to buy my poetry in that format, and lend at least a show of order to my disorganized, wild, and crazy library.

The author realizes that this post somewhat contradicts the previous, however, said author has decided to call it 'tension' instead of contradiction, and feels quite happy about hitting upon such a neat solution.

One Book At A Time--Not Me!

There's one book that I read every day, and that is the Bible. There. But maybe the Bible simply illustrates my reading habits.

I almost never, ever read one book at a time.

Occasionally, there's a book that I sit down and read straight through, front to back, because it's a really good book. But most of the time, I have five or six various reading 'projects' going on at the same time. I inhale the written word. Whether this is a good or bad habit, it goes on and on.

My reading is sometimes thematic. I'll bang out several poetry books in a few weeks. Suddenly, acting is fascinating. If I had the money to buy all the books that I thought I needed to study my current obsession, I would own a private library. And then again, I could be reading an old childhood favorite, such as "Journey from Peppermint Street" alongside "Trading Territories: Mapping the Early Modern World", which, while well-written and fascinating, is a bit higher on the reading scale than Peppermint St.

I would love to get reading suggestions from people on nonfiction books. Although I own various poetry volumes, half a dozen Cadfaels, the afore mentioned children's story, and some other fiction books, I actually read more nonfiction than anything else.

Current reading obsession: mathematics.

Modesty

OK, so I just copied the title of a post from teampyro.blogspot.com. But I admitted it! Here's the original post, and if you want to have some interesting reading, check it out

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/05/modesty.html

I managed to throw in a few words. When I attempted to comment again, my scintillating and insightful...insights...were lost to the blogging world. I'm pretty sure that it's just my computer or me, messing it up again. I gotta figure out where those comments are going. Maybe you have never had the experience of a brilliant yet humble, gentle but unyielding, stern but gentle reflection upon the human condition get eaten by blogger. Well, it's tragic.

I've combed through many posts about modesty. Some, controversial (SEE ABOVE) and some on those pink and purple blogs that Christian women seem to feel obligated to use. I'm serious. What is with that hideous pink that Moms always seem to use? You're hurting my eyes. Oh, and those are never controversial.

There are many assumptions made in people who want to see modesty. For the sake of clarity, let me define what modesty actually means in most posts. (And I'm not simply talking about teampyro's post, which has certainly received a busy pummeling)

"Modesty/Modest: Clothing that meets fuzzy cultural or subjective standards of conservative, good girlness. Modesty is a virtue most needed by women, who arouse lust in men by their inappropriate clothing, or lack thereof. Men just need a side note about modesty, and certainly not an entire blog post. Men, however, do get lectures (and sometimes very good ones) about lust. Modesty is a lost virtue that, if regained, would help to restore this sex-crazed society or at least help curb whole sale lusting. I'm talking to you, young lady!"

It is my contention, however, that most arguments or pink and purple blog posts about modesty are busily hacking the weed off---at ground level. Modesty is EASY to make rules about. It's EASY to make fun of the 'dumb girl' who doesn't realize that her hot bod is doing to the guy across the aisle, it's EASY to make fun of the parents who froth at the mouth when anyone gently suggests that it might be a good idea if Lil Honey didn't wear jeans with JUICY across her bottom.

It is NOT EASY to face the root of it. It's not hard to challenge a society that glorifies porn, that turns women into separate body parts, that tells you that you have failed, as a women, if you are not sexy and desirable. That's why you can see unattractive heroes, but never (almost) unattractive heroines in the movies. Because no one can love an ugly women---a woman is defined by her looks.

So when Helen in her JUICY pants walks down the aisle to sit next to her friends, your first thought is not "Who told her that she needed to be juicy?" your first thought is "Wow---she IS!" Or the girl in the short shorts and the flimsy top is now just long legs and breasts. Women aren't people. They are simply a collection of gratifying lust objects.

This root causes lust in places like Saudi Arabia. If guys mentally undress immodest women, than the guys there just have to take a little bit longer. I'm serious. No amount of clothing stops lust. Maybe it stops some of the fleeting thoughts that cause some people so much guilt---they get obsessive over it, when they should recognize biological realities and simply say "I'm a human, and they are humans, too, not just there to please me"---but it sure doesn't stop lust.

Lust is not stopped by clothing. Lust does not come from someone other than yourself. Immodesty (according to your culture) can help feed your lust, but it does not create it. Immodesty does not create lust. LUST, and a fallen society, create immodesty. Lust flourishes the world over, it does not matter what the women or the men wear.

