Paul Graham shares in the dislike of religion and Christian orthodoxy that is common among most geeks on the Internet (in my experience anyway). He certainly doesn’t rank among the worst offenders, and his insights are usually shrewd in spite of what appears to me as his prejudices. At the start of the article, and apparently at the start of his idea, he was wondering why discussions of religion and politics usually are so fruitless: “As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?”

His second, and far shrewder (in my thinking) thought is that people’s view of religion and politics is closely tied to themselves. To their identity. When I argue about Christianity, I am not a disinterested observer. If Christianity is false, a very significant and treasured part of myself is wrong. In debates about religion and politics, it quickly becomes a case of people defending their very selves against an enemy rather than a discussion between friends.

Paul Graham’s advice is “If people can’t think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.”—though he adds as a footnote “There may be some things it’s a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist. But arguably that is more of a placeholder than an actual label—like putting NMI on a form that asks for your middle initial—because it doesn’t commit you to believing anything in particular. A scientist isn’t committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it. All he’s committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.” Personally, I think his footnote falls prey to the same arrogance that religion-disliking geeks on the Internet commonly fall prey to: the belief that their commitment to what they think of as “science” is a pure commitment to “follow the evidence wherever it goes.” More common, in my experience, is that there are hidden assumptions in what they think of as “science” that constrict what they are willing to believe in. To most religion-disliking geeks I know, believing in “science” is code for believing in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. But here I’m just exercising my ability to “talk back” to something I’ve read and express a bit of often felt frustration.

Anyway, so Paul’s conclusion is that it is dangerous to let any belief become part of you. “The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.” He’s right, you know. It is dangerous. And for most ideas, I think he’s correct that avoiding such beliefs is wise. I think having a firm commitment to the Republican party, to pre-millenialism or post-millenialism, to Windows or to Linux, is foolish. Because those are things I think should be compromisable: I am willing to be wrong about any of those things.

But I think there is a class of things that no-one is willing to be wrong about. Or rather, a class of things that should cause one great pain to be wrong about. For Paul, that footnote of his makes me suspect that scientific materialism may be one of the things he would suffer great pain before allowing it to be extracted from him. My orthodox Christian beliefs are beliefs that could not be extracted from me without great pain. I agree with Paul that you should be careful when you feel the prick of anger in an argument: it’s a near-sure sign that you are emotionally committed to a belief under threat. But I think that there are things that should have this sort of commitment. The alternative is a belief that no idea is worth fighting for, dying for, living for.

I wish to discuss those things: those things closest to the heart. But how can we discuss them? How can I discuss Christianity with someone of the opposite side? From personal experience, I can say this: only with pain. It hurts. It hurts because you are arguing about something you care about deeply. You are not an emotionally disinterested observer: you are (in a sense) locked in mortal combat: for either of the contending beliefs to prevail, the other has to die. But these are the really important things. Must we go all our lives without talking about the important things? In polite, civil society, perhaps so.

So I guess I have two questions. First, should these “highest” questions be discussed in public? Second, how should they be discussed when they are discussed at all?

Peter Singer almost unquestionably won the debate. He did so pretty much with his first statement, as he argued that the real purpose of their meeting was to argue the existence of God. Considering that the title of their debate (as mentioned in the wiki article on Dinesh D’Souza) was “Can there be morality without God?”, Mr. Singer appears to have changed the subject of the debate, but he did so successfully.

His main argument against the existence of the Christian God was a facet of the classical problem of suffering. He argued that the suffering of innocent animals, who are not fallen, morally responsible beings like man, particularly the evidence that this suffering has been going on as long since before the coming of man, proves that if there is a God, he/she/it cannot be a “good” being worthy of worship.

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Genesis 1:29–31, ESV, emphasis mine

After the Flood, this changed:

And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.”

Genesis 8:21–9:3, ESV, emphasis mine

If this reading of the Bible is correct, animals have not always suffered. Their suffering began after man sinned, and especially after the Flood.

However, the chief thing wrong with this reading is that it doesn’t seem to match the ancient world we dig up and explore. It appears that the death and suffering and decay we see in creation has been going on for as long as life has existed. The iron hand of decay, the fact that all things wear away, the inevitable advance of entropy: all these seem to have been part of the universe since its beginning. I am an old-earth creationist: I have no problem with the universe being circa 14 billion years old. Or at least, this is the most significant problem I have with that view. What’s more, creation seems designed to function this way. If nothing ever died, we would be deluged under rats and rabbits and skin cells, etc. The world appears to be designed for death. Granted, the world could have been radically redesigned and altered by God when man sinned, but we have evidence that animals suffered and died millions of years ago (and no-one I know argues that mankind is millions of years old): and what are fossils but evidence that animals died?

Into my musings on this issue intruded Tolkien. In his universe, mankind is different and separate from all dwarves and elves by the fact that he is mortal. Elves are immortal apart from catastrophe, and both elves and dwarves reincarnate (or so there are hints). But man’s mortality is spoken of as a gift. Men alone are not bound to the world and go beyond it, to the great fear and awe of the other races. But it is men’s fear of their deaths that makes it their doom. Númenor was destroyed because men coveted the immortality of the Elves, fearing their deaths, disdaining the gift of the One.

I personally found this a very powerful idea. And a beautiful one. But I had/have a problem: I’m not sure I can square the idea with the Bible. The Bible says explicitly:

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15:20–26, ESV, emphasis mine

And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:13–14, ESV, emphasis mine

Death is clearly spoken of as an enemy.

As I pondered these things, I turned to creation story in The Silmarillion: “The Music of the Ainur”:

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar ; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made. And he spoke to them, propounding to them themes of music ; and they sang before him, and he was glad. But for a long while they sang only each alone, or but few together, while the rest hearkened ; for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Ilúvatar from which he came, and in the understanding of their brethren they grew but slowly. Yet ever as they listened they came to deeper understanding, and increased in unison and harmony.

And it came to pass that Ilúvatar called together all the Ainur and declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed ; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur, so that they bowed before Ilúvatar and were silent.

Then Ilúvatar said to them : ‘Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony together a Great Music. And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show form your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices if he will. But I will sit and hearken, and be glad that through you great beauty has been wakened into song.’

Then the voices of the Ainur, like unto harps and lutes, and pipes and trumpets, and viols and organs, and like unto countless choirs singing with words, began to fashion the theme of Ilúvatar into a great harmony that passed beyond hearing into the depths and into the heights, and the places of the dwelling of Ilúvatar were willed to overflowing, and the music nd the echo of the music went out into the Void, and it was not void. Never since have the Ainur made any much like to this music, though it has been said that a greater still shall be made before Ilúvatar by the choirs of the Ainur and the Children of Ilúvatar after the end of days. Then the themes of Ilúvatar shall be played aright, and take Being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each, and Ilúvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased.

