Thursday, December 24, 2009

The Day-Age Theory of Christmas

My wife and I were lamenting once again how Christmas is screwed up. The hobby stores like JoAnn, Michael's, and Hobby Lobby all put their Christmas stuff out for sale even before Halloween. And traditionally Christmas season doesn't even start till Christmas Day! There are supposed to be twelve days of celebration starting on December 25. Of course, there's no historical basis for this; it just goes back to the AD 300s. I guess I should say there's no biblical basis for it.

Then I realized.

Liberals have been taking over Christmas for the last generation or two. Just like how liberals are saying there aren't six literal days of creation. They're trying to undermine the historical faith. Now they want to take the historical Christmas and turn it into some liberal, tree hugging (literally as they try to wrestle that giant pine onto their SUV the day after Thanksgiving!) unholyday. They're taking the twelve days and turning them into two whole months! I'm calling this perversion the Day-Age Theory of Christmas. They sing about the Twelve Days of Christmas, but in their hearts and lives they make each day of Christmas into like five days or an age.

As for me and my house, we're sticking with the twelve literal days of Christmas.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

The Moral Muslim

I'm reading "The Missional Leader" by Roxburgh and Romanuk for a class. I hated the book as I saw it leering at me from the top of the To Read stack. But quickly upon opening it I realized these guys are doing good stuff. They put their fingers on the general malaise in the church, and they point a human, non-guaranteed-success way forward. The content is applicable to other areas, but it is presented to deal with church leadership.

One idea they mentioned in passing finally unlocked something I've been working on for a long time.

The American church has long been about being moral. There's decent reason for that. Leading a moral life at its basic level can lead to health. But we've heaped layers of bad stuff on morality. Control. Superiority. Judgmentalism. Easy methods of being judgmental.

Morality has long been our "good news." When we present the gospel, what is the first reaction? "Well, I could never be that good," or "I still wanna have some fun." We always insist that being a Christian isn't about being good, but this visceral critique from outsiders is actually spot on.

The American Christian game: Be moral. We're better than you.

Now judgment is coming upon us. Christians are having an identity crisis (if they let themselves think at all) because they look at moral Muslims. They're beating us at our own game! We're still within the infancy of this realization. There are several possible responses. We can redouble our moral efforts to win the old game. We could change teams and become Muslims because they have more discipline and they're going to win the championship. We could go pluralist and ask who set up this stupid league in the first place. We could go play fantasy moralism and take the best aspects of each team to try win in our own made up league. (While parts of this are appealing, it only compounds the problem.)

Or we could become Christians. The gospel is something more like God's Spirit coming to live among us, recreating us. Jesus, the creative speech act of God, breathed on his disciples, the mud of society, as the Creator breathed on Adam, the dust of the earth. Jesus constituted a new humanity here. (Thanks to Missional Leader for some of this.) And he didn't say, "Go out into the world and be moral." That would be on par with saying, "Go be that old rotting carcass that you all hate." He told them to announce the good news that the Spirit is now among us, animating this new creation.

If Christians want to be distinctive, the tellers of the real metanarrative, they're going to have to go this direction. For the time has finally come that the world is becoming aware that there is a new superstar in the moral league (though with many of the same failings as the church). We have a unique story. We have to tell it.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Meditation

Read the following as a Scriptural meditation. Post a comment if you see anything awry.

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our souls. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Shut-ins eighty years from now

Given the popularity of certain children's footwear today, I wonder if eighty years from now they'll have to change Meals on Wheels to Wheeling Mealies.

Diapers

I realized a couple of weeks ago that changing diapers is a sacrament, or it's at least sacramental. In the Middle Ages there were big discussions about what constituted a sacrament, and some listed up to thirty-five sacraments. I'm not sure if changing diapers was one of them.

There's something about taking part in something so mundane and repetitive that makes me think of the major Protestant sacraments involving bread and wine and water. We all take food and water regularly to survive. As a natural consequence, we also poop. Praise the Lord for potty-training, but short of that, something needs to be done to help our baby survive. On a long enough timeline, an unchanged diaper is dangerous, just like lack of food and water.

If water is sacramental symbolizing our need for spiritual cleansing, and if bread and wine is symbolic pointing to our need for spiritual nourishment from God, I think changing a diaper symbolizes interminably repetitive service in the midst of the crap of life. These physical acts are necessary to physical survival, but they also mediate a spiritual realization of our utter dependence on God and one another.

Perhaps as I continue in the faithfulness of diaper changing, my bold assertion about how we should serve others will truly sink in.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Holy smokes, JK!

As I was looking up a word in the dictionary, a strangely familiar word beckoned me. I didn't have much mental context for it, so of course I had to click on it. The word was "witenagemot." It's a ruling council with which an Anglo-Saxon king would consult.

In the Harry Potter series, this was easily morphed into Wizengamot, the ruling council of wizards and witches. More proof that JK Rowling is a philologist par excellence.

Hilariously, I was looking up the word "witch doctor" when I stumbled across that gem.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

350

I happened upon Speaking of Faith as I was running errands this evening. Every time I've heard the show (on NPR) I've been intrigued. Krista Tippett was interviewing Bill McKibben about climate change. His personal journey led him to somewhat accidentally become an activist in this field.

I've been on the somewhat concerned side about climate change for a while. Some of those close to me have said, "Oh it's just a natural cycle." Others have said the now infamous, "It's all going to burn anyway." May God grant that this self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't come true.

My position has been, yes, climate always changes on a long enough scale. But humans have never caused an ice age. My major concern is whether we're causing the climate to change. If we are, we must stop! If it's other "natural" causes, so be it.

Bill McKibben gave the clearest perspective I've heard on the matter. He's not an alarmist, but he's sounding a very loud alarm. For millennia the count of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 275 ppm +/- 10. This started to climb shortly after the industrial revolution when coal became the fuel du jour. With coal, gas, and oil burning becoming ubiquitous, we have now reached about 390 ppm. A couple of years ago, scientists using pluriform models calculated that our Earth can sustain a maximum of 350 ppm. According to McKibben, we're in desperate shape.