Then why is everyone so worried about modesty, if lust can and does flourish no matter what?

Because it is easy. Our human minds don't like to let other people choose so freely, we want to be able to set up rules, it's fun and self gratifying to make fun of people who don't meet those rules or standards. It's easy to blame someone else who forced you to sin, because all pity is immediately transferred to you. Adam started it, and it's been a long and 'glorious' tradition ever since.

It is not easy to confront a corrupt culture. It is not easy to realize that we must

"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph 6:11-12 TNIV)

Immodesty, culturally bound as it is, is not the enemy. Satan probably enjoys the in-fighting, the bickering, the skirt measuring, the mental standards that we measure other people with. Meanwhile, he is busy telling us that he is not the enemy... the women are. Lust is not the enemy...immodest (women/men) are...lust doesn't create immodesty or porn...immodesty and porn create lust...if you just got modesty right, all your problems would go away. Once you find the perfect standard, once you find the perfect, fulfilling wife/husband, once you put on the right clothing--you will win.

But lust is the enemy. Lust does create porn. People do have wonderful spouses, and they still struggle with lust. People have created 'perfect' standards, and they've found that the enemy isn't without...it's within.

I can and am irritated by the various other problems with many modesty arguments and mistakes (Women aren't really tempted visually, and if they are, it's just weirder and a recent phenomena produced by a wicked society, all immodest women are flaunting their bodies to seek affirmation, not sex, all immodest women want you to notice their awesome body, women should be more concerned with modesty than men should, women need to be more modest and careful, women create sin with their bodies, blah, blah)

But I didn't devote my blog post to that. Because once we recognize the real enemy, we can fight it.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. (Eph 6:10)

TNIV Spotting!

On reflex, when reading a book that quotes the Bible, I check the copy right page, just to see what translation they're using (no need when the KJV is used, the Kings English can be spotted a mile away) and almost invariably, it is the NIV. The few exceptions are usually the NASB.

Imagine my surprise and delight when I turned to the copy right page of the book above....and saw that the TNIV was used!

The book itself was interesting and frustrating. Jarrett Stevens wrestles with our various misconceptions of God, and provides some tantalizing insight...but it feels like the book stopped short of an all out smack down, a real wrestling match with our doubts and fears and questions. I wanted Stevens to take names, and really Chuck Norris 'em. Still, it was a humorous, interesting Borders read---the type of book that's short enough for me to read in one Borders visit.

(The Message is also used in spots in the book)

Still, it was nice to make my very first TNIV spotting!

My (Non)Favorite Preacher!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKHILew-laI

Let me clarify right off the---OK, I can't think of the right word, but let me clarify right away that I do not intend to demonize Mark Driscoll. It would be dishonest to say that this dude is a jerk freshly-dipped in hell fire, ready to gobble down your children. I've listened to one sermon by him, and appreciated it. So you have to understand that I have limited contact with his preaching, appreciate some of what he is doing, and bang my head against the keyboard at the rest. I mean, look at this quote

Mark Driscoll

“So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: young men. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business,
you get everything. If you don’t get the young men you get nothing. You get nothing.”

So young women do not get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate, they don't make the culture of the future (despite making up 51% of the population) and if you get young women, you don't win the war, you don't get everything, you don't get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business, you don't get everything. If you don't get young women, you're not losing out too bad. If you don't get young women, it doesn't matter.

He seems to be stating, basically, that once you get young men, the women are dragged along inside. Good for macho Driscoll, 'cause that way, he doesn't have to worry about appealing to the "feminine" half of humanity (a very dirty word for Markie) because that would be really below him. In fact, to appeal to women, he would have to soften his theology, sing love songs to Jesus, and wear a pink suit, because according to Mark, that's what women want. In fact, the feminization of the church is a big concern for Mark, because you see, feminine equals silly, vapid, empty, directionless, soft, liberality.

See, what Mark and "God" know is that the church needs a big shot of masculinity, because masculinity equals strong, no-nonsense, pure, vision-oriented, conservative, intelligent churches. It doesn't matter to Mark that men historically have started the major cults, and have lead the church. The church is dominated by male leadership and male theology. So to take the mess that is our current American church and dump it into the laps of women/feminists is silly and immature.

Oh, and churches that don't target 22-25 year old men aren't innovative because the innovators aren't there? OK, that's sexist beyond belief. Because the huge implication is that women are not and cannot be innovators.