But now Ilúvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws. but as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar ; for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself. To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame ; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. but being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.

Some of these thoughts he now wove into his music, and straightway discord arose about him, and many that sang nigh him grew despondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered ; but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which they had at first. Then the discord of Melkor spread ever wider, and the melodies which had been heard before foundered in a sea of turbulent sound. But Ilúvatar sat and hearkened until it seemed that about his throne there was a raging storm, as of dark waters that made ware one upon another in an endless wrath that would not be assuaged.

Then Ilúvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that he smiled ; and he lifted up his left hand, and a new theme began amid the storm, like and yet unlike to the former theme, and it gathered power and had new beauty. But the discord of Melkor rose in uproar and contended with it, and again there was a war of sound more violent than before, until many of the Ainur were dismayed and sang no longer, and Melkor had the mastery. Then again Ilúvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that his countenance was stern ; and he lifted up his right hand and behold ! a third theme grew amid the confusion, and it was unlike the others. For it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies ; but it could not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity. And it seemed at last that there were two musics progressing at one time before the seat of Ilúvatar, and they were utterly at variance. The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came. The other had now achieved a unity of its own ; but it was loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated ; and it had little harmony, but rather a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice, but it seemed that its most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn patter. In the midst of this strife, whereat the halls of Ilúvatar shook and a tremor ran out into the silences yet unmoved, Ilúvatar arose a third time, and his face was terrible to behold. Then he raised up both his hands, and in one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar, the Music ceased.

Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said : ‘Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor ; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth,that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’

...

Now to water had that Ainu whom the Elves call Ulmo turned his thought, and of all most deeply was he instructed by Ilúvatar in music.

...

And Ilúvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said : ‘Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hat bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of they clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost ! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hat not dried up thy desire nor utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the everchanging mists ; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth ! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearest to Manwë, thy friend, whom thou lovest.’

Then Ulmo answered : ‘truly, Water is become now fairer than my heart imagined, neither had my secret thought conceived the snowflake, nor in all my music was contained the falling of the rain.

The Silmarillion, by JRR Tolkien, pp. 15–17, 19. Emphasis mine. Sorry for such a long quote, but it’s really marvelous stuff and germane to my point.

The thought occurred to me: what if death in this world is an insertion of the enemy, in the way that Melkor wove things into the song of the Ainur that were not part of the original plan? The Bible doesn’t make any mention of the sort of “participatory” creation that Tolkien has for his own world, but it doesn’t seem beyond possibility. And what do you think the Enemy might have been doing for all those years before the coming of man? But in the same way that Melkor’s insertions could not defeat the music of God, neither does the existence of death and predators and suffering defeat the purpose of God. I, together with God, would still call creation “good”, even if wolves always ate deer. Because life goes on. The design of the universe is not defeated by death. It is not utterly unraveled: indeed, there are some poignancies that the impermanence of our lives make possible. Indeed, in a fallen world, death is a gift.

Another interesting thing that occurred to me today was the fact that the Bible seems to have two creation stories at the beginning of Genesis. The first is the creation of the world, and the second could be called the creation of man or the creation of the garden of Eden. Could it be that one reason God created the garden of Eden was that outside the Garden was suffering and death? That here, in the Garden, where God placed Adam and Even, things were as God had originally intended them? A place where no-one died? Where animals conversed with him (Eve doesn’t seem totally shocked that the serpent spoke to her). That, if our human parents had not sinned, part of their work might have been restoring the world outside the Garden? I dunno.

Thoughts, as always, are welcome.

The most serious objection I can see is that Genesis explicitly says after each day of creation that “God saw that it was good.” And at the end, when God creates human beings, He says that it is very good. As I’ve indicated before, I still find creation good, even with death and suffering. But it’s a point.

And we’re never told that any other than God had a voice in fashioning the world.

Though Paul does say:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.

Romans 8:18-24, ESV, emphasis mine

I’m not 100% sure who “him” refers to in this verse: “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it.” But it’s clear from this passage that the Bible agrees with the observation that creation has been subjected to futility, that it is in pain and does suffer. However, this will not go on forever. Creation itself will be freed from the futility to which it is now subjected.

I sensed their potential immediately. This was the sword of my dreams, what I wished I’d had all my years as a kid. I’ve always been fascinated with swords and dueling: I recall asking my grandmother for a “real sword and shield” for Christmas when I was seven or eight. However, every sword I owned, particuarly the imitation swords one gives to children, disappointed me. They broke far too easily. The cool-looking plastic sword was worthless: one decent swing and it would bend in half. Let alone a full length duel, like the ones my heroes engaged in (think Star Wars and Princess Bride). I later turned to sticks and wood. I had better results: they had more heft and could withstand longer duels, but fighting with them almost inevitably broke them and wound up with me dripping blood from my knuckles. I wish someone had shown me how to make a boffer.

Properly constructed (meaning those constructed by me :)), a boffer has the following virtues:

1. It usually won’t hurt anyone. See caveats below.
2. It will almost never break under ordinary conditions. Yes, they are more brittle in cold weather; yes, an adult swinging at full power can crack them; but they’re tougher than they look and can take a very decent amount of beating. If you’re swinging hard enough to break them, you’re swinging way too hard.
3. They are enormous amounts of fun. They will not teach you true swordfighting, but they will give you a chance to have fun and live out a bit of those dreams derived from Star Wars and Princess Bride. And I believe there’s something precious in those dreams, even if they bear little to no resemblance to real sword fights.

1. You can be hurt. Direct hard blows to head can hurt a lot, particularly on the ears. Stabs to the eyes can be bad, too. In general, the worst injuries I’ve seen these inflict come when you’re wearing something hard against your skin. I have a scar from being hit hard across my forehead, driving the frame of my glasses into my skull. I’ve had a child draw blood when fighting me when he struck my wristwatch and drove the buttons into my wrist. The worst single injury I’ve ever seen was when a friend used a really awesome model of an old-fashioned helmet with a metal noseguard. A direct hit on the face drove the noseguard through his upper lip, requiring a number of stitches to close.
2. Your sword hand will likely take a beating. If you don’t wear gloves, you will inevitably be hit hard enough on the knuckles that you’ll get a nasty bruise. This bruise can take a couple of weeks to heal. Do not swordfight until it’s healed: you’ll make it worse. Wearing gloves (I prefer simple leather work gloves) significantly ameliorates this.
3. I would advise against making these swords heavier and less flexible by reinforcing with wooden or metal cores. Bruised fingers are bad enough: cracked bones in your fingers (and elsewhere) are much, much worse. Keep it fun. Or adopt more rules and greater protection.