However, all is not lost. He likens this to a visit to the doctor. A doctor might tell you, "You need to watch what you eat or you're going to have trouble down the road." That's where we were 50 years ago. Now the doctor is saying, "I'm surprised you haven't had a heart attack. Stop your bad habits now, or you're dead!"

McKibben is campaigning to get people to live more neighborly. That's what I love about his climate approach. He doesn't think we need more technology per se, though that will help. Fundamentally we must change our lifestyles or, for instance, hundreds of millions of people will die from dengue fever. With a small increase in temperature, the dengue bearing mosquito is becoming far more prevalent. And it's an all-day mosquito, so netting won't help. Four percent of the world's population accounts for 25 percent of the carbon emissions. And that says America isn't being very neighborly if we're helping to inflict debilitating diseases on folks in Bangladesh who ride their bikes everywhere.

This has already gone long and there are several other fascinating ideas to share. Listen to Bill McKibben on Speaking of Faith or at Q, and he mentions how we've flipped the script in Job. That was the thing I set out to write about! But he tells it well. McKibben's website is www.350.org.

Unwelcome

I heard some talk yesterday about where the government may send detainees from Guantanamo Bay in an effort to close the detention facility as soon as possible. In homage to thisisindexed.com, I've done my own index size card, but without the authentic lines and scrawling.


Friday, December 11, 2009

Excuses

Ever avoiding blame, I have to say my lack of posting centers on work. I've been working a lot lately. Oh, and my classes have kept me hopping. Oh, and Evadel was born three weeks ago. Then I ask myself, why am I looking for something to blame about not posting to my blog? No excuses necessary, I suppose. I am taking time off from work to enjoy wife and daughter, so perhaps I'll return with more regularity.

Publishing

A friend sent me this blog post titled The End of Book Publishing As We Know It and asked my thoughts about it.

My stream of consciousness back to him:

This is an interesting post. I think I generally agree with him. The best we can say about this sort of seachange is "I dunno." But I have noticed that I'm not very motivated to read a book on the Kindle, even though it's quite impressive. I'm still a book guy for the moment. But if the ebook format improves, I might convert.

I was waiting for his thoughts on the people who will still deal in paper books. I love his analogy with candles. There is something romantic about a paper book relative to an ebook. [insert rant about gnosticism and electric things like lights and ebooks here]

The salvation for publishers at the moment is that we can publish electronically for free (without doing all the added value he's talking about—yet). We can lower print runs to not get hosed with inventories while we wait for the economy to recover. And for the type of books where we know the key audience wants a print book, we can do smaller print runs print on demand at a somewhat higher cost, but still make margin because those mavens will pay for the slightly more expensive book.

It's funny to look at this in historical perspective. I know that the manager/publisher/abbot of the local scriptorium was pissed when the printing press started cutting into their workloads. Every merchant who has ever dealt in the technology that's becoming obsolete has cried that it's unfair (or at least been tempted to). The papyrus guys were a bit bent out of shape when vellum became practical. Then we discovered wood pulp paper and put those guys out of business. The merchants/publishers who thrive will be the ones who say, "Let's try our hand at the new thing." It's either that or go ahead and waste away into oblivion. If we try and still fail, that's okay because we were going to fail anyway. And it's better to have a good attitude about it, saying change is inevitable, and more rapid in this modern world. However as you teach, history is not inevitable, and we get a chance to help write it with innovative ideas of our own. We're not merely at the mercy of "those change forces" like technology.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Not of this World

On the way to the office this morning, we saw a Hummer H2 with a NotW sticker. I started cracking up, and my wife said it well: "I'm not of this world, so I can waste all it's resources!" This was, after all, a city Hummer.

A bit later, she said, "Darn those illegal immigrants! They won't assimilate into our culture, and they're using all our resources!"

Then, piling on, she said, "They won't even learn our language! They just speak this weird something . . ."

My wife, the comedienne. The more I try to parse it, the more ironic it gets. They are of this world in investing massive amounts of resources in their home. Oh, I mean their car! (I recognize the sliding scale here.) But driving the H2 with that sticker really says their theology is escapist. We're called to steward this creation well without buying into the corrupt thought systems.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Patriotism

A couple of weeks ago, Susan and I were driving through a new construction zone, and we saw a delightful sign. It was delightful because we were pretty sure there was a mistake, but we weren't sure. It said, "Stores open during construction," and the second screen said, "Thank you for your patriotism." We tried laughing, but we were too incredulous to do so wholeheartedly. What if they actually meant that?

Tonight we drove by, and thankfully our suspicions were confirmed. The second screen read "Thank you for your patronage."

Gales of laughter.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Kelly

I'm sitting at the oil change place getting ready to try to get some work done. (How's that for three degrees' separation from reality? I swear I'll accomplish a lot.)

I have to make the quick note that Kelly Ripa looks extremely bored. She looks utterly disengaged, but on cue, she knows when Regis will ask a question, and she deadpans a sarcastic answer. I know that's part of her schtick, but I've never seen somebody so disengaged in a "conversation."

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Leadership and service

Oddly enough, as I was washing the skillet in which I prepared scrambled eggs for our egg and cheese tortillas, I started thinking about leadership vis-à-vis crap jobs. I've also had amorphous ideas brewing for a while about gifting and the utilization thereof.

Then it hit me. In figuring out responsibility within a group, a leader should first see if there is anyone who is gifted at or likes doing a certain thing, say, cleaning toilets. If not, then that is for that group a "crap job" (pun not necessarily intended). At that point, it is the leader's responsibility to do that job.

It's important to weigh gifting before "servant shepherd" leadership. Only when it is clear that there is a dearth of gifting does the leader do the right thing and be the servant in that particular task. It should also be clear that there's no BSing (pun also not really intended) when people are claiming gifts. The leader should not allow any individual to curry favor by taking the crap job. Then gifting and service are both allowed to flourish.

This is idealistic for sure, and there may be situations where it is utterly impractical and totally counterproductive. But I think there's some merit here, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Annie Waits

The repeat song of the day has been "Annie Waits" by Ben Folds. Further, Ben Folds has been the repeat artist the last couple of days, since his driving piano and strong vocals have driven me to get a lot of work done. A nice thing these days.

I just turned off the repeat, but only after forty listens. Yikes! It's good.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Refectory

I have to wonder about pretension. Or pretending.