Lame, lame, lame.

And I leave you with this.

So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get Caucasians? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: whites. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the white people you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the blacks, the children, the money, the business, you get everything. If you don’t get the Caucasians you get nothing. You get nothing.

Why is it OK to be sexist?

Duhhh...Complementarianism Strikes Again!

I did something that I shouldn't have done. I searched "women" on a complementarian blog. I seemed fairly innocuous, most of the stuff you've heard before. But this one really cracked me up.

Here's a link to the original post Genesis 3: Curses, Consequences and Covering and the excerpt

She was also told that her husband would rule over her. The headship of the man existed before the fall, so this ruling over her is not evil in and of itself, but Eve did assert herself by taking the fruit while Adam looked on. The seed was planted for women to feel under appreciated and they would at times be rebellious to their husbands, but the men would ultimately rule over them, as God’s definition of the family can not be usurped by any act of man.

On that last phrase "God's definition of the family cannot be usurped by any act of man."

Exactly. God doesn't redefine sin because humans think that adultery is fine. However, humans go right on committing adultery. It is utterly silly to suggest that men continued to rule over their wives because if they didn't, it would mean that God's definition of the family would be redefined. If, as I anticipate, homosexuals are allowed to marry, does this redefine GOD'S definition of marriage! Of course not, that is simply illogical. Women disobeying God's supposed decree that husbands rule over their wives wouldn't redefine God's definition of marrige, anymore than homosexual marriage would.

People misuse language, but doesn't change the language. Despite humankind's redefinitions of all of God's laws and decrees, they still stand. People simply disobey them.

OK, so let's check out what Genesis says here, and I'm using the ESV, no stealthy TNIV here.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be for[e] your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Sounds fairly simple. However, for fun, let's make a version that makes it easier to swallow this complementarian's interpretation.

NEW COMPLEMENTARIAN VERSION! Genesis 3: 16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be for[e] your husband, and he shall rule over you and even though him ruling you isn't really evil or part of the curse, you will feel under appreciated, and you'll try to rebel against him, but he'll manage to keep you in line anyway.

Genesis seemed pretty simple.

Oh, and I love "Eve did assert herself." Oh my goodness. Even though God actually told them not to eat the fruit, the really tear-jerker for a complementarian is the idea that Eve "asserted" herself. The problem isn't that she disobeyed his husband. She disobeyed God. The problem is not that Adam obeyed his wife----the problem is that in obeying his wife, he disobeyed God.

Overall, this is an even worse argument than the "he ruled her before the fall, but now husbands would be mean rulers" one.

Sigh. I really shouldn't have. It's a guilty pleasure. And it's a pain. I should give myself a rest sometimes.

Chocolate People Are Funny!

I was browing seventypercent.com, a site devoted to chocolate. 70% referring to the amount of cacao---the part of a choco bar that makes it chocolate. I admire their dedication, enjoy chocolate, but this review really amused me!

Aroma transfers to flavor both in content and in intensity, as this is by no means a shy chocolate. Ash surges on the tongue, but it quickly settles down and is then followed by sweet whisky with mild tropical fruits laid on top, which is further succeeded by shy blackberries.

Down with shy chocolate, I say! I'm tired off these wall flowers chocolates hiding in tiny whole food stores and hip cafes! And those durn blackberries...no wonder I can find them!

I also enjoyed the review that referred to a chocolate as actually being a virgin bride in her white wedding dress---not an exact quote. Still, you gotta think that too many 100% percent bars went to the reviewer's head on that one.

Teehee.

Teehee.

"shy-no-more"

opinion-minion

Wow! A Wide Margin Bible Blip on my Life Radar

New King James Wide Margin Reference Bible NKJV Leather

Check out that recently ended auction. It's pretty good for a bonded leather Bible---it reminds me of an Oxford KJV interleaved that went for $500. I remember squinting at the somewhat shadowy picture of it, and wondering vaguely why someone would pay that much money for a Bible with some blank paper in it. It looked nice, but not $500 nice, at least, in my opinion.

OK, so was this NKJV Bible really worth $318? The short answer is no. A bonded leather wide margin Bible, insert your favorite translation (except of course, the TNIV, which causes Rick Mansfield much grief) is worth around $35 to $40. Add genuine leather cover, and you're looking at the very least fifty, and the price just climbs from there.

The long answer, and one that I think is interesting, is that there were four different people, all willing to pay over $100 dollars to own a wide margin Bible in their favorite/preferred translation. 3 of those bidders went over $200.