This is what you’ll need to make one, using my methods. All of this, except the athletic tape, can be readily acquired at Lowes or Home Depot. Most grocery stores or Walmart-type stores will stock athletic tape (as well as, duh, atheletic stores).

1. 600 psi PVC pipe. (1/2 inch or 3/4 inch in diameter)

For a one-handed sword (32 inches in my standard length for such a weapon), I’d advise the 1/2 inch. It’s my favorite diameter. For a longer sword, you can use either. I’d lean toward a 3/4 inch diameter for a two-handed sword: 1/2 inch just bends too much. It’s commonly sold in 8 or 10 foot lengths.

2. Foam pipe insulation.

The practical use of this is to insulate hot and cold water pipes. I’ve seen two versions of this: a cheaper gray variety that works fairly well, and a much more expensive and heavier black variety. I prefer the black variety: it is self-sealing to a large degree and heals from punishment a lot better than the other. I was forced to rebuild the “blades” of a number of the gray foam swords: I have never yet had to completely replace the “blade” of one with black foam. Important note: buy the next size up from the diameter of the PVC pipe. So if you’re using 1/2 inch PVC, use 3/4 inch foam pipe insulation. and for 3/4, use 1 inch. You don’t want a really tight fit, which is what you’ll have if you buy the same size.

3. Good quality duct tape.

A good part of the fun comes in deciding what color to make your sword, now that they offer duct tape in so many hues. I have not yet tried Gorilla Tape, but it looks like it’d be fine.

4. A roll of athletic tape.

This is used in making the grip. You want something your hands can hold onto easily. I used masking tape originally, but athletic tape has never worn out in my experience (though I’m sure steady use, day in day out, for months on end, would wear it out).

5. An end cap for each sword you want to make

This will go on the handle of the sword: it covers one end. That way, if you drop the sword onto hard concrete and it lands right on the end, this cracks and is easily replaced, instead of having the core PVC pipe crack. Plus, it looks cool. I favor the 45° end: but you may choose what you wish. Make sure it fits the size of pipe you’re using.

6. A bit of good glue.

Used for securing the end cap. Any good glue will do: personally, I favor Shoe Goo: that stuff’s awesome.

And here are the directions for making one.

1. The first thing to do is decide exactly how long your sword should be. I’ve heard that a really good sword is made proportional to the height of the wielder. I don’t know any formula for decided how long to make a sword based on your height, but I’m sure Google does. If you care, I mayself am about 5 feet 9 inches tall.

   That said, I make swords in two lengths, depending on whether it’s intended to be used in one hand or two. My one-handed swords are 32 inches long, the handle 9 inches long (which leaves the “blade” 21 inches). It sounds short, but it works out well for most people I’ve known. My two-handed swords are 48 inches long, with a 15 inch handle (leaving a 33 inch “blade”). This may sound like I’m making the handle too long, but trust me. It works pretty well. I’m a little fuzzy on how I settled on those lengths: if I recall, they’re modeled off of classical lengths of Japanese swords such as the katana, but I’m not sure. I’ve experimented with different lengths a fair bit, and I like the ones I just gave you. I’d stick with those lengths, unless you know better than me or just want to try something different.

   So, one handed or two? For a one-handed sword, cut a length of PVC 32 inches long. For a two-handed sword, cut a length of PVC 48 inches long. It’s not a bad idea to get this done at Home Depot: they have some nice pipe-cutting tools that make a really smooth cut. But you can use an ordinary wood saw as well. It’ll be a little rougher, but it’ll work.

2. Then choose which end will be the handle. Generally choose the smoother side: it’ll make putting on the end cap easier. Make a mark on the PVC at the length of the handle. For a one-handed sword, the handle should be 9 inches long. For a two-handed sword, 15 inches.

3. Slide the foam insulation down the “blade” of the sword, right up the mark you made. Then, holding the end nearest the handle firmly, feel for where the end of the PVC pipe is. Wrap your fingers around the foam, just past the end. Then cut the foam, just above your fingers. You want a full finger-width or more past the end. This will give you half an inch or so of foam at the end, making stabs less dangerous. If you forget to leave some room at the end and stap someone, there won’t be any give to the sword. Not good.

4. While you were cutting the foam, it may have shifted a bit. Bring the end back to the mark you made. If you bought the black foam, its open sides are covered in plastic. That’s because they’re very sticky. When the foam is where you want it, carefully peel back one side about an inch. Then peel back the other side about the same length. That way, you can hold both bits of plastic at the same time. Then pull smoothly, peeling off both side simultaneously. Bring the edges together so they stick nicely.

5. Bring the foam back to the mark you made. Cut a length of duct tape sufficient to go two or more times around the padded blade. Put this tape on the padding nearest the handle. About a third of an inch or less should be touching the padding, the rest should be hanging over the edge a bit. Once you’ve wound the tape around a couple of times, then grab the edge jutting off and wrap it around the PVC core. This tape is meant to be a bridge between the PVC and the foam. It’ll keep the blade from sliding around.

6. Using a length of duct tape sufficient to go around the sword twice, make two or three more bands around the blade. They should be about the same distance from another: it will keep the foam pressed firmly against the PVC.

7. This is the long part: pry off a bit of duct tape (don’t cut a length: you’ll wind directly from the roll) and stick it to the foam near the handle. The tape should be at about a 45° angle to the PVC. Then, slowly and carefully, wind the tape around. It should overlap itself around a quarter of an inch. Spiral around the “blade” toward the tip, wrapping the padding in a layer of duct tape. (Why do this, you ask? If you didn’t, you’d be ripping chunks of padding off at every duel. The duct tape forms a tough skin around the padding.) Once you reach the tip, “turn” the duct tape around, and spiral back to the handle, still overlapping in the same way. When you’re done, the entire length of the “blade” should wrapped in two layers of duct tape.

8. Cut a length of duct tape around five inches long. Pinch the padding at the end of the sword together and tape over it, so that tape covers the hole at the tip of the sword.

9. Put a bit of glue on the inside surface of the pipe fitting that you’ll be using for the handle. This will keep it from coming off. Then put in on, tapping/banging firmly to make sure it gets solidly on.

10. Using the atheletic tape, wrap the PVC that forms the handle. Wrap in a way similar to the way you wrapped the blade, but overlap more. If I recall, you don’t need to wrap both ways: one way is sufficient.

11. Cut two pices of duct tape six inches long or so. Wrap them around either end of the handle, covering the ends of the athletic tape so no edges are exposed. The duct tape should wrap around the blade a few times. Of course, this overlap itself completely: you’re not spiraling, just wrapping in a circle to cover the ends of the athletic tape.

You’re done!