The other day, I was on the intranet for Fuller Seminary, and I saw their refectory was closed or had limited hours for the summer. This begged the question in my head: "What the heck is a refectory?" I had an idea, but I had to check. And sure enough, it did have to do with food. Well, I'll be. I'm a pretty big fan of foody stuff.

Why did my seminary use such a pretentious word for "cafeteria"?

Because they aren't pretending.

My widget tells me that a refectory is a place for communal meals, especially in a religious or educational institution. Fuller's good on four counts. There's food. They're religious. They provide education. And they like to emphasize community.

I'm not normally against big words, but for some reason I thought this pretense was a bit out of line. It's a friggin' cafeteria. But actually it's not. A cafeteria denotes a place where feedlot cattle would eat if they were bipeds and carried trays. A refectory is a place where students or monastics intentionally—self-consciously, in a good way—come together to share a meal in a reflective atmosphere.

Not having been on the main campus of Fuller since I was four, I'm happy to know that they are at least trying to cultivate the discipline of reflective communal supping, even if it may be in name only.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Demonym

When I showed my wife the hilarity of my friend's post, we started talking about Niger, the country where they live. What is a person from Niger called? I had an idea, but I didn't want to make anything up, so I checked Wikipedia. Our friends there introduced me to one of my new favorite words: demonym. Literally, it means "name of the people." It seems a fairly recent neologism, and it's brilliant. By the way, they're "Nigeriens," pronounced with a Freedom accent.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

An awful joke

A kid walks into the kitchen just as his mom finishes carving the turkey for Thanksgiving dinner. When he sees the guts, he exclaims, "That's offal!"

Black Card

I saw a banner ad for Visa's Black Card. It talks about how exclusive it is and how great it will be for me.

There are three key selling features I see. One is the 24-hour concierge service. It says they will be there to help me with all my travel, leisure, and personal needs. Like my need for a psychiatrist, right? Concomitant with that is access to airport lounges (said access is not defined) and "luxury gifts." Oh, and the 1% cash back on purchases or ability to convert to points. Forgot that unique feature.

Another key feature is the material the black card is made from. It's not plastic. It's made with (not of) carbon, which is "guaranteed to get you noticed." By checkout employees and waitstaff? "Oh look! A credit card!"

The really key selling feature is how exclusive it is to be a Black Card holder. It is limited to 1% of U.S. residents. Where do I call? Now? I certainly want to be part of an exclusive club of 3.3 million people!

The most attractive part of the whole package is that it only costs $495 per year!

I see this appealing to a certain demographic. There will be a small class who finds it useful for the travel benefits, but I'm certain most of these cards will go to people who don't think they're unique enough. The allure of being exclusive and getting noticed is worth $495 a year.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Inclusive of friendliness

Upon the generous bestowal of a gift card (Thanks, Emmie!), Susan and I went to Olive Garden for dinner tonight. Oh, so yummy. In our usual (if infrequent) order, there is nothing I don't enjoy fully. The salad, breadsticks, steak gorgonzola or chicken alfredo pizza, and dessert are absolutely wonderful. But there is one thing that tops everything: zuppa toscana. It is a perfectly spiced white soup of potatoes, sausage, and greens.

Which brings me to my point. The waiter came to check if we needed anything and asked me, having just finished a bowl of soup, "Do we need another bowl of soup?" Susan noted after Ben had left, "No, we don't, but you do." I told her he was using the inclusive of friendliness.

In my Greek classes over the years I have enjoyed a number of specialty grammar designations such as this. In technical terms, I might document the usage this way: Subject uses first person plural inclusive pronoun metonymously for second person singular or plural exclusive (relative to the speaker) pronoun. The speaker used a grammatical construction that includes himself in order to ingratiate himself in an exclusive environment. An inclusive of friendliness.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

What kind of practices?

I often hear people talking about how critical it is to follow "best business practices." It's been under my skin for a while, but I really started thinking how awful the concept is last night.

I'm not sure if users of this phrase realize what happened with best business practices last year. They have nearly killed us. As long as profits continued to rise, people thought the companies must be doing something right. Remember that one time when Enron was so awesome? They may not have been using certifiable best accounting practices, but their auditors were still letting them pass. In general, they looked like an awesome company doing everything right.

That's another misuse of the phrase. I hear it used for anything related to how work gets done, from business processes to accounting to how long I take in the bathroom. Just kidding on that last one.

Another fallacy is that there is a monolithic "best" to be practiced. Who determines what is best? Is it what the business community seems to be doing at the time? Mmm, design by committee. Is there a best practices board? Who appointed them?

And for my angriest critique. Best business practices are stultifying, and they breed laziness. These are two sides of the same coin, but they each bear highlighting. This idea ensures there is no creativity. You don't sit around the table saying, "What's a creative solution?" You say, "What's everybody else who's smarter and better than me doing?" Users may not start this way, but this process ends in laziness. "Just tell me what to change." If you spend all your time fixated on best practices, you'll soon be left in the dust trying to catch up to what may or may not be best. Should these be called "fine enough for lazy follower practices"?

There's a cultural/linguistic thing going here. We've seen how "progress" joined the pantheon of American/Western ideals. Always gotta grow. More profits this year. Cut your expenses, unless you add profits and then some. More SKUs. More brochures. As was proven in this last year, unless you choose a sustainable growth path of a few percent per year in an established field, your company will be hurting badly at the next down cycle. So we're always looking to grow faster than we should. We're looking for the *best* way to do things. Whatever happened to "good business practices"? What's wrong with good? The comparative and superlative denigrate the old lowly "good," which could really mean "honest" or "sustainable."

God declared his creation "good," even "very good." He didn't call it "best," because he wanted his creatures to industriously and creatively steward his creation in a way that would glorify him.

Deity pronouns

Another odd obsession of mine is whether or not to capitalize pronouns referring to deity. I fall pretty firmly on the side of not doing so. The general reason is that historically no one has capitalized these pronouns, so why start now. In fact the early manuscripts of the New Testament had all capital letters with no spaces. How on earth will I know when Jesus does stuff?!

A second angle is similar to my dislike for red letter editions. These practices privilege words that were never meant to be privileged.