Now, it must be added that this Bible is out of print, or, as booksellers put it, OOP. Thomas Nelson didn't slap a retail of three hundred dollars on this Bible. 2000 pages of text with fat margins to scribble in, even with a fako-bako leather cover just isn't worth it. But...it was, to several people.

I think that there's a interesting tension between the fact that Thomas Nelson stopped printing the Bible, presumably because of low sales, and the fact that several people are willing to pay that much over the original price tag (which, unfortunately, I do not know)

Women, Last Names, and Feminism

I've seen this brought up several times in a debate. Whether someone is squabbling over the TNIV, or debating egalitarianism vs patriarchy, any women who has dared to keep her own last name is immediately pegged.

She has "noticeably" kept her own last name. It's mentioned in a tone pregnant with meaning, hands coming up to shield whispering mouths. For someone who doesn't attach any evil meaning to a woman keeping her own name, it looks distinctly silly and malicious.

If I wanted to do exegesis the way that I've seen it done many times, I could come up with an argument that CLEARLY SHOWS that MEN should TAKE THE LAST NAME OF THEIR WIFE. Anyone who doesn't is obviously showing their unwillingness to obey the clear teaching of Scripture. Here it is

Why Men Should Take their Wife's Last Name

Genesis 2:24 ESV Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

As is so clearly illustrated in this text, the man is leaving his father and mother. He's going to become the spiritual priest of his own home, and bring his wife under his covering {interjecting: that sounds wrong} thus forming a new family unit.

However, people don't like to take the Bible the way that the Bible is. They like to make it fit their societies, and what they want it say. They have "itching ears." I'm just giving you some background here, so you'll understand why I condemn the practice of women taking the last name of their husband.

When a man keeps his last name, it's a symbol of his connection to his old family. It's a sign of dependence, not autonomy. He's forced to stay connected, in a perverse way, to his old family, making a weird conglomeration of two households--with him and his father forming a wrong two headed priesthood.

The MAN is to LEAVE. It is NEVER said that women leave their families. When she keeps her last name, it's a symbol of female dependence and need for connection and support. When a man takes his wife's last name, he's simply severing his connection with his own family, and showing his Christ-like acknowledgement of the fact that his wife just needs more emotional shoring up than he does.

In conclusion, I have clearly proven that men should take their wives's last names. Anyone who disagrees with me is a godless liberal who is discarding orthodox doctrine. Anyone who agrees with me is one of the godly remnant, who are holding fast to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Thank you.

My Beef with the TNIV

I just couldn't believe it when I saw it. How could the TNIV do this? Could any honest person with a knowledge of Greek actually justify this unwarranted tampering with the text?

OK, OK, I'm being a little silly here. But I really wish that the TNIV would simply put brackets around contested passages like the ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery. Now, they've put the entire passages into italics, and this is NOT good news for this lil lady's eyes.

Away with the italics!

(Warning, this is!) A Poem

I love our rhythm
we fall in beside each other; mellow.
There is an even tenor to all our ways.

I love your small smiles
that blossom under my sunshine
No one else can see
how beauty full you are

I love - the idea of love
and the untenable longings that quiver
between us: we will never
be satisfied. There will be
an ache behind our contentment.

You will never understand how I love -

the way I can never exhaust you as a subject.

I’ll always be able to describe the way
you lean your cheek into your hand, the soft
and supple flesh escaping around white,
concentrated fingertips; your frown of concentration.

The subtle shift of light in your eyes
as you drop the Wall Street Journal
and turn your eyes to me
shining.

We will not go to work today.
We will breath in hazy sunlight.
Under this whole wide sky
we’re the only ones ready
to rise to meet God in the air.

Yeah. I really love the way we spin out
onto reality’s finest edge, the black ice.
I love the way you make it the best thing in the world
to go crashing through.
Swept away.

And I’ll spend all day telling you this
and you will smile and nod.

Both of us will send messages
with our fingertips, delicately
catching
at paper-thin air.

Pigma Micron---Perfect Bible/Moleskine Pen

Isn't it perfectly hideous and marvelous at the same time? I picked up a Pigma Micron yesterday, size 03, and have been perfectly thrilled with it. I've used it in my fire engine red TNIV, and despite the fact that the paper is very thin (to keep the Bible under an inch thick) there has been NO bleed through. Yes, there's 'ghosting'--you can see it on the other side, but no ugly blotches, or anything. I expect it would be even better with higher quality paper.

