Shadow And Light

Chiaroscuro is the art of painting using shadow and light, different shades of the same color for dramatic contrast. As a very prolific writer, I'd like to amuse myself with the thought that I do the same thing with words, painting in different shades of black and gray to paint a dramatic picture of my life as I experience it and as the lives of others are told to me by others. Indeed, it could be said that my entire writing (and possibly, my entire life) is a rather delicate dance of shadow and light. That's far too much to digest for one modest blog entry, but it is nonetheless a fitting comment.

A lot of people (and you know who you are) either complain personally to me, or to others, about the rather dark subjects I write about. Such dark subjects are not merely those I struggle with myself, but are also those topics that I am forced to deal with because of holding awkward confidences about other people that I have a difficult time dealing with. Without betraying any of those confidences, it can be safely said that those particularly unpleasant aspects of many of my writings are not based on what I have done, but are mostly based on what I know others to have done. Sometimes, though, to be fair, they are not always about what the people who are being written about themselves have done, if that makes any sense.

My fictional writing (and most of my nonfictional writing, to be blunt), with rare exceptions, is informed by the world I live in. For the most part, that is not a particularly pleasant world. The few plays I have that are not burdened by the real world share two notable characteristics in common--for one, they are often explicitly biblical in their writing (this would include just about all the plays of mine that can be said to be uniformly pleasureable, from "Ruth the Moabitess" to "The Biblical Reenactment Society" and "Keys of the Kingdom," the only play of mine to be set in some future time, namely the Kingdom of God). There is something to this. After all, it seems that I, as a writer, am only able to move above the rather grim nature of life in this current society (or past corrupt societies) when I am looking toward the world to come. There is a good lesson, or two, in this.

It is noteworthy to ponder how my nonfiction is quite similar. After all, much of my nonfiction also focuses on this world, and those works are often full of unfriendly commentary about class systems ("Servant Leadership and the Class System of the Church," "Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes"), generations ("Virtue and Value Are Not The Same," "Generations Study"), and so forth. In fact, it could be truly said that my writing springs from a desire to be true to life, to capture verisimilitude, at least how it appears to me (it should be noted that this may not be how others see the very same things, which can be the source of a lot of difficulty). There are also plenty of unintentional resemblances between my writing and the true character of the people who are being written about (though these are far too painful to mention in any greater detail).

So, how should my writings be viewed then? A large portion of how people view my writings depends on who they are. After all, some of my commentary about people in retrospect may seem rather ironic, when it was meant at first to be straightforward. Sometimes what appears to be an end is merely a new beginning, and sometimes what looks like a fresh chance is merely a dead end. The fact that my writing is part of a giant epic framework only complicates the matter further. There are, after all, family curses that extend over many generations, afflicting each in turn, events that occur that lead to other events over a century later (witness the unfortunate relation between "My First Mistress" and "Come Away With Me"). In other words, what I write is obscenely complicated (both words, of course, being worthy of far greater discussion than can occur here). In the various comings and goings of my characters doings, there is a sense of design, a purpose for all of the rather strange and sometimes unsettling occurrences. However, being true to life (or true to perception of life, which amounts to, in fiction, the same thing) often leads us to very unpleasant places. Those few characters of mine that are able to (largely) escape from the curse of Adam do so because of the grace of God, not because of any native goodness or cleverness on their own. And this is true for all of us in the real world--we are saved by the grace of God, not through our own efforts (and it is salutory to remember that).

It is my hope that someday a reasonably sympathetic (though honest) and erudite person will attempt to sort out (hopefully, after I am gone and my works are at an end) the rather convoluted nature of what I write. In doing so, there will have to be a lot of parsing out of various deeds. After all, not all of what goes in my writings is about me (I am not nearly that self-centered of a person). Indeed, the larger part of what I write is not about me, per se, at all, but rather about the world in which I live, a world which may bear only passing resemblance to the world in which other people live. And yet what I write so voluminously (few people have the patience to read more than a little of it), nay, even with a sense of logorrhea at times, is at the very basic level an attempt to communicate what is certainly a very odd world to other people that are perhaps less odd. It is also true that in much words there cannot be but at least a little folly. Perhaps the biggest folly of all is that I feel the need to say what is on my mind and what burdens me (which is far more than that which I have myself done), for rather we would all be better off if I did not have that compulsive need to chronicle life and those whose lives are proximate to my own. But, such is the subject of a rant for another day, perhaps.

The Trouble With Antinomians

According to antinomians, those who believe in the literal and inerrant truth of the Bible suffer from an inability to appreciate the literary excellence and fine figures of speech of the Bible and instead are cultural philistines whose very seriously held beliefs about the importance of obedience to God are nothing more than the prejudices of narrow-minded and unintelligent bigots. Obviously, being someone who takes the Bible quite seriously and quite literally, as well as being someone who has a great appreciation of literature (both as the writer of copious amounts of literature and the reader of a fair amount as well), I would appear to be at least somewhat suited to combat the false claims of the antinomians. So here goes.

It is beyond dispute that the Bible is a finely crafted work of literature. The Bible contains, for instance, a rich poetic language, some of it similar to Egyptian, Canaanite, Persian, and Babylonian literature (though far superior with regards to moral law). Certain customs in the Bible appear in the Nuzi tablets, or in the practice of Akkadian leaders, for example. The Bible's books include a hymnbook (which we call Psalms), numerous prophetic books (which could be said to be similar to oracular literature in other traditions, if one chooses to go that route), genealogies (of great interest to me, as I have been a student of family histories for many years), creation literature, historical chronicles, decrees, letters, apocalyptic literature, biographies, sermons, and so forth. All of this is a large amount of rather disparate literature in one book. The fact that it all shares a commonality of purpose and the divine dispensation of preservation is another matter entirely. It is important to realize, though, that a fine appreciation for the literary excellence of the Bible is not sufficient. Unlike other mere works of literature, the Bible was not written merely to entertain, but to instruct, and to serve as the blueprint for a moral life. This means we cannot view it merely with the eyes of literature appreciation, but must take its words and laws with the utmost of seriousness. Those of us who fail to do so, no matter how cultured they may think themselves, are behaving with a failure of respect and honor towards the divine ordinances of our Creator God.