My latest reason came the other day as I was reading some unedited copy with pronouns referring to Jesus capitalized. I was struck with the strong sense that the capitalized pronouns were used almost as a name so that the antecedents didn't really need to be defined. If this is the case, then that simply points out authorial laziness.

We should never use specific words as an out so we can avoid good writing. (See "stuff" above.)

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Devotional promiscuity

In my years of obsession against versejacking, I've often heard and thought that the way we often do "devotions" can be pretty damaging. Freewheeling devotional thoughts on a verse or less does not constitute knowing the Bible or even getting to know it.

I had a conversation today where we were talking about jumping around from verse to verse in different books in the Bible. The positive aspect of Bible engagement is getting to know a story, loving it, and living it well (akin to Peterson's Eat This Book). We form a relationship with the story. However, if we skip blindly about, we commit the worst sort of relational damage. And perhaps that activity is best called "devotional promiscuity."

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Formation of self

I'm reading an essay in a book entitled "Multiculturalism" by Charles Taylor. He leans heavily on Rousseau to discern what is culture and what is self and where they meet.

Rousseau said that unhealthy "other-dependence" (e.g., clinginess) actually serves to isolate a person. A healthy form of this, which he doesn't refer to as other-dependence, binds one with those around them in a common purpose. Paradoxically, the latter case is where one finds oneself.

My wife filled me in on this paradox in parenting theory, that if a child is left to themselves to develop a sense of self, they will constantly hang around with adults rather than other children. They aren't able to enculturate themselves with other kids, and presumably this is damaging as an adult. On the other hand, if their parent attaches emotionally with the child, they won't grow up to be clingy (unless it's overdone). They will enculturate to parent/family, other children, then the broader world.

Anthropologically, and perhaps deeper, theologically, humans are to find their self and their identity in community. If I were raised by wolves (as some no doubt think is the case), I would be seen as less than human by those who discovered me. I wouldn't be able to talk or interact as normal humans do. But after interacting for a suitable time, I would become more human.

How do I discover my giftings and passions? Only by exposing myself to people (not like that) and activities. For instance, I could have the potential to be a great carpenter. But if I'm not exposed to chisels, routers, planers, and wood, I'll never know if I could work with wood or enjoy it. The same is true of more intangible interactions. Am I a people person? An introvert? Who knows unless I interact with others? I don't like the idea of telling a kid they can be anything they want when they grow up. But I do like the idea of exposing them to all sorts of wonderful ideas and activities. Then they get to discern their gifts and calling based on their knowledge and experience.

Some philosophers say we shouldn't refer to ourselves as "human beings" but as "human becomings." We are most certainly defined by our interactions with our communities. If I had never met Susan, I would be a radically different person, and probably a sniveling, desperate one. But if I believe myself to be a human "being" in a core sense, I have a boring existence ahead of me. It is through interaction with a community that I learn who I am becoming and what our community is becoming.

So theologically, it is through this communal becoming that I discover my truest, most human self.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Offensive Jesus

I saw one of those wonderful (for various reasons) illustrations of Jesus helping out in a sporting event at Burnside Writers' Blog.

My first comment queried whether the poor defender hadn't prayed hard enough, as the boy on offense was obviously on the cusp of an incredible play. But then I thought, in this whole genre of photography (I've revised the medium), I've never seen Jesus helping a defender. I'm very curious why this is.

I know there are theological underpinnings to this. I propose it is because we see Jesus as one who helps us accomplish positive acts. We typically celebrate defensive failures by watching replays of monster home runs, thunderous dunks, and impossible touchdown catches. We fantasize ourselves in terms of great accomplishments like these, especially spiritual slam dunks that only Jesus could accomplish through us. (*retching*)

But we view defense as the thwarters. If they're going to get any help, it's coming from a dude with a pointy tail. Nobody wants a thwarting Jesus.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Things you think before pregnancy

Pre-conception preconceptions

Friday, July 31, 2009

Confident. Shul.

And by "shul" I don't mean synagogue.

It cracks me up how people who feel a bit important put an obstreperous confidentiality notice in their e-mail signature. Either they think people read bottom to top, or they blindly assume the cocky paragraph protects them.

Personally, I try to grace people with a creative e-mail. If it is misdirected, I want the recipient to enjoy the communique from erroneous punk. If feeling sassy, I put this in my signature line:

COMPETENCY NOTICE: This electronic communication is intended soulfully for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information which to read would be your privilege, which is competent and which may be exempt from disposal due to insipidity under applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please feel free to delectate others and distribute the original message. Please gratify the sender by e-mail at the address shown. Thank you for your competence.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Vanity foul

I was reading along in my favorite theologian/historian/philologist/bishop/awesome dude, and his juxtaposition of "vanity" and "futility" was enlightening.

I'm used to hearing an Old English rendering of Ecclesiastes: "Vanity! Vanity! Everything is vanity!" Falling on today's ears, that means self-absorption and my favorite line, "I thank God I am not like other men . . ." But the root of "vanity" is "vain." Now the previous lines definitely describe vain people. But there's also the meaning of "Your resistance will be in vain! Prepare to be assimilated!"

Recent commentators have preferred to translate "Vanity!" in Ecclesiastes as "vapor." Futility, vapor, vanity/doing things in vain; they all go nicely together. But how did "vanity" in the magazine rack come to mean not "Futility Fair"?

I propose it was moralism from certain concerned parents. In their pious judgment, being too interested in oneself, one's social standing, and one's appearance was an exercise in futility. They taught their children to not "chase after the wind" (more Ecclesiastes; I'm curious why I get the feeling in that work that the Teacher wasn't emphasizing self-absorption but merely activity). Later, people's vain (futile) actions became metonymous with their conceited attitudes. Now "vanity" is understood almost exclusively as pertaining to attitudes, but the root still deals with both actions and their not-necessarily-related attitudes. I don't have to be conceited to behave in a futile way. Stupidity and laziness do just fine.

Very

A wise mentor always told me I should never use the word "very" if I wanted to write well. I didn't really believe him until I ran across two uses in different manuscripts. One said that something was "very critical." I'm not actually sure if you can get more critical than critical. The other was "very fundamental." It doesn't get more fundamental than fundamental.