It writes very smoothly, giving you the sensation of writing with an ordinary gel or Pilot pen (I call them "inky pens" although that is perfectly idiotic, considering that every pen is inky) without any of those sudden, uncomfortable scratchy feelings, or blots on your finger-tips. Although, since this gives me a delightfully self satisfied feeling (the ink blots) I may pick up my spluttery Pilot once in awhile.

It looks exactly like the type of pen that will last FOREVER. I certainly hope that it shall. (It writes very well in a Moleskine, by the way, it's pure, smooth, ecstasy.)

One Buck Short--or, Buying God

Three times today, someone was just one buck short.

I put back the packet of pens, too impatient to take the time to pick up the extra dollar that I needed.

I tapped my foot as I waited to purchase my one pen, and watched the man ahead of me deal ot a handfull of wrinkled tens and fives.

"Just one more," said the cashier pleasantly.

He put down a wrinkled one.

My friend came from the store, frustration written over her face. She held an unpaid bill in one hand.

"You dropped a dollar when I gave you that envelope to hold," she said "Give me a dollar."

I pulled a crushed dollar from my pocket, and handed it over.

Naturally, fiendish person that I am, I had to cannabalize a series of concidences to make an interesting blog post, but at least I admit my guilt.

I picked up a brilliantly red TNIV today, and my pen was a Pigma Micron, sacred pen, at least according to many people. It is a beautiful Bible, and it will certainly shine among the dignified navys, burgundies, powdered blues, dull gold and browns of my Bible collection. However, as I rummaged about for my Borders card, I questioned myself.

Was I searching for some Holy Grail Bible, some magically perfect volume---was I buying a Bible, or buying God? Or, buying my way to God? Buying some experience---"as the Borders register rings, a deep God experience from heaven springs?"

I don't just buy God through Bibles. Sometimes, I buy God through Bible study. When I turn over the pages of my wide margin Bible, and the colourful notations speak of my smug, self-serving Bible study, I fairly scream to myself "Wow! You've really bought God this time---look at that hard work!"

It's much easier for me to buy God than to speak with God. Because then, he's a person, and I'm too impatient to deal with people.

But I have a problem. I have to buy God every day. If I didn't...I'd come up short. I'd lose everything that I'd been working for. My god feeling, my self-righteousness. I'm pretty sure that's what Philippians 3 is about. I'm not quite as plain as Paul is, it's hard for me to grasp what it's about when I figure out that my self-righteousness doesn't mean anything. So, I come to God, and say this:

"Father, I know that I can't earn you. But I still try. In fact, I feel self-righteous when I tell you all of this. I feel smug that I realize that I'm hopeless. I feel smug that I admit my smugness. It pretty much ends up being a big advert for me, me, me. I'm sorry. Forgive. Help me. Really, really help me. Thanks for listening to lame prayers."

Faith is believing that.

Why can't Preachers Preach like Gerard Manley Hopkins Writes?

If preachers could preach like Gerard Hopkins (A Jesuit priest who converted to Catholicism against his parents wishes, he said he could not read their letters twice, they were so terrible) then you might have more people listening. He sounds more thrilled with God than anyone I know.


God's Grandeur

by Gerard Manley Hopkins

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs--
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

Nope, Mark Driscoll

Mark Driscoll, in discussing the ESV...


The ESV upholds the complementarian nature of gender in Scripture.Unbeknownst to the average Bible-reading Christian, there is a great debate raging in academic circles about the language of gender and how it relates to biblical translation.

It must be pointed out that, in its more insidious forms, the push for gender-neutral language is in fact a push against Scripture. For example, Scripture states that God made us “male and female” (for example, Genesis 1:27). Consequently, in God’s created order, there is both equality between men and women (because both are His image-bearers) and distinction (because men and women have differing roles). This position is called complementarianism and teaches that men and women, though equal, are also different in some ways and therefore function best together in a complementary way, like a right hand and left hand

Actually, Mark, complementarianism--what a stupid word! And I mean in an artistic sense, that is a very ugly word, like egalitarianism, which is saved by the fact that is actually means what the word suggests--- says that for some reason, even though the left hand can do exactly what the right hand can do, we should forbid the left hand from doing it.