It is strange that those who criticize law-abiding believers for being so foolishly literal minded are so foolishly literal minded about certain phrases that, when taken out of context, would seem to indicate that the law is done away with. For example, there is the pernicious expression translated in English as "under law." Whenever an antinomian sees the expression "under law," they behave as Pavlov's dog's do to the sound of a bell, and salivate at the mouth, spawning off vile insults at those who would point to a requirement for obedience among Christians today, especially when it comes to such issues as the Sabbath and Holy Days, clean and unclean meats, gender roles, laws of sexual morality, and so forth. However, in the context of Galatians, Romans, and so on, "under law" seems not to refer to the laws themselves, but but the administration of punishment without mercy for sin. It is only through the divine dispensation of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that we can hope to be redeemed of our sinful nature. But, as Paul clearly said on numerous occasions (as there were antinomians in his time), and as John and Peter said as well in their own various ways in their epistles, our respentance at baptism frees us from sin, not to sin, and we cannot know sin apart from the law. If we, in other words, are baptised, we will live in ways in accordance with God's law, not merely to be rewarded, or because we are under the "Old Covenant," but rather because we love God and wish to gain His righteous character, which is done through obeying and internalizing His laws in our lives, and applying them in spiritual ways, which do not contradict (nay, they expand) the previous physical applications.

One might then speculate (and I am unkind enough to do so), that it is not those who take the Bible seriously and seek to obey it that have the problem. It is rather that those who refuse to take the Bible seriously (a rather large population in this wicked world, I must admit) who have the inability to appreciate the seriousness of God writing the Decalogue with his hand in a cave high on Jabul Al-Musa, Mt. Horeb, Mt. Sinai, or the equally serious prohibitions on the habitually immoral in Romans, Corinthians, and Revelation, and elsewhere, from entering the Kingdom of God. For too long believers in the Bible have been made to feel as barbarians, uncivilized and hopelessly outdated, when in fact those who would disregard the Bible are as the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Gibeon in Judges, hastening towards their own fall.

It should be remembered, and is often forgotten, that the truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and error is error even if everyone believes it. What is right and wrong is not up for a popular vote, but simply is. Once the absolute nature of truth becomes under attack from moral philistines (look up Judges and 1 Samuel for that reference), then civilization as such becomes impossible. Civilization, after all, depends on a certain moral superiority to barbarism, which properly defined is any system whose legitimacy has no moral bearing and is dependent on force or fraud, rather than any reasonable and just bearing. The trouble with antinomians is that they mistake rebarbarism (the dog returning to his own vomit, as Hebrews says) for the peak of civilization, and confuse those who would arrest civilization's fall with uneducated barbarians. Though it is a popular mistake, it is a mistake the same, and one that needs to be brought home with a bit more fire and frequency. After all, we are engaged in a war for the survival of decency--we cannot throw down our arms merely because the fight is unpopular.

The Lasting Legacy of Jane Austen

I must admit, I am a fan of Jane Austen, that early 19th century British spinster who wrote some of the best novels in the English language. Though she only wrote six novels (and two, Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, were not quite complete at her premature death), her novels to this day remain beloved and well-read, and frequently adapted into films and miniseries. Why is this the case? What makes the work of Jane Austen so superior to that of many other novelists who have come and gone since then, many of whom were popular for a time and then became obscure. Since people have fought about this issue for nearly 200 years, and since voluminous writings have been written about the issue, this entry will only look very briefly at some of the reasons for Miss Austen's longevity as a popular novelist.

First off, one must say at the start that Austen's six novels are all quite well written. Unlike the verbal diarrhea of many other novelists (often spanning near 1000 pages, and sometimes beyond), Austen's novels are quite modest in length and scope. They are filled with witty and insightful commentary about women and men, parents and children, gentry and nobles, and so forth. Furthermore, her novels are about the subject of marriage, something which must have been near and dear to her heart (it is tempting to speculate that she wrote about what she was, for whatever reason, unable to enjoy). Since each of these gives some hint as to her lasting popularity, it is worthwhile to examine each briefly in turn.

First, Austen's novels are quite modest in scope and length. Her novels are eminently translatable into films (unlike those of say, Rowling, or Eliot, or other novelists who are unable to curb their pens). Not only are they short in length, though (which makes them vastly easier to read), but they are modest in scope. Austen's novels are basically about young women of the gentry or low nobility (the baronetage, to be precise) who are seeking to marry. Most of them live in smallish towns and communities, often the manor houses of rural England. While there is often movement between various locales, the same community of people is present in both, which dramatically reduces the important characters one must remember (unlike, say, the 500 characters in "War and Peace," to name one of the more egregious offenders among other novels). Therefore, Jane Austen's novels allow for considerable dexterity in analyzing character and plot without presenting difficult reading or a multiplicity of pointless characters. This increases the popularity of a writer's body of work.

However, the simplicity of Jane Austen's work is not sufficient to explain her lasting popularity. If that were the case, then Harlequin romances would be world class literature. My mother's reading collection notwithstanding, that is not the case. Part of what separates Jane Austen from the run-of-the-mill romance author (though, make no mistake, she is a romance novelist) is that her writing is so penetrating about human character. Jane Austen's characters do not seem like stock figures, but are richly developed with complicated and ambiguous characters, placed in situations that show them to be humanlike in their behavior (rather than plaster saints or cardboard villians). Some people, for example, profoundly dislike Emma (I know I do), and feel quite sympathetic for the Crawfords, and wonder why they had to be punished so falsely for their (supposedly) minor pecadillos (in this case, I side with Austen). The fact, though, that one can even treat the characters of romance novels as legitimate facsimilies of human beings is quite impressive. Furthermore, even when not engaged in direct characterization, Jane Austen's grasp of dialogue (the dialogue between Darcy and Elizabeth, or Elizabeth and Lady Catherine, is part of of what makes Pride & Prejudice a classic) is excellent. Going still further, Jane Austen's subtle and yet profound observations about humanity (including the worth placed on marriageable women as to the the sort of gentleman they would be likely to attract marriage proposals from) are stunningly inerrant, for the most part.