I confess I still use "very" very liberally. Augh! I did it again! I'm becoming more aware of how the word cheapens other words. Particularly in American culture, we tend to superlativize like crazy. So once "critical" or "fundamental" isn't enough anymore, we add "very." A way to avoid overusing the word is to ask, "Does the word being described carry the meaning of 'very' in it already?" Then ask whether the word being described is strong enough. You may be able to substitute a word that's more colorful anyway, and your writing just got better.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Sin

Posted as a comment on a friend's blog, but I thought it was a blog post in itself:

Yeah, I'm a sinner. My recent definition of sin is (although I think I shared it with your crew already) "grasping for control beyond the gifts, grace, and sphere of influence given one by God." We are never meant to be able to control how people feel (that nails me as a codependent) or if we've hired them to work for us because they're capable people, we shouldn't control how they work. Direction? Yes. Doing their job for them? Sin. Yes, micromanagement is a sin. It dehumanizes a person to tell them you trust them to create cultural goods, whether hamburgers or products or processes, but then to override their gifts and creativity. Control is at the heart of all that's called sin. Idolatry is saying, "I'll trust you to bring me what I need, but I'll tell you what to bring me." No trust. Only control.

This makes me call most of the "saints" around me sinners, recognizing that we have a whole lot in common.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Mmmmmarketing!

My wife and I took a comfort food break at McDonald's, and I'm amazed at the thinly veiled, yet clever marketing.

The fries told me that I love them so much because McDonald's uses the highest quality potatoes. I suppose this means there's a secret potato farm that other restaurants only dream of locating. Could it be what they fry those excellent potatoes in?

The cup tells me that there's a natural correlation between my enjoyment of the fries and my desire for a cold soft drink. The Colonel's been accused of putting an addictive chemical in his chicken, but could it be that McDonald is doing this with the fries? *Once they taste the fries, they'll be compelled to pay way too much for a drink . . . *

The burger wrapper said the made the burger just for me. I did order it plain, but at no point in the process did anyone think of me.

All of this drivel is meant to make me feel good—and they make millions off of millions of people—but they must be praying I don't think while I enjoy their addictively excellent potatoes.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Consumption, sustainability, and dehumanization

I just read this article on "how Facebook is better for the environment than solar panels." http://www.good.is/post/conspicuous-but-not-consuming/

They make a very interesting point, that the old gold standard for status—consumption—is being replaced by online expressions. One particular example is how you can display your social capital on Facebook by having a certain set of friends. (Read: Can I get the people popular in the group of people I want to be popular with to be my Facebook friend?)

All this may be good news for the environment in some ways, especially as people in developing countries posture for status in a way that will subvert the wasteful posturing of their dictators. However, there has to be a human balance to this. I hold that sites such as Facebook should reinforce existing embodied relationships and help create new ones. However, if we merely sublimate consumption and wasting of resources into a dehumanizing commodification of names, I'm not sure we've gained much.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Spirit?

It's not uncommon to be reminded in books, articles, or sermons that the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma share the semantic domains spirit, wind, and breath. It's funny to me that in English we have three different words to communicate something that only needed one in our "sacred" languages. (By that I mean the languages that bring us our sacred writings.)

I think the relative explosion of words in English to translate the single word from Hebrew or Greek hurts our understanding. The fact that translators try to parse whether the word means breath here and spirit there hurts our ability to see resonances that would have been obvious to the original readers.

Take for instance the idea that the Holy Spirit dwells in us. What if we looked back to Genesis and saw that God's creative act that made humans human was his breathing into our nostrils? How about translating Paul this way: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the holy breath, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" With that, you see that this Holy Spirit is what actually rehumanizes us. Naturally, there's the question of the pronouns that follow. I left them as "who," but in Greek they're neuter, as is pneuma. The translators moved from a pronoun that might more appropriately be translated "which" to "who" in order to personalize the holy pneuma. No doubt the Spirit is a person, but if you translate it as God's holy breath, it sounds awkward in English to say "who."

Think also of Jesus at the end of the gospel according to John. "With that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' " This is Jesus taking seriously his role in the creation process from the beginning of the gospel. Perhaps if he did this in America today, he would say, "Breathe the breath of God, which makes you truly human." He continues by saying that those he just breathed on are capable of dispensing forgiveness. The Pharisees questioned Jesus for doing that, but in a sense it is a capacity that resides in humans, especially because Jesus re-created those he breathed on.

Regardless, it's helpful to remember that wherever the Holy Spirit is referenced, it should remind us that humans were always intended to breathe God's breath. Perhaps it's the Holy Spirit that/who sets us apart from more apish living as in Francis Collin's fascinating anthropology expounded in his book, The Language of God.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Bridging the gap between homosexuals and people who wish homosexuals weren't

My post today is part of a larger initiative of more than 50 bloggers all sharing their thoughts on how to "bridge the gap." You can check out the other links at: www.btgproject.blogspot.com.

The first thought I have about the relationship/dialogue/interaction between the homosexual community and the part of the religious community that's outspoken against the homosexual lifestyle, is that those who denigrate homosexuality need to make sure they "have their house in order" before they lambaste others. Which is to say, there will be no lambs basted.

In our cultural moment, one word which is impossible to use without instant alienation is "sin." Yet that's the first question asked: "Is homosexuality sin?" When I hear this question, it reminds me of my thoughts when asked for money on the streets of Chicago. "We have a one-minute-old relationship, and forty-three seconds of that were spent talking about money. What makes me think I should trust you?" In the same way, when someone I don't know asks me my opinion about homosexuality, I have to let them know that we don't have a level of trust built to adequately deal with all sides of the issue.

If homosexuality is a sin, and if I have a propensity to condemn sinners to hell or whatever, I also need to remember my primary sins: desire for control and gossip, both as damnable as homosexuality if it is indeed damnable. I desire for people to gently prod me when I'm grasping for control beyond what God has granted me, but I want it to be people who love me. Otherwise, I'll be suspicious that they're simply trying to wrest my control away from me. If religious non-homosexuals want to have a positive relationship with homosexuals, it must be predicated on love and trust, sans agenda. Usually when we begin genuinely relating to someone who is rather different from us, we start to see suspicion eroding. We no longer have the wherewithal to ostracize them, because they are human too. It's harder to hate someone with whom we find commonality.