It was marvellous to see her again. I don’t remember longing for anything as much as her return in a very long time ... it was like waiting for Christmas as a kid, when it takes forever but is so much more special when it does arrive. The married life agrees with me, I think.

Other than her coming back, there’s not too much to update you on. I’ve started martial arts training in Genbukan ninpo; it’s been a long time since I’ve felt as much a rank beginner in something. In college, I was taking classes in things I generally had some background and experience in, but this is quite different. It can be frustrating to do so many things wrong ... but I’m sure it’s quite healthy. Right now much of my training is in bowing and scraping properly. :)

A few years ago now, I saw Tom Cruise’s The Last Samurai. It was an interesting film, but it deeply angered me. It seemed to me to portray the culture of the West as degraded and worthless, in contrast to the worthy and glorious culture of the Asian East. (Though, to be fair, there is one scene I recall which showed a single positive point of comparison between the West and East: Tom Cruise carries firewood for a woman.) At the end of the film, there’s an epic battle between the Western-style Imperial Japanese Army and the traditional samurai. During the first part of the battle, the samurai are able to trick the Imperials into fighting at close range without the support of artillery, and the Imperials are slaughtered. Then, at the final scene of the battle, the samurai perform a glorious mounted charge against the rest of the Imperial army ... defended by a single gatling gun. They are destroyed to a man, mowed down by the pitiless gun.

The scene is meant as a great tragic moment when all your sympathies are with the samurai nobly giving their lives and living out their traditions. I, on the other hand, am rooting for the gatling gun. I crow in triumph as the proud samurai meet their doom, as their ancentral armor made with such care and skill is made worthless by the murderous fire of the gatling gun. I rejoice, because those samurai despised the West. They despised our weapons, our culture, our achievements. They thought it all worthless. Degraded. Lower. And yet it killed them, in all their haughty pride and great skill. They may have martial training up the wazoo; they may fight with enormous determination and nobility, but in an open field charging a gatling gun, it’s all worthless. They’re blown away.

Arrogant horsemen either learn to respect a machine gun, or they die. Our culture and our weapons have great power. To ignore that is foolish and suicidal.

You may hate the West, but you shall fear our weapons (in their proper element), or you will die.

I don’t mean to commit the same error of despising the old weapons. They too have great power. At close range, a well-trained sword can wreak havok among people wielding guns. And the enormous care and skill and glory of what the old world was able to make deserves our respect. But some of our modern stuff deserves theirs as well. And if they despise it, they shall be destroyed by it if they fight us (just as we will be destroyed by the old tech if we despise it and face it on its own ground).

In some ways, corporations are living things. The law has recognized this for more than a hundred years, giving coporations legal “personhood”. Most people I discuss this with think this is foolish. Corporations aren’t people. They’re dead inanimate objects.

But it occurs to me that corporations are like living things. They are things that we humans create which take on a life of their own. All human groups are like this, to a greater or lesser extent. When you form a club, that club exists almost as a living thing, albeit a very weak one. All groups depend on their members for their continued existence (much as we humans depend on our bodies for continued existence). Some members are more important than others: the loss of a few key people will be the end of a almost any small group. But the larger a group gets, the more immortal it is. The less it depends on and is shaped by any one individual. Just think: if you were to try to change the nature of Ford Motor Company, how many of its people would you have to change? The CEO would not be sufficient. Neither would all its board. It has a distributed life (though some members are more important than others).

Living things also tend to have a certain insatiability to them as well. Many animals will eat themselves to death, if given the opportunity. Human beings in particular have a “hole in their hearts”: they always want more than they have. Again, the groups we form share the same characteristics: they too always want more.

Corporations generally are very dumb living things. The larger they grow, the dumber they get. This is probably because the more a group grows, the less it depends on an individual for its existence, and the less a single individuals’ intelligence guides it. As a semi-famous quote puts is: “any one of us is smarter than all of us.” Corporations are often criticized for not having the intelligence/humanity to put the interests of others ahead of their own. But children also have a marked tendency to be selfish: selfishness is indicative of immaturity.

The largest single difference I can think of between groups as living things and individuals as living things is what they’re made of. Groups are made of individuals. Individuals are made of lots of things, none of which is sentient apart from the individual. For an individual, the life of the members is and should be wholly subordinated to the life of the body. My body is a tyranny, not a democracy. When a member of my body revolts and does its own thing, we call it cancer.

Groups, however, are made of individuals. Each of which has rights and goals and opinions of its own, which are not subordinated to the rights, goals, and opinions of the group. As an individual, I can destroy my members at a whim (though it is wise to consider their utilitarian value: I’m not going to sacrifice a useful member if I can help it). A group, however, should not do this. A group should destroy individuals only when doing so saves more individuals. A member of my body only has value if I myself think it does. A member of a group has value whether or not the group thinks it does.

Groups have tremendous power. The most powerful groups are many many orders of magnitude more powerful than any individual but God. They have enormous wealth, incredible resources, and vast manpower. People working together have great power. But groups find it very difficult to control their power. Sitting in on meetings and seeing the results should convince anyone of that. Groups do lots of things they don’t quite intend to do, and (like all actions) their actions have unintended consequences. Groups are barely alive and only sort of have their own will and intentions, but they still manage to do a lot of things.

Guilty and Innocent Groups?

Modern conservatives do not consider groups living things. In particular, they do not believe that groups have moral responsibilities. They (accurately) believe that responsibility, guilt, and blame can only be attributed to living things; because they do not believe groups are living things, they don’t believe groups (particularly corporations) have any moral obligations to their members (or to others). This is incorrect: in the Bible, the nation of Israel was condemned and sent into exile for its sins. In the book of Nehemiah, he prays:

let your ear be attentive and your eyes open, to hear the prayer of your servant that I now pray before you day and night for the people of Israel your servants, confessing the sins of the people of Israel, which we have sinned against you. Even I and my father’s house have sinned. We have acted very corruptly against you and have not kept the commandments, the statutes, and the rules that you commanded your servant Moses.

Nehemiah 1:6–7, ESV

Nehemiah clearly feels guilt for the nation he is a part of; for the sins of his fathers and his peers as well as his own. Again, this time in the book of Daniel:

we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules. We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you. To us, O Lord, belongs open shame, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against you. To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God by walking in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. All Israel has transgressed your law and turned aside, refusing to obey your voice. And the curse and oath that are written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out upon us, because we have sinned against him.

Daniel 9:5–11, ESV

How are we conservatives to factor this into our calculations of guilt and innocence? In the book of Isaiah, God says:

“What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.”

Ezekiel 18:2–4, ESV

This is the justice we believe in: people are only responsible for their own sins and actions.