Finally, the subject material of Jane Austen's writing is of great interest. Part of this is because Jane Austen herself wrote in such a matter that there appears to be room to fashion theories about the exoteric and esoteric meaning of her writing. In other words, her writing leaves enough ambiguities that it is possible to dispute whether her writing was being honest or somewhat coy. Was her interest in writing about marriage ironic or straightforward. Was she truly a country Tory or did she secretly harbor a desire to critique the unfairness of male-dominated society? People have earned doctorates in literature arguing about the vagaries of proto-feminism in Elizabeth Bennett, for example, or commenting on Persuasion being a call for life and love as Jane lay dying, or commenting on the wisdom of the erstwhile heroine of Northanger Abbey, whose judgment (though sound) is constantly being threatened by those who are supporters of the status quo, or the anti-slavery commentary in Mansfield Park. Obviously, I spend way too much of my time reading books (just as I spend way too much of my time writing), but the point is that Jane Austen's choice of subject material has been of great interest to a large group of people, including myself.

So, what of it then? Obviously, not everyone has developed an appreciation for the fine works of Jane Austen that I have, but certainly everyone (even myself, far too serious most of the time) can enjoy fine works of literature and art. That the novels of Jane Austen have survived for nearly two centuries, and are much more widely read today than they were in her own time (when they were published anonymously, and Jane Austen hardly profited at all from her writings--a fate that seems to befall those of us who write literature with any cliams towards excellence rather than popular mediocrity). That said, perhaps the spinster daughter and sister of Anglican ministers would have approved of the great interest in her literature. It certainly does her belated justice, and gives proof that her life, though short and somewhat lonely, had a purpose even she could not forsee.

On The Pleasures Of Ego Surfing

For those of you who are unaware, ego-surfing is using the search feature on yahoo or google (also known as googling) to look up references to your own name. This can also refer to looking up the names of close friends and family members, and is a task I occasionally (okay, fairly often) enjoy. It is sometimes quite enlightening to realize what sort of information about you is online. Taking the yahoo search results, let us look at the ways in which yours truly is immortalized online. Some of these were quite entertaining for me, as I do not remember all of them. Why they should rank so highly on a search engine is quite puzzling to me as well, but regardless, they are informative and worthwhile to look at.

For one, not all of the references online to "Nathan Albright" are about me (I am not, after all, a divorce attorney from Las Vegas, although that one is rather ironic in the light of my previous rant on divorce. Another Nathan Albright (maybe the same one) apparently is or was a field lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board. Too many lawyers for my tastes, one of them having a pen pal from Belgrade (I had a couple of Slovenian pen pals myself). I am also not from New Zealand, a land I have never visited (but one I would like to), though apparently there is a bike enthusiast from there who shares my name. In addition there is a relatively famous tennis player named "Nathan Albright" who even appeared on ESPN's site. Alas, I am not he. There is also an 0-1 wrestler with that name, who apparently retired winless after his lone defeat (as no other results are available to see). Perhaps my doppleganger the tennis player was slumming for the wrestling team that day. Who knows? Finally, for the athletic "Nathan Albright" links, there is apparently a basketball player named Nathan Albright who scored 14 points in a game. Obviously, that was not me, as in my entire competitive basketball career (mostly in YOU in the ol' WCG) I scored a grand total of 2 points. You can rest assured that any reference to a Nathan Albright with athletic talent does not refer to yours truly. There are also a lot of references to long dead Nathan Albright's appearing in genealogies (though, not to my knowledge, my own). Apparently, one Nathan Albright was even a descendent of Alfred The Great. Sweet. Lucky guy.

What is somewhat humorous is that a high percentage (at least a third) of the online references to "Nathan Albright" do refer to me. And they aren't only the references one would expect. Of course, this blog here (my info page as well as my blog entry "Remember The Days") receives mucho love from the search engines. That is to be expected. Even my nonupdated Xanga site gets some search engine props, though not my livejournal blog for some odd reason. My fan club site (www.nba.homestead.com), alas now disabled (that's what happens when the person running your fan club site is your ex), also receives a lot of searches apparently. Some of the genealogy references are my own, based on posts to online forums about genealogy. Then again, posts of my own appear on the Ambassador Watch site, on some anti-Leonardo DiCaprio site (I didn't even remember making those rather saucy comments, even calling the bisexual former hearthrob an "@$$hole," but then again, it was seven years ago, and I can hardly remember what I said or wrote yesterday). Intriguingly enough, a private e-mail I sent giving directions to my old college dorm appears online. No one who lives there now knows who I am, so that's pretty useless. Than again, I guess even my personal and private e-mails find their way online (though I'm far from the only person who has that issue). But hey, a letter of mine appeared on Fred Bronson's "Chart Beat Chat," which is really sweet. I also wrote a short comment to the NTEvangelism forum about a survey which showed UCG to be a bit too heavily populated by elderly Silent Generation types and self-righteous Boomer types who are a bit concerned about the lack of respect for their "accomplishments." Yup. On a lighter note, my career states for Spirit Wars (I haven't played in a while--but it's a really fun game I must say) appear online as well.

A lot of references to my writing appear online, which is, of course, unsurprising. For example, there are plenty of popular links to my play "Even After All These Years" (e-published on www.aviarpress.com for only $5.95. Go there, buy it now, and hopefully the fine people at Aviar Press will finally send me a royalty check!). Some of my fiction press works are popular, but not the ones one would think. My most popular is the "Biblical Reenactment Society" skit I wrote at the Ambassador Bible Center (ABC for those in the know) with my classmate Tyler Smith. If you use our skit, just remember to give us the credit for writing it. Thou shalt not steal, remember. My sermonette knows for "Let The Righteous Strike Me" are somewhat popular as well. Who knew the smiting of the righteous was such a popular subject? My poetry on Secfenia, as well as my very dark (you've been warned) Secfenia Dark stories are somewhat popular as well. Very oddly enough (though thanks, whoever is the webmaster for www.ucgstp.org), my article "The Hesed Factor" appears online, from an old issue of Vertical Thought (edited, perhaps unsurprisingly, by my local pastor) based on an ABC "Reflection Paper" that Dr. Levy suggested I turn in to be published. It was a good idea. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, another article of mine that appears online, "Judging Righteous Judgment," was based on some writing at ABC as well). There are other articles of mine that appear online, such as "The Truth About The Cross" (a short piece in which I helped out my friend Randy Vild) and "Lest You Also Be Tempted" (a short article that originally appeared in Anchor, where I applied Galatians 6:1-5 to the rather contentious issue of homosexuality). Both of those articles appear on Blow The Trumpet (www.blowthetrumpet.org), a site run by a couple of friends of mine in the Church of God. Unfortunately, my college thesis on "Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio For Concrete Columns" appears to be a dead link. Pity. However, an article I wrote quite a few years ago called "What Makes An Empire" is still online. That's impressive, I must say.