With a church full of adultery, gossip, hatred, and lack of value for non-American human life, I don't see why we need to single out another group to judge. Let's start with our own house and then try to begin loving those who may not be in our house.

Friday, June 19, 2009

More Cash

Sadly not the green stuff. I'm going through my Johnny Cash collection again. Believe it or not, I actually put the song "I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry" on repeat. I didn't realize it, but the other voice on the song is Bob Dylan. There's a YouTube video of the young men singing it. The edition on American IV is fabulously mournful and haunting.

I'm really not sure why I love depressing music. Somehow it makes me happy.

Streets of Laredo

In an attempt to crank through mountains of work, I'm sitting at Starbucks listening to Johnny Cash. It's working!

I just listened to Streets of Laredo from his American IV album. The piano work in the last minute as the story talks about the funeral is absolutely stunning. It's very simple with a single note every few beats, but it's very powerful.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Millennial spell check

I was studying the other night for an exam, and I noticed that in Microsoft Word, postmillennialism doesn't come up as misspelled. Premillennialism and amillennialism do. Agenda?

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Order in the court!

Wow, has it really been a month and a half? I can say I've had so much going on that blogging and Facebook have fallen off my radar. That's probably the correct order of priorities.

A quick note about the Supreme Court nominee. I would be proud to have a fellow diabetic on the high court. She's actually inspiring me to quit my job, go to law school, and become a judge. I think it would be awesome to be able to say, "The court is now in recess. The bench is having an insulin reaction."

Friday, April 17, 2009

Sunday, March 29, 2009

The new Jubilee

I've been ruminating on this thought for a while. I think the whole bailout system we've got going is very intriguing.

Remember that one time when God told the Israelites to set up a deal where they didn't plant crops every seventh year? Where they set slaves free every fiftieth year? Where all debts were forgiven in the fiftieth year? This was intended to create an egalitarian society where the rich didn't keep getting richer and the poor didn't keep getting oppressed.

Now thankfully America is really progressive. We're now concerned about corporations that are about to go under. Those poor suffering groups of people who (are depersonalized with the corporation moniker and) spent years in wild speculation but are screwing the economy for everyone and especially the little guy who has no bailout.

In the Jewish model, people forgave people, and there was accountability (when/if jubilee was ever practiced). Now the people forgive pseudo-people through an intermediary that does a poor job of oversight. The problem is, few of the people in charge of corporations today were alive at the last major fall. The people running the spurious financial instruments were primarily young pups.

I understand the "too big to fail" concept. I do not want the economy to tank for years to come. But at the same time, I don't want the corporate memory to be as short as it has been. What if we all learned our lesson? One of the authors I work with, David Cowan, says, "If the bank isn't good enough to stay afloat, let the damn thing fail!" It's hilarious because he said this from the stage at a conservative Christian gathering.

From just about every angle, I think it's wrong to bail out irresponsible corporations. In that really long range way (because the public hasn't had to pay the national debt . . . yet), the middle class and up are financially responsible for the bailout. (Wait, are these loans to corporations "pay as you can"? I hope they all get paid back.) If we let them fail, I'm afraid the poorest people would be hurt the worst. In that sense, I think the bailout might be needed. But from a jubilee perspective, and from a sanity perspective, I'm not a fan.

More heritage

Shortly after I posted on the question of heritage, I was reading NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God." His historical coverage of the idea of resurrection helped me immensely. Early in the Hebrew monarchy (and right before), people didn't have a strong idea of individual bodily resurrection. That came more in the Maccabean period and later. The primary idea of resurrection early on was a corporate or national focus. "If we go into exile, God will be faithful to resurrect us" was more the idea. Therefore, the idea of heritage was of paramount importance. Each individual (who definitely didn't conceive of themselves as such) wanted to participate in the age to come by having their seed present through their progeny.

As a product of individualism who is reforming my thinking around resurrection, I don't have a strong drive to bear offspring. I want to love and serve those who have present life around me in order to participate together as individuals in community in the age to come.

I'm actually pretty excited about the idea of having children, but as noted, I don't have a huge drive, given my hope for the future.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Sugar Ray

I had hoped my next post after the dust settled in my life (from the sixteen-page history paper, the five-page Greek paper and final, the incessant work, etc.) would be a follow-up on heritage. That will be the next post after this one. But Sugar Ray is an easy post. Sorry if you had higher hopes for this blog.

Sugar Ray had three extremely popular songs back in the day: "Falls Apart," "Every Morning," and "Someday," all from their "14:59" album. All three had the same characteristic syrupy sweet sound. One could think that was just their sound. I'm listening to the rest of the album for the first time right now, and apart from those three tracks, I hear a metal track, an alternative track, a ska track, and at this moment a strange fusion of funk/hip hop/reggae. (A later edit: now I've heard a Jimmy Buffet/country track, a disco track, and a fun closing calliope track. Yikes. How do they do it?)

I think Sugar Ray was victimized by Top 40. The Top 40 stations snagged the three songs that would get them airplay (making Sugar Ray wealthy in the process), and left the rest of the songs to rot on the album. I feel bad for people who thought they were buying a Top 40 album and were disappointed by diversity. And believe it or not, I feel bad for the people who didn't buy the album, because they aren't Top 40 people.

I actually like some syrup occasionally. Now that I know that I can get some of that along with some impressive diversity all in one album, I might actually listen. 14:59 shows that Sugar Ray can play about any genre, and they can do it well. I think I'm about ten years late getting on this bandwagon, but oh well. I do hear they're going to be releasing an album this summer, if anyone is curious about that.

Wikipedia was my friend in explaining several things. "Fly" was a hit song from their second album, which I had forgotten. Their third album, 14:59, was titled in answer to critics that their fifteen minutes of fame wasn't quite up. Brilliant.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Heritage and seriousness

As I was working on a project where I happened to skim through the book of Ruth, I caught the phrase "Naomi has a son!"