Can an individual be held responsible for the actions of his group? Even the actions of that group occurring before his time? Most conservatives I know are extremely resistant to the idea that they are responsible for the sins of their fathers (one specific example is whether to feel guilt over our nation’s history of slavery and discrimination).

Lest anyone make the argument that mourning over the sins of one’s group is Old-Testament-only, there are numerous times in the New Testament where mention is made of mourning for the sins of one’s group. One specific example: “I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced.” (2 Corinthians 12:21, ESV).

Yet people do stand apart from their groups and are judged individually all throughout Scripture. Examples: Achan, though part of the victorious Israel, was destroyed for his personal sin of taking things that were supposed to be devoted to God for himself. Interestingly, Israel was also judged for his sin: they suffered a terrible defeat at Ai (Judges 7). Rahab, on the other hand, though part of a condemned city/nation, was delivered by her faith. Moses’ intercession spared the nation of Israel on a couple occasions (Deuteronomy 9:13, Numbers 14:12) as well. Righteousness or evil of an individual has consequences for his group. The most extreme examples of this is are Adam and Christ.

I think that we can extract a few principles:

1. God may punish groups for the actions of individuals.
2. God may bless groups for the actions of individuals.
3. Individuals are held responsible for their own sins, not the sins of others. Judgment for the sins of others may fall on the groups an individual is part of, but not personally on the individual.
4. As part of a group, it is appropriate to mourn the sins of its members, both past and present. You may not be personally responsible for them, but your group is partly responsible.

I think it’s safe to say that guilt can be borne by both groups and individuals, and that it’s a different kind of guilt. One is personal; you yourself have it. One is shared: all of you in a group have it. This matches the point of this whole post: that groups themselves are a kind of living thing that can have responsibilities and guilt. As a member, you share those responsibilities and guilt, but you share them. You do not carry them alone.

Can a group be saved or condemned? I hesitatingly advance that it can, though individual members of it may not share in its fate one way or the other, depending on their actions. Israel as a nation was sent into exile, though individuals were spared and a remnant was left. Christ threatened the church of Sardis in Revelation:

“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.

“ ‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’“

Revelation 3:1–6, ESV

The church as a whole was threatened with judgment, but hope was held out for individuals. The reverse is also true; the author of Hebrews points out that the nation of Israel was delivered from slavery, yet the majority of its members perished in the wilderness because of their sins. The group may be delivered, but the individual perish.

I suppose all this goes to say something simple: groups are real, and individuals are real. They can be guilty and they can be judged and they can be saved. Groups are judged as groups (and all their members are affected), and individuals as individuals, and they stand alone.

Morality of Groups

As alluded to earlier, groups are different from individuals. Their morality is also different. But what is that morality? How is it different? How is it the same?

I don’t think I have answers to that. I’ll try to muse about it a while, but I don’t know if much will come of it.

Groups are different from individuals because they are composed of individuals whereas individuals are composed of ... well, not of individuals, anyway. Both individuals and groups have to generally relate to three kinds of “others”: groups have to relate to their own members, to the members of other groups, and to other groups. Individuals have to relate to their groups, to other individuals, and to groups they are not part of. They also have to relate to God. I guess groups do to: the Bible contains lots of stuff directed at groups as well as individuals. God is concerned with groups as well as individuals, so it seems that groups also need to be concerned with God as groups.

A group is very nebulous. It almost always has leaders, but it has lots of non-leaders as well, and they also matter. Leaders have an enormous influence in a group, but the sum total of their influences is less than the total influences on the group. There is no one person who makes the decisions for a group (generally there’s something sick and dangerous in a group where one person controls it totally. A healthy group has more than one active person.) A leader bears more responsibility for the group than a non-leader (James 3:1). A group bears some responsibility for the actions of its members. This is clearly demonstrated in the Bible.

When is an action the full responsibility of a group, when the full responsibility of a member? I don’t think either of those extremes really exist. Any action of a member has some relevance to the group, and any action of the group is taken by its members (and almost never all of them), so they always bear some individual burden as well. I was pondering the question of how a group can repent. We see an example of a group repenting in the book of Jonah:

The word reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.” When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.

Jonah 3:6–10, ESV

I doubt that all of Nineveh repented, but enough of them did to “save” the group. Indeed, it doesn’t take many people to “save” a group: Abraham wheedled God down to 10 to save Sodom. (Genesis 18:22)

I suppose the question of the morality of groups is intimately tied to the morality of the groups’ members. Because all actions of every member affect the group, the “good” actions of a few can “save” a group, and the “evil” actions can also condemn it (or call down judgment, anyway). But when can the group be said to be acting? I suppose the answer to that is anytime a member of the group acts. The more members act together, the greater the impact. (That’s where groups get their power).

So does the morality of a group reduce down to the sum of the morality of its members? Or does it have responsibilities as a group? According to my previous conclusion that both groups and individuals are real, it must. Sodom was judged as a group. Nineveh repented as a group. So what is a group action? A group action is something its members do together. Can a group be said to be under the same law as individuals? To “love the Lord with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself?” Does the group have a heart? Yes; it is a living thing. Obeying this law would obey all four of its responsibilities: to God, to the members of others, to other groups (both qualify as neighbors), and to one’s own members (to love your neighbor as yourself, you must love yourself, to love yourself, you must love your members).

A group is much clumsier than an individual. It almost has to be; it is much bigger. So how does a group love its neighbors? The same way one loves anything: by genuinely acting for its good. So how could a group genuinely act for the good of others (which is what we often want corporations to do)? I suppose its obvious how groups could act for the good of others; what is not obvious is how to get the group to do so. A group tends to be highly immature and dumb. How can you get a child to willingly act for the good of others? I suppose by telling them to and (much more) by doing so yourself yourself.

I’ve heard it said that children will follow in the footsteps you thought you’d covered up. In general, we individuals in today’s culture do not love the jobs we have or act in the best interests of the companies of which we are a part. The general attitude I see in people is a desire to get as much as they can from their company and being grudgingly willing to work to get it. They do not love their group and do not really act for its benefit. And they wonder why the group grows up to act the same way toward them: the corporation grows up to desire to get as much out of its employees as possible and is grudgingly willing to give them various benefits to get those things. So I suppose the first step in teaching a group to love others is to love the group.

I think that’s enough for now. I wonder how many of you made it through this whole post? It’s a really long, meandering, philosophical one. Maybe nobody. :( I suppose it was valuable anyway, since it let me think through my philosophy of groups, but I hope it benefited someone else too.

I ran across the image on the right while browsing the Internet this past week. It interested me. The caption says “Sex is part of us. It’s a part of our nature. But to show it, it’s suddenly ‘Dirty Pornography’. Shoulnd’t a body, any body, in a state of sexual ecstasy be considered more beautiful? More artistic?”