A lot of links online about me deal with such issues as reviews, travels, and political thoughts. For example, some of my amazon.com reviews appear online (mostly about books such as engineering text books, cds like "Tragic Kingdom," and books on political philosophy (including at least one book on Shakespeare's politics)). A couple of links deal with my trip to Ghana in 2000 to teach computers to elders and members in the Kumasi area. I think a few pictures, and even an intereview, can still be found dealing with that particular trip. Ah, good times. Of course, my being a "Communitarian" also appears online in a couple of places.

So there you have it, a brief tour through the sites one encounters when I egosurf. I would recommend you do the same, but sometimes the results can be rather unpleasant (the egosurfing of other people has gotten me in more than a little trouble, alluded to in previous blog entries). At any rate, looking up how you appear online at least gives you an idea of what other people can readly discover about you without all that much effort. Sometimes, that's just a little too much information for my liking, but then again, it hardly seems right to quibble too much about it if you put it online yourself.

Endless Genealogies

Being a genealogy buff, I have over several years (over half of my life actually) collected a large amount of information about my family. Since I'm somewhat young, though, most of the older people in my family have not been so quick to share their stashes of pedigree charts with me. Yesterday, though, I got my hands on the charts for some of my mother's family's lines, so I'd like to share these with my loyal readers, because they are interesting.

Koontz:

Random note: My grandfather Koontz was recently DNA tested and was found to be a member of the cohenim, the priestly line of Levi. Sweet.

Nathan Albright (b. 1981)
son of Catharine Elizabeth Koontz (b.1957)
daughter of Jacob Franklin Snyder Koontz (b.1931)
son of Jacob Koontz (b.1892 d.1959)
son of Jacob Koontz (b.1864 d.unknown)
son of Jacob B. Koontz (b.1835 d.1925)
son of Michael Koons/Koontz (b.1973 d.1855)
son of Peter Koontz/Koons (b.unknown, before 1771 d.1847)
son of Henry Koons/Countz/Koontz (b.circa 1739 in Holland or Germany, d.1795)
son of Adam Koons (b. circa 1720 in Holland d.unknown)

Other families found in pedgigree chart:
Painter
Snider
Crooks
Grimes
Kegg
Helmeric
Moler
Border (twice)
Smouse
McDaniel
Bishop
Weimer
Evans
Manuel
Howard
Hughes
Morris
Younkin
Miller
Grey
Mathias

Mathias:

Nathan Albright (b.1981)
son of Catharine Elizabeth Koontz (b.1957)
daughter of Ruth Mathias (b.1931)
daughter of Chauncy Limbach Mathias (b.1900 d.1992)
son of Clarence Wilson Mathias (b.1873 d.1945)
son of Emmanuel Mathias (b.1843 d.1901)
son of Adam Mathias (b.1809 d.1889)
son of John Matthias (b. circa 1786 d. circa 1828)
son of Peter Matthias (b.1768 d.1846)
son of Henry Matthias (b. circa 1748 d.1806)

Other family names found in pedigree chart:
Brenneman
Gottwaldt/Cotwalt
Bush (twice)
Zellar
Nisley
Fackler
Baer (twice)
Repman
Machlin
Croul
Shuman
Seitz
Fisher (twice)
Attick
Metzger
Null/Noll
Sloane
Morninger
Clum
Ruppert
Helmick
Johnson
Shull (twice)
Meyers
Minnick
Limbach
Ankeny
Mutti
Schwartz (twice)
Hilson
Puffer
Kellermeyer

Puffer:

Nathan Albright (b.1981)
son of Catharine Koontz (b.1957)
daughter of Ruth Mathias (b.1931)
daughter of Elizabeth Jane Puffer (b.1900 d.1963)
daughter of William Puffer (b.1959 d.1928)
son of John Puffer (b.circa 1828 d.1856)
son of Cornelius Puffer (b.1793 d.before 1860)
son of Simeon Puffer (b.1759 d.1825)
son of Lazarus Puffer (b.1729 d.1778)
son of Eleazer Puffer (b.1683 d.1746)
son of Matthias Puffer (b.1635 d.1717)
son of George Puffer (b.circa 1600 d.1639)
son of William Puffer (b.circa 1575 d.circa 1599)

Other names in Pedigree:
Sedley
Everett
Farnsworth
Ludden
Crehore
Bacon
Talbot
Crane
Holbrook
Newton
Sumner
Clark
Tucker
Alger
Reynolds
Turner
Windover
Perry
Struel
Dingman
Seward
Masters
Quackenbush
Moran
Whitney
Cuthbertson (twice)
Colby
Forbes

Cuthbertson

Nathan Albright (b.1981)
son of Catharine Koontz (b.1957)
daughter of Ruth Matthias (b.1931)
daughter of Elizabeth Jane Puffer (b.1900 d.1963)
daughter of Agnes Cuthbertson (b.1856 d.1948)
son of Thomas Cuthbertson (unknown)
son of Thomas Curthbertson (b.circa 1835 d.1904)

Other names in pedigree:
Richmond
Connel
Eaton
Morrow
Elliot
Sedwick
Vandeburg
Puffer (twice)

Very interesting indeed. If you share these names and might want some more info about where my family links up with yours, feel free to send me a message. I've got some updating to do with my gedcom files...

The Space Between The Is And The Ought

In life, we often must deal with a yawning chasm between the is and the ought. The "is" refers to reality, unprettified, unvarnished. This may be referred to as "the real world." The ought refers to the world as it should be. The world is never as it should be, but it is the "ought" that keeps us from moral depravity on the one hand, or despair on the other. We need an understanding of what is to make sure we are living in the real world, and so that we can see things as they are. We need to know what ought to be so we can at least have something to aim and strive for, something above the morass and darkness that is the real world.

It is often difficult to find that balance between knowing what is and knowing what ought to be, and clearly facing what is without losing sight of what ought to be. It is all too easy to go to one extreme or the other. Most people choose to either immerse themselves in the real world, become overly cynical and behave in immoral and amoral ways (in order to get ahead) or they ignore reality, live in a fantasy world of hopes and dreams and illusions, and are crushed in those rare moments of lucidity when the reality breaks through the illusion. What is someone to do if they want to face reality bravely and squarely without being completely corrupted by it.