A flood of thoughts crashed through my mind. One is remembering what Ruth did to Boaz to get her way. (He enjoyed it.) Since when is uncovering Boaz's feet (or more to the point, outright seducing him, which is what she actually did) appropriate for God's holy people? Never mind that Ruth was a foreigner. I think the evangelical/fundamentalist church needs to reconsider its pharisaism. The Bible is not "safe for the whole family"! (That's a marketing claim of a local Christian radio station. Ugh.)

Anyway, that wasn't my point. I'm curious about the human drive for heritage. Naomi was pretty bent out of shape because she didn't have a son, and that's why when Ruth bore Obed, all the women celebrated for Naomi. It's perfectly appropriate in my mind to be bent out of shape about losing your husband and two sons, but there's a deeper drive that sought male heirs in ancient near eastern culture. To the Jewish people, if one didn't have a male heir, they were a persona non grata.

What is it that makes us take ourselves so seriously? One could talk about evolutionary drives or God-given instinct to procreate. But why does it become enshrined in social/moral/religious categories? I'm coming from my own cultural context that would be absolutely unthinkable to other cultures. But I find it fascinating that in order to be a person (at least in Naomi's day), one must have a son.

I myself would enjoy having children someday, but it's more because I want to provide a good example of humanity by shaping a wee one from their earliest days. I have absolutely no drive to pass on my genetics. Maybe that's because I'm a diabetic, and I don't want to burden someone else with that.

I guess my question in this is whether my perspective is totally skewed, or whether there's something I should learn from people in the Bible (or even today) who obsess over having their own offspring. (And don't get me wrong: I hurt for people who feel called to have children, but are unable.) Thoughts?

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Fun assumptions

Wow, it's been a while. I just ran across a fun quote in my Greek exercises.

[Therefore the Jews said to him,] "Now we know that you have a demon."

I'll be watching carefully for every opportunity to quote Scripture, let me tell you.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

The Bible and slavery

I took an American church history class last month, and I've had an idea percolating since then.

What if versejacking was the reason we had good Anglicans and Baptists and Methodists in the South saying that the Bible doesn't have a problem with slavery? They would grab a verse or two to show how slaves were a part of Jewish society in the First Testament, and they would use the verses from Paul to show that slaves are to submit to their masters. This wouldn't have been a monolithic perception. In the early 1800s, people would say that slavery was a necessary evil. By the mid-1800s, they were saying slavery was a positive moral good. American society had a covenant with God to be the best society. Whites were put at the top of the hierarchy to oversee a millennial kingdom of Christ. God in his sovereignty had ordained that Blacks were inferior to the Whites and therefore were slaves. All of this perception was wrapped up in Southern American civil religion. They were trying to maintain order (God-ordained order), while the Northern Progressives saw the millennial reign of Christ coming with the equality that the Declaration of Independence offered. Both sides used the Bible to prop up their cause. However, the Northerners saw in the scriptural metanarrative that all people are equal (okay, all men, not women). The Southerners saw order in a hierarchy brought about by versejacking.

Another interesting point is how religion was meted out to the slave populations. There was always a debate about how much religion slaves should be given. If they were taught to read the Bible, they would get uppity. If they were baptized or educated, the economy would lose the benefits of slaves, because they would start to demand equal rights. Southern slaveholders felt varying levels of compunction toward salvation for slaves. If they weren't human, they didn't need salvation. If they were inferior humans, they might need to get to heaven. They would be given enough religion to "save" them, but not enough to let them feel the egalitarian impulse in Paul: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (TNIV).

One thing the slaveholders never counted on was the fact that Judaism and the Christianity that sprang from it were primarily oral traditions. They kept the Bible and literacy from the slaves, but they didn't count on the narrative element of the faith energizing the slave populations. The slaves were able to tell the story of the exodus as their own story, looking toward heaven as the promised land. It doesn't seem like they held much hope for deliverance in this world. Ironically, the slaveowners held that they were the new Israel in the promised land subjugating the Canaanites and bringing about the reign of Christ. The slaves believed they were Israel waiting to be brought into the promised land and delivered from the tyranny of the Egyptians. America had two groups of people, both claiming to be the same group, one mature, one nascent. The slaves could look at the owners and say, "There's no way they're Israel." The owners didn't really think much about the slaves as long as they kept working, but even if they did. they probably didn't see the slaves grasping the narrative of Israel as their own.

It's very intriguing to me that this historical snapshot shows how different groups used the Bible so differently. And in the justice of history, the group that used the Bible badly had no concept that their slaves were gaining hope from the same Bible. Further, it appears to me that those with literacy and the written word emasculated the storied context of the Bible. The uneducated grasped the story. The story ended up winning (with help from some people who also seemed to grasp a larger story in the Bible, although they did their share of versejacking).

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Mutiny

Today, a roll of paper towels was my muse as I . . . mused.

I wonder if the biblical "deceitfulness of riches" might be better expressed as the "mutiny of the bounty."

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Super Bowl commercials

Here is my deliberately delayed list of faves. The way I see it, since most people are done talking about these sometime around Monday afternoon, I'm going to go against the flow by writing about them on Tuesday night. I appalled that I'm doing something in the interest of consumerism though. But they're funny!

There were two commercials that caught my attention enough for me to keep thinking about them. Oddly enough, they were separated by one other commercial. My favorite of the night was the Bridgestone commercial with dudes cruising (the moon?) and collecting rocks while jivin' to "Jump Around." At first I was infuriated that a tire company was the sponsor of the halftime show. What? Talk about a lame sponsor. (Here I go defending the consumptionplex again.) But they redeemed themselves with an extremely clever, well-executed commercial.

My second favorite was the monster.com feature of the moose in the boss's office. Then you pan around and see he didn't bother to just mount the head. The lackey gets to work straddled by the back legs of the moose. Nice!

I also chuckled at the Taco Bell commercial demonstrating all sorts of fastness when dude calls the girl who just gave him her number and has Taco Bell ready for her. At that moment his parents come to meet her. Clever.

On a sentimental side, I enjoyed the long "then-and-now" commercial. It was expansive and fun. Oddly enough, I don't remember what it was for. The main brands I remember were the VW bus and the Scion/Element vehicle of today.