Mark, you're a bit like the Catholic nuns who didn't allow my left handed father to write with his left hand, because it was "unnatural." Complementarianism does NOT teach that men and women are different---it simply forces them to conform to their definition of different. And, if you happen to be a female who fits better into their male position, than you, like a left hand, are forbidden to do what you can do. NOT because you are different, because you're actually not that different from their definition of male. But because you are the Left Hand. Only, and simply, because you are the Left Hand.

This should be admitted. You see, because everyone acknowledges that women can be effective leaders. What is debated is whether they SHOULD be effective leaders, of men as well as other women. Bad example. Especially when you have ambidextrous people who use their hands...equally...oh dirty word!

Why the ESV Bible Will/Won't Succeed.

By succeed I mean that it is consistently used by a significant number of people...a Bible that's taken for granted the same way that a KJV or an NIV is.

Why the ESV Bible Will Succeed

1. Because the ESV has managed, by hook or crook, to connect with many critical people.

Critical people are pastors, authors, bloggers. Bloggers love the ESV. Bloggers LOVE the ESV. And if they don't, their dissenting posts rahing for the TNIV, NASB, whatever, simply fade into blogdom oblivion...unless, of course, someone says that the TNIV could be better than the ESV. Then, stand back!

2. The ESV blog.

This is very, very smart. This is the future of how people will get all of their news. Their generous habit of mentioning those who blog about their Bible has to help.

3. Those funky, crazy, hip covers.

The Journaling Bible, in my mind, personifies Crossways' grasp on what people like, what looks pleasing and snazzy to the modern eye. They just draw attention.

4. Its position, real or imagined, as an alternative to Mother-God translations of the Bible. Its position, true or untrue, as an alternative to brain-softening "dynamic equivalent" versions. The way that it's posed as the youthful, cool young child of the outdated, archaic NASB...but it still comes with all the classic words and phrases.

5. The fact that it is a good translation, in many aspects.

I have no trouble using a myriad of versions, but I find that the ESV manages to help carry the flow of a Biblical passage. The ands, buts, therefores---it helps to mantain a connectedness that I haven't really found in "easier" translations, which tend to break the Bible into smaller bites.

Why the ESV Bible Will Not Succeed

1. Crossway.

I'm really sorry, but when people who love your translation are begging you to sell it to another publisher because you're doing such a shoddy job, you need to sit up. Crappy bindings, lousy paper, lousy layout, the ridiculously small print in the Journaling Bible---people want to love their Bible for years, not have it collapse after one. That, as I've heard, is not uncommon.

2. Its opposition, real or imaginary, against the TNIV.

Look, brag about your translation all you want, but when one of your most prominent translators (WayneGrudemcoughcough) is on an all out campaign to destroy another Bible, you're going to get mixed up in it. Modern people are going to think that you're stupid when your biggest concern is that some nuance of essential maleness is lost when you say "people" instead of "men." They don't give a damn, and you come off sounding like a fuddy-duddy.

3. ESV, the Red-Headed Stepchild of the Bookstore

I think that it was on Dan Edelen's blog ceruleansanctum.wordpress.com, that the ESV first got this title. I have to agree. In all of the bookstores that I have visited, the only ESV that I see are some Tru-Tone thinlines, hidden in boring black and silver boxes, an ugly Battlezone Bible, or some beat up paperbacks. The only exception is the imposing Reformation Bible, which, by its very title, possess a limited market. Meanwhile, every other version has cheaper, more visible, and just MORE on the shelf.

4. The fact that it's a literal translation

People want to give their children something that they can understand. People want to be sure that the Bible they're sharing with a non-church person will make sense to them. The fact that the ESV retains classic terms, such as propitation, are great for the churchese speaking Christian. Not for those who just want to know what the hell this book is trying to say.

5. The fact that it's not used in many study Bibles

Right now, there's the Reformation study Bible. And the children's Bible, which looks very nice. Meanwhile, we have NO

ESV Open Bible
ESV Life Application
ESV Thompson Chain
ESV Women's Bible
ESV Men's Bible
ESV Teen's Bible (other than the 3Story)
ESV Study Bible(which I understand is coming soon)
ESV by Cambridge publishers

Lots of great covers, but they're all basically text editions.

So there you have it. Five reason why the ESV will, or will not succeed. Anyone have more suggestions?

Coming Soon: Two New ESV Journaling Bibles

Coming Soon: Two New ESV Journaling Bibles

Ye gods!

If only I knew that they'd chosen a bigger font! Blind people can't read a 7.5 font!


And then to wrap the whole package in those lucious bindings!

I HATE CROSSWAY! WAHHHHHH!