This problem between what is and what should be is a constant preoccupation of my writing, as well as that of many others. Political science, or the study of how to exercise power, is all about shortening the distance between the is and the ought. This can be done in one of two ways--by seeking to reform society, or by reducing the ideal to make it more realistic. Obviously, the first solution is the superior one, but it must be remembered that reformers are human to, and often need to have their own sins reformed.

So what is the end of all of this? I don't know, but humanity, and any organization made of humans (especially those wicked hierarchial ones) is going to have issues. The choice that human beings have when they are faced with their shortcomings is to either own up to them or to deny them (and seek to discredit those that bring them up). The character of someone is determined by which choice they make. There is distance in all of us (and plenty of distance in me) between what is and what should be. But how we deal with that distance speaks volumes about ourselves, for even if the world does not appreciate it, thankfully we have someone in heaven watching over us (even if that is far from pleasant at those many times we are doing what we ought not to do).

From Tiny Acorns Great Oaks Grow

Okay, this entry will be short, because I have little time. Nonetheless, yesterday, the voters of the town of Hilldale, Michigan, voted (in a write-in campaign) a high school senior to be their mayor. If I was the incumbent, I'd retire from politics immediately. Losing to a high-school senior whose campaign was funded by summer job proceeds probably ranks high on the list of most-embarassing events ever.

It is good to see my fellow young people taking a great interest, even in the civic politics of a Michigan town struggling with a declining job base due to outsourcing to lands where "Wassup" becomes "Ap kese ho?" (For those who do not know this obscure reference, it is a Hindi term that means "how are you doing," which I picked up in my time as a campus taxi driver (!) at the University of Southern California). After all, the current generation of leaders in the United States comes from the Baby Boomers, a generation I have little good to say about (sorry, you guys, but you're really easy to pick on--self-absorbed, self-important, lacking qualities of reflection and humility). For those interested in a fuller analysis of my thoughts on Baby Boomers, I recommend "Virtue and Values Are Not The Same" and my scathing but rather analytical "Generations Study." Both can be found readily online if you're looking for them (and people seem to enjoy looking for my writings, so there's a plug).

Will this young mayor start a trend of young politicians putting the adults to shame? It can't hurt. Those of us who are young cannot screw up the world any worse than our elders are doing right now. I suppose we can all take solace in that.

What God Has Joined Together, Let No Man Tear Asunder

The issue of the sanctity of marriage is a controversial issue in this society. It is not only for that reason, though, that it is of interest to me. God hates divorce, something he states in Malachi, and a point that can be gathered from other places in the Bible, and yet over half of all marriages end in divorce, a fact that ought to cause our society a lot of grief and shame. Divorce is no less common among those of us in God's church, those of us who should know better. As the child of divorced parents, the issue of divorce is one of great importance to me.

Until 1974, about seven years before I was born, divorce was not allowed in the Worldwide Church of God for any reason. The policy was changed because Herbert W. Armstrong (then the head of WCG) was interested in marrying a much younger divorcee named Ramona. Miraculously, he saw the truth that there were some circumstances in which divorce and unbinding were allowed, namely for fraud or pornea (defined as adultery, fornication unknown at time of marriage, or other sexual deviancy). (It should be noted here that under the biblical standards of divorce a relatively high degree of fault must be proven, and those who are deemed "at fault" in a marriage are bound from marrying again until their spouses die. Therefore if both spouses are at fault in a marriage, neither is free to remarry if they separate. This is important in the case of my own parents.)

The end result of this policy change was that divorce and remarriage were very common and very easy for those people who were well connected in the power structure of WCG. As a pastor in UCG once said to my family, people were "divorcing and remarrying like flies." For those whose divorces were contested (This was the case in my family--my father did not wish for the divorce and considers the marriage to have been a valid one, despite what he considered to be fraudulent promises, my mother on the other hand claimed abuse and claimed that she herself was not converted, and hence the marriage was invalid ab initio. It is difficult for me to sort out exactly what this meant in practice as it regarded my brother and I), it could take much longer. For example, my parents separated when I was three, divorced when I was eight and a half, and were "unbound" by the church for the last time only when I was thirteen.

Divorce causes a lot of suffering to families, something I plan on discussing in greater detail later on, time permitting. In my own family, the consequences of divorce were quite immense. Traveling in vacations betwen my folks certainly reimforced whatever nomadic tendancies I was born with, and certainly made it hard to figure out where exactly I belonged and where was home (issues, unsurprisingly, I still struggle with). My brother to this day considers marriage useless, since he is unable to separate the actions of two very flawed individuals from what is a very glorious and wonderful and divinely ordained institution.

Parents have all sorts of pleasant fictions (or, less politely, lies) they use to justify divorce to themselves. They reason that a happy divorce is better than an unhappy marriage, though there is no such thing as a happy divorce, and studies have indicated that children of divorces are vastly worse off than those children from unhappy marriages when it comes to dealing with social issues and becoming a happy and well-functioning often. In fact, studies indicate that over half of children of divorced families suffer from such problems, while only two percent of children from happy marriages suffer likewise, and only about a third of children from unhappy marriages. Divorce may be more pleasant for parents, but not for the children.

My own parents have their own stories, and no doubt both did the best they could (though that is a rather frightening thought, if less frightening than the alternative). What I learned from the breakup of my parents is that discovering what is true is often a very unpleasant task (shades of an earlier post, I know). Both my father and mother have stories about their marriage and breakup, and both stories are incompatible. Each makes claims about the behavior of the other that the other strenuously denies--about attempts to sabatoge the marriage by brining in the ministry, about spousal and child abuse (based on an oblique comment my father made about his defense of a Living Church of God member in North Carolina who was falsely accused about child abuse when he commented that my mother did the same to him, and based on my mother's frequent references to "black rages" and a broken jaw), about adultery, and so on. Quite frankly, I do not know if the truth will ever be known in this lifetime, or even if I want to know the truth about either of my parents. The words, even in passing, of divorced parents about the other are like poison that seeps into the very being, destroying the moral authority that parents are supposed to have in their household. Indeed, divorced parents, by virtue of their selfish actions, surrender what moral claims to authority they may possess, and bring all authority figures into shame and disrepute by pointing to the fundamental inability of human beings to govern others (or even themselves) effectively. If one cannot trust those who gave you life, it's not going to be easy to trust anyone else either, who has less reason to behave well and look out for your best interests. You have to look out for yourself--no one will do it for you.