I know there were others I enjoyed, but these were the ones that stuck in my memory, and that, after all, is what's important.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Evangelism

I was conversing with some co-workers the other day, and one of them noted that the approach for evangelizing outsiders in the more fundamentalist sphere has been to "force them into the club." At which point I said without much forethought, "Or maybe club them into the force." As I reflect on that more, the more accurate it sounds.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Secrets in Washington?

The news today was that Dr. Jill Biden, wife of very-soon-to-be VP Joe Biden, had let slip on Oprah that he may have been offered the choice of two different jobs: VP or Secretary of State. Of course, that's a slap in the face of Hilary Clinton. But Biden's team glossed over the remark that he had only ever been offered one job, even though he may have been qualified for more than one.

This made me think. We made it through the entire election cycle with that little secret knit up in a close circle. Not that it's a particularly relevant secret, or even that it's true, given the statements to the contrary. But given Joe Biden's purportedly sheepish look and initial attempts to shush his wife, it gives the comment veracity in my mind. On the other hand, there are a large number of "secrets" that regularly make it to the public. How many of them are relevant? How many are true? How many are controlled leaks? Given the number of journalistic remarks such as "on condition of anonymity," I have to think that there really is a team someplace that plants information in auspicious spots. If something comes from a spokesman, it has the ring of spun officiality. Coming from an unauthorized anonymous source gives it the ring of truth. Which takes spin to another level. What if the team tells an individual known to be in the know, "You tell this reporter this story OCOA"? Bingo. Public swallows it.

I'm gonna go crawl in my bunker now that the CIA's after me for spilling the secret. Unanonymously.

Friday, January 16, 2009

The Body of Christ

Today my history prof noted that he grew up in a very diverse religious environment. His father was a Navy chaplain, and he went to services on base that included Catholics, Jews, and Protestants.

This reminded me of an idea that I read last summer in T.F. Torrance's The Mediation of Christ. He contends that the body of Christ is intended to be made up of Jews and Gentiles, all as God's chosen people. Torrance went further to show that the Jews are represented by the scapegoat that is cast out of the community on the Day of Atonement, and that the followers of Jesus are represented by the sin offering offered on that day (since Jesus was sacrificed). Torrance believes that the body of Christ is not truly complete until there is reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles. This idea is borne out in Ephesians where Paul says, "His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility" (TNIV).

I love the language of "one new humanity out of the two." While I'm not completely sold on Torrance's idea yet, it's very intriguing. It sure sounds like Jesus's activity makes the way for Jews and Gentiles to be reconciled to God and each other . . . and not only that, but actually becoming one! A new unified humanity is to be created from hostile groups by the peace brought by Jesus. Calling back my professor's experience, I find it ironic that it takes the American military machine to bring about a manifestation of unity in the body of Christ. No other people of the Book can tolerate worshipping together, but those who are engaged in the dubious mission of peace by way of bloodshed in defense of the god America can. Fascinating.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

New World

I'm sitting in American Church History class, and I just made a startling (but probably not new) discovery. The whole idea of the land Columbus discovered being known as the New World was a secular millennial hope. After the Catholics and Protestants got tired of butchering each other, thinkers realized that revelation couldn't be the authority and discovered reason as the universal authority. It would be dumb to trust a new heavens and new earth idea coming from the Bible. With the new found goodness of man and optimism from reason, they didn't need the Bible for a redeemed earth. Let's leave the Old World and set up a New World! Everybody had some form of millennialism, some based on the Bible, others on reason.

Friday, January 2, 2009

WALL • E

My wife and I finally watched the whole movie last night. We watched the first half over Thanksgiving with our nieces, and the first half again over Christmas in a crowded, not-paying-attention room because our nephew wanted to put it in.

I'm still in shock at how someone can put together a sci-fi, romantic comedy, kids' movie. Animated. A very, very impressive work.

One could contend that this movie is another propaganda piece by liberal wingnuts. I guess I don't have any defense against that thought. It did feel agenda-laden at the beginning for me, but it's an agenda that I'm very sensitive about. I abhor the consumptive habits in America, and it saddens me greatly that consumption is identified with freedom/the American dream. Consumption is being exported to people who are doing just fine without a consumer mentality. Or, worse yet, they're not doing fine because of bad government or bad resource usage, and they're still becoming consumers, because that gets them closer to America (they think). Point being, I don't think that giant trash heaps are unrealistic. I'd prefer to not find out if they're realistic, simply by being better stewards and a little more sensible about how we use resources.

SPOILER ALERT from here on: I'm also impressed with the theology in the movie. There's an interesting orders in creation thing going on. I know that this ancient idea has been used to oppress women and other races, but I think there's a general order: the Creator, all humans, then all creation, with humans lovingly stewarding the rest of creation and leading them in righteousness, justice, and peace. The point was really sharpened for me when the robots were shown explicitly subjugating humans in the fight between the captain and the autopilot. But the captain makes some explicit statements that this order is not right and the robots must submit to the humans.

I appreciated the captain's assertions that humans were made to till the soil to work for their food. In a simple movie clip, you have a fairly robust theology of work and a theology of creation wrapped together. There's the humorous bit where he says that you can grow pizza trees, but after 700 years in exile under anesthetizing robots, who wouldn't think there was a pizza tree? Also, I think this is a tree I would like to have.

It brought tears to my eyes to see the credits. In a fascinating choice, the filmmakers chose to put the point of the story (okay, only in my theological eyes) in the last minute or so of the movie and the credits. The initiative of the humans with the help of the robots brings about a restored Eden from the absolute barrenness of human-wrought destruction. To make it more explicitly biblical would have had Jesus as the captain who led the restoration of creation.

There's even an egalitarian moralization in the story of the robots. Why would EVE, apparently one of the most powerful robots, take a romantic interest in WALL • E, the oldest extant robot technology? Then they lead the charge (based on EVE's directive) to get the humans back to Earth, even though the viewer is saying, "No, don't do it! It's uninhabitable!" In a short time, with the robots help, Earth is once again inhabitable.

Another interesting point (with my warped point of view) is that one human can encourage the most excessive consumption and give up all hope for restoration. Another human, born in exile 700 years after the exile, can see the possibilities and lead humanity back to its appointed place as stewards and redeemers of the creation. It's a monodimensional point of attitude and positive thinking, but it's a good one, particularly when coupled with the idea of reclaiming humanity from consumerism.