It’s not a bad question, though I am doubtful of the Platonic philosophical motives of its source. I will try to answer it.

Sex is indeed beautiful. It is the most intimate thing one human being can do with another. It is both physical and spiritual. In some ways, it is a fulfillment and affirmation of what it means to be human, of God’s intent that love should find its joy, its ecstasy in giving joy and ecstasy to another.

Yet we humans are ashamed of it. Have been ever since the fall. “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” (Genesis 3:7, ESV). Seems a strange first action for humans newly emancipated from the tyranny of God. But it rings true.

So should we cheer on those of us with the courage to “take it all off” and envy them their cheek? Courage is required to do something you’re afraid to do. But courage can be required to do evil things as well: I hear that most killers are at least somewhat apprehensive their first time as well; killing someone also takes “guts”. You cannot blindly admire someone for doing something they were afraid to do.

How much intimacy can pornography have when the one being pornographed is a stranger? They lay it all out for you and you give nothing back. And they don’t do it for you as a person; they do it for the crowd. For the generic, impersonal “you”. Whatever intimacy is given is a lie.

Pornography when the pornographed is known to you (your wife, for instance) is a trickier issue. One trouble with it is that it is still unidirectional: one party reveals themselves and the other does not. Though the graph (I figure an instance of pornography can be referred to as a graph) could be of the two of you. Then I inquire about the purpose.

The purpose of sex is to give. The reason your organs were made the way they were is to give pleasure to another. To be sure, sex is a source of great pleasure for oneself, but when it is used as such instead of a source of great pleasure for another, it is twisted. This, by the way, is my fundamental objection to masturbation. I struggled with it greatly as a teenager and still face the temptation (far easier to deal with now that I’m married). And I realize that masturbation is a contentious issue and one that’s dangerous to judge too harshly: many many people live under a terrible crushing guilt because they’re trapped in an infinite cycle of giving in to temptation, regretting and repenting, and giving in again. It’s demoralizing in the extreme.

But I still think it’s worth fighting against, particularly for a guy. The fundamental problem with masturbation is that it uses one’s sex organs (and one’s mind) for your own unshared pleasure. I think there is great gain and maturity to be found in fighting against its temptation if you fight because you know that your sexual powers were not made for you, but for another.

This has great relevance to the case against pornography as well. If pornography has good uses (which I have not yet conceded), by far most of its uses are evil: they are a case of a person (usually a man) taking sexual pleasure in a graph of people he does not know or care about as people. There is no true intimacy in it. And sex without intimacy is evil.

There are only two cases I can think of where pornography can be good, and they’re debatable. One use of it is when the pornographed is your spouse, and you view it not to get sexual pleasure in the current moment, but to remember a marvelous intimate moment of the past. I find remembering my wife and our moments together to be an inoculation against temptation of all sorts. The other case would be when you share the graph with the pornographed and together you delight in it.

As an aside, it is perilous to commit pornographs to anything but memory. My wife refuses to do so, and she has a good point. A photograph can be viewed by someone who shouldn’t far easier than a memory.

So back to the image and its questions. A human body in a state of sexual ecstasy is more beautiful and artistic, but it is also far, far more intimate. It cannot be intimate for you, though, unless you truly know and love the pornographed, and sex without intimacy is evil. Additionally, pornography is commonly viewed for the sexual pleasure it provides the viewer. Sexual pleasure is meant to be given; to seek it out for oneself is evil.

And finally, to neglect or deny the shame we humans feel about ourselves and our bodies is foolish and naive. We are ashamed because we are conscious of sin. It is perilous to lose or destroy that consciousness of sin unless the sin has been dealt with, much as it is dangerous to lose the painful sensation of burning until you have quenched the fire.

And even we Christians are not exempt. The sin nature still haunts us and gives us cause for shame. This is a whole separate topic in itself: the sin nature is at once dead and alive in us. We are free and not free of it. I have not puzzled out the interconnections completely. But I find Jesus’ parable to be extremely valuable:

He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Matthew 13:24–30, ESV

I think the kingdom of heaven in our own hearts is similar to this: we have wheat and weeds in our souls, and God to avoid rooting up the wheat chooses not to strip out the weeds until the harvest. I’m not sure if we should be ashamed of our sin nature anymore, but we should be aware of it.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. ...

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. ...

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Romans 14, ESV, emphasis mine

1. Do not despise the one who disagrees with you. Young one who hates hymns, do not despise the old one who hates your music. Old one who disapproves of tattoos, do not despise the young one who’s sporting one. As long as the person who doesn’t wear earrings does so to honor God and the one who does because his conscience is clean (not to spite someone), God is glorified.
2. Do not judge or despise your brothers on trivial things. “Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother?” As we’ll see in the next passage I quote, there are times when Paul advises you to judge your brother, but do not judge him over trivia. When in doubt, it’s trivia.
3. Do not hurt your brother through your freedom. Do not flaunt your differences of opinion and make him uncomfortable. “For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.”
4. Do not hurt your brother through your rules. “The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”
5. “So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.” It’s ok to speak up when people rag too much on modern music. Or hymns.
6. “Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.”
7. “Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.” I think this can be taken in two ways. First, you are blessed if you can honestly take stock of the things you approve of without guilt or nagging doubt. Beware of approving things you feel a little guilty about or unsure of. Second, it’s better to have fewer rules in one’s life that make you pass judgment on yourself for what you approve.

Turning to subject of righteous judgment ...

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

1 Corinthians 5:9–13, ESV

From this passage, I take away that it’s not Christian’s job to condemn the outside world. The first part of this passage strikes me as particularly interesting: Paul clarifies that by saying one shouldn’t associate with sexually immoral people, he isn’t referring to people outside the church. “God judges those outside.” Let Him do so.

Where we need to draw the line of association is when it is “our people” who are sinning egregiously. “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anoyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” I emphasized greed because we tend to be hypersensitive to sexual sin and blind to other sorts.

It occurs to me that Christians already have a reputation for being cruel to their members who transgress sexually, so let me also quote the words of Paul from Second Corinthians, probably referring back to this very passage.

Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.