As was widely pointed out in a recent study on divorce (published widely, including in the New York Times), being the child of divorced parents means dealing with secrets. Knowledge is a weapon, and the conduct of parents undergoing a divorce often leaves much to desire. For example, my mother was involved, at least somewhat seriously, with my future stepfather (they married in 1995) when I was a small child, and were at least talking about marriage, as we stayed at his house and were quite frequent visitors at his parents' place, and because I have papers from the first grade where I referred to my last name as Albright-Martin. I do not presume to know what all was involved, but at any rate, married people, even if they are separated, are not supposed to pursue romantic attachments, even if nothing physical was involved. As I said before, I do not wish to know the truth about my parents.

The study also pointed out that while children whose parents are married are the center of attention, children whose parents divorce often spend long moments alone (this was the case for me, I know). This is the case because while a loving marriage has a husband and a wife focusing their attention building a future together as well as a future for the next generation, divorce allows people to focus on their own lives and their own interests and leaves children (who are torn between the two worlds) to make the difficult task of piecing together a place in incompatible, distant, and sometimes hostile worlds. Often the result is that such children act like the parent they are around at the time, something that does wonders for trying to sort out the mix of our parents that we are in a harmonious way (after all, our parents were unable to do so, but we are forced to to remain sane).

Studies of the effects of divorce are rare, largely because those who support our society's current lax policies on divorce are afraid that knowing the results of divorce on children would cause a change in the law. They are right, but who should our laws be protecting--immature adults or the children who are forced to grow up way too soon in circumstances that are less than pleasant. We owe our obligations to the health of children rather than to the convenience of their childish parents. In a sermon video that I saw a couple of weeks ago at church, Mr. Franks commented how children of divorces are among the "orphans" that James enjoins Christians to take concern for. Amen and amen. Such thoughts are quite saddening, but the truth is often sad and bitter.

This particular entry is quite personal, and probably a lot of people would not be happy to read what I have to say--either about myself, my family, or my church. We must all live with the penalties of sin, even if we did not commit the sin ourselves. I have written this entry three times because the computer has kept on giving me problems (which has given me the chance to organize and phrase my thoughts differently). I am still not satisfied with how it turned out, but I have done the best I can to remain impartial and not be too harsh on anyone, task complicated especially by the fact that only God knows the truth of what happened between my parents, even if the account of it in Pasadena with WCG counsel Mr. Helge supposedly took hundreds of pages. Now, that's an unpleasant thought.

I heard the news today, oh boy...

Okay, I don't normally do this, but I'd like to look briefly at some of the news that may interest only me that merits some kind of snarky and sarcastic response. My usual thematic entry will follow, time and energy permitting. But first I felt the news from today needed commentary.

Rent a Room

Two Carolina Panthers cheerleaders, Renee Thomas and Angela Keathley, were arrested in Tampa (that would be where I live) after committing battery. Some patrons at a Channelside club complained that they could hear moaning from outside the restroom and that the two women were taking way too long while having sex in the bathroom stall. One of the cheerleaders used a fake id to police when she was taken in, and now both are being charged with criminal offenses. I don't think they planned on coming out of the closet that way. At any rate, both cheerleaders have since been kicked off of the cheerleading squad (part of the Carolina Panthers cheerleading site is, alas, still down, and the only pictures of the two I have managed to rustle up are their mugshots). Where did they think they were, Sodom? Corinth? No, they were in Tampa *sigh*. This kind of thing gives cheerleaders (and Tampa) a bad name, and I know plenty of nice cheerleaders, as well as people from Tampa, who don't deserve that sort of press.

Here's To You, Mrs. Robinson

A Hollywood star (who will be known here by the name of Toothy Tile, courtesy of Ted Casablanca) who has starred in such films as "Jughead" (which some friends of mine saw and were disappointed with) and the upcoming "Brokeback Mountain" (a film which probably does not require much acting from the currently in-the-closet actor), currently has a willing (and former "Friend") "Mrs. Robinson," presumably to teach him in the ways of women that he is so ignorant of. I guess he doesn't mind getting sloppy seconds from Vince Vaughn or *shivers* Brad Pitt. He's got a cool sister, though. She was one of the few reasons to enjoy "Adaptation."

We Fly The Bankrupt Skies

Flyi Inc., parent corporation of Independence Air, has declared bankrupcy. Sadly, for the airline industry (as well as countries in Africa and Latin America), declaring bankrupcy is a part of normal business strategy. For whatever reason (and there are several, including high gas prices and very high benefits to corporate leadership, and an obsolete hub-and-spoke business model). This particular airlines suffered mostly from bad timing and a very unfriendly economic climate. Flyi, formerly called ACA (an airline I have used before, notably to fly to the Lexington weekend in 2002), was formerly a subsidiary of Delta before going independent. Now it, like its parent company, has gone el-foldo. Too bad.

Life's A Riot

The Muslim population of Paris is still rioting, after nearly two weeks of car bombing, arson, and general misbehavior. This one goes under the "See, I Told You So" category of disaster. The French thought that by coddling dictators (see Saddam Hussein) and by bending over backwards to be a "nice" Western country to the Muslims, that the Muslims would assimilate and become good little Frenchmen. It doesn't appear to be happening, and the rioting, once confined to the suburbs of Paris, has now spread across the entire country. This looks grim, and the weak response of the French government has led to a lot of international criticism. It's not nice at all to gloat when a nation suffers, but one wonders if a lot of people (Americans in particular) aren't crowing a good bit about the fact that the Muslims of France have not responded to the gentle manner in which the French treated them. Perhaps they will be less foolish in the future. One can only hope so.