2 Corinthians 2:5–8, ESV

“The criminal we must forgive unto seventy times seven. The crime we must not forgive at all.” (Chesterton)

Happenings of this week ... last Sunday I went to a house-blessing party for a couple from our church. While there, I struck up conversation with some of their neighbors. One of them was a sculptor by trade and was very interested in Epic. Our founder, Judy Faulkner, has made the artist community of Madison exceedingly happy over the years. The main Epic campus at Verona is filled with marvellous, quirky art of every kind. A few examples: they have artificial trees in one building, and wooden stairs leading through them upstairs. Midway up a “life-size” statue of a troll guards the landing. There is a lifelike sculpture of a squirrel in that tree. Just inside reception at Epic is a chessboard made of Muppet characters. There are dragons in that building as well. If you ever come by Madison, make sure you ask me to give you a tour of Verona. Anyway, this sculptor and a friend were so interested in Epic that I offered to give them a tour of the Verona campus this week. I was going to be in Verona anyway for a class on Friday, so we met for lunch (which is always good at the Epic caffeteria), and then I spent a little more than an hour giving them a tour of the place. It was a lot of fun. It’s always neat to show something wonderful to a person for the first time. One grows jaded to the glory of a place; it’s nice to have someone to remind you how cool it is. :)

I have finally acquired a library card! It’s been ten months since my wife and I moved to Wisconsin, so acquiring the card was painfully overdue, but at least I have it, at long last. :) A thought struck me as I wandered the library: I have a fairly large sense of awe when inside a library. The feeling of being surrounded by inestimable knowledge on every side has always made libraries seem a little ... awesome, possibly holy to me. There’s just so much there! The thoughts of thousands upon thousands of people, spanning hundreds of years, dozens of countries, and uncounted different perspectives are there, waiting for you on shelf after shelf. You could profitably spend your life there and still never come to the end of it. What struck me as odd was the fact that I feel no such similar awe when launching out onto the Internet. But all the knowledge packed into the library is the tiniest drop in the bucket next to the collosal knowledge at my fingertips when surfing the Web. There are the thoughts of millions (possibly billions by now) of people from every country of the world. In terms of sheer knowledge, the Internet outweighs any library many times over ... and yet I feel no such sense of awe. Partially because of how easily accessed the Internet is. You have to go to the library, enter the doors, and you see it all around you. The Internet can be accessed from the comfort of my own home (or from my Blackberry), but as a rule only one page is visible at a time. The Internet can hide its vastness behind the little windows we call monitors that we use to view it. But it strikes me that it would be wise to launch myself on the web with more awe than I do. I suppose what I need is someone who is experiencing it for the very first time, like the two gentlemen I gave a tour of Epic to.

TABA Empire Expansion

On my own time, I run a project called There And Back Again (TABA) at work; it’s a program that parses publicly shared Outlook calendars and builds a database of trips from one Epic campus to another. I also wrote and maintain a couple of webpages that allow you to search trips if you’re looking for a ride, or add/modify/delete your own trips if you’re part of the program. At the beginning of the week, I had a little more than 80 users (people who’ve given me permission to parse their calendars). That number has been fairly static for the last couple of weeks. The main way I grow and popularize the program is by mass-mailing Epic campuses, explaining the merits of the program, and bribing them with cookies. Epic reimburses your travel expenses from one of its campuses to another, which can add up to ten to twenty dollars in a month. Almost nobody bothers to collect this reimbursement because it’s not enough to bother keeping careful track of your travels. But my program can do it automatically. This is the program’s main selling point, though my primary purpose in writing it was to make it easy to catch a ride from one place to another.

Anyway, I extended my empire to another one of our campuses this week. I mass-mailed them and made what the recipe called “cinnamon snicker-doodles” (the main ingredient in the dough was yellow cake mix). It went pretty well; I now have a little more than 140 users. I found and fixed a couple of more bugs and got some more feedback, most of it quite positive. It’s fun to do and feel that I’m helping people out.

The cookies turned out awesome by the way.

BarCamp

On Thursday, I found out about a tech conference here in Madison called BarCamp scheduled for this weekend. I attended the kick-off event on Friday and spent most of Saturday (from 10am to roughly 8pm, though the event was going much later. I tired out around that time and came home and watched TailSpin). It was a lot of fun! I’d never been to a nerdy tech conference before, especially not one as flexible as BarCamp. The day’s schedule is created on-the-fly; scheduling a session is a simple as writing a topic on a sticky note and affixing it to an open slot on the chart. I actually wound up presenting a topic of my own: the first session I attended was on Lisp. During the course of the discussion, we very nearly ran off on a rabbit trail about the best way to train beginning programmers. I for one was very interested in that rabbit trail, so I scheduled a session to discuss it. Around a dozen people showed up, and we spent an hour discussing and diagramming the best way to train new programmers. It was a lot of fun.

Let me see here, I attended sessions back-to-back from noon until 7, so what were they? Intro to Lisp, a discussion for improving on HTTP (or moving beyond/below it), Web accessibility, making the world a better place through the Internet, the importance and impact of social media, and of course my own impromptu session. I was tired by the end of it. Food and attendance were free (amazingly), and the pizza served for dinner was more than adequate. Next year I’ll have to invite Moore and anyone else in the reasonably-surrounding area and attend whatever conference is offered then.

Deep Blue Quote Found

One last thing. I had a few free minutes waiting for my psychologist appointment this week, and I finally tracked down the source of a quote Ravi Zacharias used many years ago. I think it’s a brilliant article, though a few things in it rub me the wrong way.

As background, Gary Kasparov is widely regarded as one of the greatest chess players of all time. In the late 90s, he was the world chess champion. There was a very famous match between him and Deep Blue, an IBM supercomputer specially designed for playing chess. The match was notable because it was the first time a reigning world chess champion had lost to a computer. There was much hue and cry: some people wondered if it was a sign that computers had become more intelligent than human beings, if this was a harbinger of the sunset of mankind. This Time magazine article was written by David Gelernter, a professor of Computer Science at Yale. I’ll use the quote Ravi Zacharias gave.

But when you think about it carefully, the idea that Deep Blue has a mind is absurd. How can an object that wants nothing, fears nothing, enjoys nothing, needs nothing and cares about nothing have a mind? It can win at chess, but not because it wants to. It isn’t happy when it wins or sad when it loses. What are its apres-match plans if it beats Kasparov? Is it hoping to take Deep Pink out for a night on the town? It doesn’t care about chess or anything else. It plays the game for the same reason a calculator adds or a toaster toasts: because it is a machine designed for that purpose.

Computers as we know them will never have minds. No matter what amazing feats they perform, inside they will always be the same absolute zero ...

One of the biggest obstacles has been technologists’ naivete about the character of human thought, their tendency to confuse thinking with analytical problem solving. They forget that when you look out the window and let your mind wander, or fall asleep and dream, you are also thinking. They tend to overlook something that such mind-obsessed poets as Wordsworth and Coleridge understood two centuries ago: that thought is largely a process of stringing memories together, and that memories are often linked by emotion. No computer can achieve artificial thought without achieving artificial emotion too ...

The more powerful your computer, the more sophisticated the behavior it can imitate. In the long run I doubt if there is any kind of human behavior computers can’t fake, any kind of performance they can’t put on. It is conceivable that one day, computers will be better than humans at nearly everything. I can imagine that a person might someday have a computer for a best friend. That will be sad–like having a dog for your best friend but even sadder.