A Balanced, Rational Paper

Finally, with news a little closer to home, I would like to give my two cents worth on United's recent paper on interracial marriages. For the most part, it is a very sound and reasonable paper. I would take issue with the claim that someone who is against interracial marriages is not doing so out of reasons of racism, and I would not think the issue to be one that most ministers would be able to counsel members about (since few of them have personal experience with the issue), but the paper is a sound one. The cases of interracial marriage blessed and honored in the Bible is a rather lenghty one--including no less than three members of the family tree of our Lord and Savior Himself. At least two books of the Bible are intimately concerned with the practice (Ruth and Esther, and one can make a case for its ubiquity in Genesis as well). The Bible, wisely and correctly, considers race of no importance ("strangers" who followed God's law were to be counted as Israelites with full privileges), while placing the importance on faith rather than race. We should do the same. It's way past due for those of us in the Church of God community to cast aside the dark days of racist thoughts and to face the fact that ethnic origin is of no importance in the Family of God. For all who obey are sons of Abraham, not in blood, but in spirit.

Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word

As I use this blog to rant, a lot, about some of the more philosophical issues about my life, I figure it only fair that I use this to rant about myself. While it is greatly baffling to me how eager people are to read my words, I have been far too loose with them with regards to other people. To that end, I would like to make an apology to Christy Lobdell, as well as to her family (who, I must say, does an impressive job of keeping informed of her reputation. I wish my family communicated as easily about matters and allowed for the resolution of issues.).

I wish I could say this was the first time, or even the second time, that my words have spread far and wide and ended up bringing me into judgment. The Bible wisely says (and I do not forget it for a moment) that we will be judged for every idle word that comes out of our mouth. I have more idle words than most, and thus I am judged more than most (though I am somewhat thin-skinned and do not like it, I suppose it is a part of life). Nonetheless, I hope that no one has any ideas that I have anything but the highest respect for Christy. Originally, I caused offense by writing a play using names that were way too close to her and her family, and in situations that she would never be involved in. Then, I caused offense again by my comments about her in a blog entry (though, to be fair, it was not only about her that I spoke). That said, my words have spread far and wide, much further and much wider than I intended or really desired.

But rather than merely have bad words spread, it is good to think on positive things. Christy was a close friend of mine for many years, and one thing I greatly valued in our friendship (and the reason why she was a best friend of mine for so long) was that she was always honest and candid to me about my own flaws, and always pointed a mirror of the highest conduct to me, without being too self-rightous about it. I am not nearly reflective enough about how my words and actions affect other people, but I do appreciate those who (in love) gently but firmly point out where I am going wrong so that I may see the beam in my own eyes, and not merely the specks in the eyes of others. If only all people dealt with things as quickly and as honestly as she, perhaps I would get myself in a lot less trouble. (This is a hint to all of you who read my journal looking for juicy tidbits about subjects I rant about. We would all be better served if you took your complaints to me. Believe me, I'm not very happy when people send me corrective messages, but in the end I appreciate them and try to learn from them.). You see, I ranted yesterday about the importance of being a truth teller, and how unpleasant that task can be. I owe it to all of you, though, to be a better person when it comes to listening to the truthtellers in my life. Those who are willing to dish out unpleasant truth need to take the strong medicine themselves. I appreciate, Christy, and those among you who also do it (and you know who you are, and there are not many of you), that you deal with my rather prickly temper because you believe something ought to be said about how I am failing to behave as well as I should.

May I behave better in the future.

So-Called Knowledge

Knowledge is a dangerous thing. Paul the Apostle (a man far wiser than I, and at least as passionate about the truth) said famously (and correctly) that love builds up, but knowledge puffs up. When I hear this used most of the time, it is used as a pat, anti-intellectual comment by those whose minds are not very sharp, and who also suffer from the very same problem. I am an intellectual, but that does not mean I do not see the dangers in the great gift of a mind that God has given me (for what reason I do not know--all gifts carry with them heavy responsibilities and a certain amount of difficulty). It is quite entertaining (as a spectator, at least, if not a participant) to watch the conflicts between "fundamentalists" and "intellectuals". Both of them make war with so-called knowledge, but in reality are quite ignorant of what they say. However, they speak with arrogance and confidence because what is in reality complicated they have simplified in their own minds in their own fashion (and both sides do this quite differently, as I hope to at least point out a little later) and used their views against others. In reality, though, both anti-intellectual fundamentalist philistines and their more erudite but equally foolish rivals are more alike than they are different.

For the purposes of this discussion, a fundamentalist is someone who believes they understand the Bible (or any other belief system) perfectly, and thus are qualified to serve as enforcers of God's laws against unbelievers. (Unlike most people, I do not define fundamentalism as merely believing in the inerrancy and infallability of the Bible, which would include many people like myself). The fundamentalist opposes the gain of intellectual knowledge, for several reasons. For one, knowledge threatens the supposed specialness of the fundamentalist (who usually is or aspires to be an unaccountable leader of a hierarchial organization). After all, said leaders are usually not very well educated themselves, and consider the educated to be threatening. Usually these people will quote scriptures condemning vain human philosophy and use those to condemn any sort of study except in ways approved by said sect leader. Rather than desiring to set people free from the ways of sin that pervade the entire world, these people are interested in making themselves leaders over men, in ways that Christ condemns when he says we should be servants and not lords. Indeed, they are like Diotrophes and others who desire preeminence over others. Such examples should not be imitated. Nonetheless, these people are proud in their own knowledge (or rather, in their own ignorance). By believing they have mastered the Bible, or some really arcane matter of Bible study (be it the identity of the ten tribes of Israel, prophetic understandings of the end time, the correct day we should keep the Holy Days, etc. ad nauseum), they feel a certain superiority towards those who do not possess this knowledge. Their so-called knowledge puffs them up. Of course, anyone who questions that knowledge must be riduculed as a pawny-headed intellectual, or a faithless, stiff-necked doubter, or so forth. Indeed, those who believe they possess great knowledge are correspondingly unable to admit fault. After all, if they are so great, they cannot be subject to the same flaws that mere mortals like ourselves (and I would include myself as a mere mortal--for all the gifts that I possess, I too am chief among sinners) suffer from on a daily basis. No, they must be special.

Intellectuals similarly suffer from a certain sense of pride in their knowledge. It is only human (one of the negative parts of human nature, which is itself a mixture of good and evil, not merely pure evil) to feel pride about knowledge, but such pride is very dangerous. The pride of the intellectual is in many ways the mirror image of the pride of the fundamentalist. The intellectual takes great pride in the ability to make the simple complex, just as the fundamentalist takes great pride in oversimplifying the complicated. Neither is right, but both are human (I myself, I must admit, err to the side of the intellectual, for which I must be honest). An intellectual, for example, will often take the simple and direct commands of God and negate them by looking at supposed contradictions or looking at boundary cases where the rules do not exactly apply. Instead of seeing these exceptions for what they are (exceptions), there is then the tendancy to invalidate the direct commands of God rather than place the exceptions in their proper place as divine mercy from God in extraordinary circumstances. In similar fashion, an intellectual will not take the Bible seriously as the Word of God, but rather will see the beliefs in the Bible as proceeding in an evolutionary pattern, often as a result of amalgamation of foreign traditions (to give some examples, they will claim that Moses did not write the Penteteuch, that there were three Isaiahs, that Daniel was not written until the Maccabean period, or that the Jews did not have any sort of ideas about the last judgment or good and evil until they met up with the Persian followers of Zoroaster). Similarly, these people will reject those who take the Bible seriously as simpletons and uneducated morons, and will behave in a rather condescending manner towards those who deny their false so-called knowledge.

We should turn away from both of these views. It distresses me that the truth is so obvious and yet so difficult to find, but such is the life I suppose. As difficult as both views are to avoid, we must work to avoid either the belief that either nothing can be known or that everything is known. There is much the Bible tells us, but also much that the Bible leaves unsaid, leaves for us all to struggle with as best as we are able. Neither blind faith nor rationalistic materialism is sufficient to being a true believer of God. We can neither believe without faith nor believe without our faith being informed by knowledge and reason. I think, in the final analysis, that it is God's doing that we have to find our way between the extremes that fundamentalism and intellectualism represent. After all, we need to be reminded about both how important we are to God (all of us, not only a select and small group of us given special gifts or knowledge, which is one thing both intellectuals and fundamentalists agree on and both err in believing) as well as the fact that our knowledge and power are rather pitifully limited. We must neither rejoice in our own greatness (and commit the sin of pride that fundamentalists and intellectuals possess in spades) nor wallow in our own weakness and believe we have no worth (and thus allow ourselves to fall prey to the slick advertising of someone who thinks they know it all, especially if they are from an advertising background *shivers*). The way of truth is always difficult, and frought with tension between two extremes of which neither are right (indeed, it can safely be said that any extreme is an error, though there is often great difficulty in properly defining what is extreme). But we will never come into greater understanding if we become complacent in our so-called knowledge, because much of what we know is wrong, no matter what it is we think we know. May God have mercy on us all, and reveal to us His truth at the right time, so that it may build up His family, rather than tearing it apart.

Lessons From A Dark Continent

I am currently reading a rather dismal book about the experience of Africa after it's independence from the various colonial powers of Europe. Africa is much worse than it was before independence in nearly every country (even Congo-Kinshasha, if that is possible). Besides this, I have taken some interest in the fact that China has blocked access to a blog from a teacher critical of the corruption of the Communist regime in China. What do these have to do with each other and with any lessons that we can use in our lives? Plenty.

First, the Chinese example. There is always a difficulty in knowing where to draw the line when it comes to freedoms. Even if one disagrees as to the extent of freedom of speech, press, and expression that should be allowed (and there is plenty of room where honest and decent people can disagree with these things), it is absolutely essential for the existence of a free society that people have the right to criticize their leaders enshrined with every protection possible. Why must one be so insistent about this right? Human leaders are fallible, and it is vital that their humanity be known, and that they be made accountable to the people they serve. Leaders can only be kept in check (and it is essential they be kept in check, for their own good, and much more for the good of the people) if they are exposed to the ugly, bitter truth every day of their lives. This is not pleasant, but truth telling is not a pleasant occupation. The Bible gives us the assurance that the truth will set us free--and it does set us free from any illusions as to our own righteous state (the truth does cut both ways, after all, exposing the truth about the critic as well as the criticized) as well as any illusions as to our superiority to anyone else. When a regime seeks to limit freedom of expression about its actions, it is absolutely certain that those tyrants are wicked beyond measure, and do not desire for their dark deeds to see the light of day.

What does this have to do with Africa, or with our lives today? When Africa became independent, these nations poor in education (except for a few standout groups such as the Ashante of Ghana and the Ibo of Nigeria) but rich in natural resources engaged on an experiment in socialism and one party rule where opposition was crushed, where corruption reigned supreme, and where rights were no more than the whims of petty dictators who enriched themselves while the people starved in fear. There were great theoretical comments about how democracy was "alien" and "inappropriate" for the situation of Africa, which demanded strong, hierarchial one-man rule that led to endless cronyism and corruption (if this government system sounds familiar to you, and you have lived in it, you know why it is so wicked--the truth satanic government is hierarchial government with one leader in charge of everything and a crowd of sycophantic courtiers around him). These leaders bought private jets for themselves, built mansions for themselves, lived the high life of jetsetting, cultural experiences, and hobnobbing with foreign leaders, while the common people got nothing. The end result in Africa has been, within two generations, the establishment of a continent without hope, unable to feed itself, dying of AIDS, riddled with crime and civil conflict, a continent that has been written off to the annals of everlasting despair and misery. It did not have to be this way, but the wickedness of Africa's leaders and the lack of education and righteous rebellion of the people of Africa have led to a situation that seems only salvageable by God Himself.

Does this have any impact on our lives? You bet. Contrary to the pronouncements of leaders who seek power and wealth and position for themselves, people are best served when they are free, and those who seek the best interests of the people they lead will not seek power for themselves. People are best served when they learn to be resopnsible for their own actions, and when they hone their own minds to properly divide right from wrong. This can only occur when people have no ability to abdicate that responsibility to leaders (something people are all too eager to do, because being a mature adult and making one's own decisions is a pretty scary thing). You see, the people of Africa are not too unlike us. The difference is that they had leaders who were all too willing to take power for themselves, and so the nations never lived responsibly, because their leaders behaved corruptly and behaved condescendingly to a people who desired to remain children. We must not allow that to happen to us. Whatever freedoms we possess can only be defended if we are brave, if we are willing to face danger, and if we are willing to stand up (alone if necessary) for our God-given rights. Churches, companies, and governments are all too eager to do our thinking for us, and to get us to abdicate our adult responsibilities by towing their line. We cannot let that happen, not if we wish to be free, or be pleasing to God our father, who desires godly offspring, capable of thinking wisely and independently.