Computers might one day be capable of expressing themselves in vivid prose or fluent poetry, but unfortunately they will still be computers and have nothing to say. The gap between human and surrogate is permanent and will never be closed. Machines will continue to make life easier, healthier, richer and more puzzling. And human beings will continue to care, ultimately, about the same things they always have: about themselves, about one another and, many of them, about God. On those terms, machines have never made a difference. And they never will.

Never is a very long time. I am not as certain as Dr. Gelernter that computers will never have a mind, never have artificial emotions. If they ever do, though, they would have ceased to be machines and become living things. And it would no longer be proper for us to treat them the way we do now. But until then, I will have no compunctions about reformatting my machine’s hard drive.

I hope you’re doing well. Drop me a line if you think of me during the next week.

Once the boy finds Achilles, there’s an interesting exchange while the boy helps Achilles into his armor. The boy nervously says that Achilles’ opponent is a giant, ending with the plaintive phrase: “I wouldn’t want to fight him.” Achilles looks at the boy and answers “And that is why no-one will remember your name.”

That story isn’t from the Iliad. At least, I don’t remember it being there. But Achilles is given a clear choice at the beginning of the Trojan war: he can go to war and die there before his time, yet win undying glory as the greatest warrior of all time. Or he can stay at home, marry a lovely woman, raise children, and have a long and happy life ... and be utterly forgotten in a few generations. He chooses to go to war.

“What a colossal ego!” the psychologist interjected at this point. I was surprised. He seemed to believe this dilemma a simple one: you obviously choose to stay at home. I however, do not feel this a simple dilemma at all. A very significant part of me agrees with the choice of Achilles. He chose glory.

This is in line with one of the defining values for the Greeks, the concept of areté. Quoting from this page, “Translated as ‘virtue,’ the word actually means something closer to ‘being the best you can be,’ or ‘reaching your highest human potential.’” As I understand it, the Greeks longed for greatness and glory. To be the best. I think one of the driving forces for this is the universal human fear of death. Every culture must come to grips with the mortality of its members. And I think the Greek answer, at least in part, was to strive for greatness. To do something so great that your name would be remembered forever.

Of course, they will not. Almost all people are utterly forgotten within a generation or two of their death. Almost every accomplishment, no matter how laudable, is forgotten. Yet still we press to be remembered. At least partly because there are some people who are remembered ... we’re still telling the story of Achilles. And George Washington. Yet even these monuments will fade. And I guarantee you the glory of Achilles will not outlast the heat-death of the universe.

The hope of doing something great enough that your name will live forever is a cheat and a mirage. But, as with all hopes, its roots are in something true. We humans find death unacceptable. Some counsel us to reconcile ourselves to death, to the void. Yet we cannot. “God has set eternity in the hearts of men.” We were not meant to die and be forgotten forever: this is the cry of the human heart. And if the Christian belief is correct, the human heart is right. We were not meant to die and be forgotten forever. And we don’t and we aren’t. No one is forgotten forever. No one really dies (in the sense of ceasing to exist anywhere). God remembers the housewife, the tailor, the boot maker. They too have a place in the kingdom of God, along with the “great”. Actually, they will enter much sooner than many of the great. For God measures greatness differently.

Striving for a Prize

So is there anything to strive for? Anything to pour your heart and mind and soul into? Is there nothing to compete for? Is there no true greatness, no real undying glory?

I think our love of heroes springs from more things than our fear of death and being forgotten. It also springs from a genuine admiration for great deeds. God may measure greatness differently, but measure it He does.

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’” (Revelation 2:7, ESV)

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.’” (Revelation 2:11, ESV)

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.’” (Revelation 2:17, ESV)

And there’s always the parable of the talents.

“For it [the kingdom of heaven] will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

(Matthew 25:14-30, ESV)

Beware of wasting the talents God has given you.

• Using the name of the Lord in vain means using it inappropriately.
• TS is highly honored at Epic.
• You cannot write about it all.
• You cannot pray about it all.
• Pr 13 3 is interesting.
• Life in a square foot.
• Post on evolution.
• I read a sci-fi book.
• Redemption and renewal.
• Corporations as AI.
• What do you want the truth to be?
• Isa 6 9–10: people harden their own hearts because they don’t want to hear.
• Nikki is gone so editing might be worse.
• Rom 1–2 state of man and the West; people are corrupt and none of us have an excuse. West like children of Israel; we have the law and think we’re better than the rest of the word but we do the things we preach against.
• I dreamed of a mission project with my family in DC. At the end of it there was a presentation to a church and a love offering taken and I was richly rewarded. And my dad said he was proud of me for the way I’d handled the first assignment. “They also serve who...” I’d filled out a time sheet like I do at work, but only for the first day because I’d forgotten, yet I still was rewarded. People were also really impressed that I worked for Epic.

And that was only the thoughts that have occurred me worth writing about in the last week! We’ll see how many of them I get to, but what I wrote is true: you cannot write about it all. And this is by God’s design and it is good.

If there are any of these thoughts you want expanded that I don’t expand, let me know.

Using the name of the Lord in vain means using it inappropriately.

I realize this seems trite. We all know the fourth Commandment: “‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.’” (Exodus 20:7, ESV) But normally what comes to mind as examples of taking the Lord’s name in vain is profane cursing: using God or Jesus as an expletive. And I as a “good” person don’t do that, so I tend to sort of check that one off and move on.

But it occurred to me that this commandment applies directly to places where we use God’s name to legitimize our own goals. As an extreme example, if the comic book that Cynic found is genuine (which it probably isn’t), it probably classifies as a violation of this commandment. So could the sale of some of the trinkets one can find in Christian bookstores: the name of God is being used to sell key chains and bumper stickers and plush toys. Many of the things we do “in the name of God” have little to do with honoring Him and more about advancing our own interests. This classifies as a violation of the 4th commandment.

I don’t want to take this too far to the point where I disapprove of everything that strikes me as “insufficiently holy” ... as a matter of fact, doing so is a exactly what I’m talking about: I disapprove of something so I use the name of God (or the excuse that I’m acting in defense of His dignity) to squash it.

TS is highly honored at Epic.

One of the things I strongly approve of in working for Epic is the role that TS (Technical Support) plays. This is the group of people that directly interfaces with customers after they install our software. They track down the bugs and cleanup the aftermath of stupidity (both ours and our customers’). This is what’s cool about Epic:

TS is very good. They are not undereducated grunts who don’t know what they’re talking about. They are intimately familiar with the ugly hacks and weird things that are possible within our environments. They are advocates for our customers (TS will bug you about fixes their customers are waiting on) and they can write some fairly spiffy utilities. Their code may lack some of the professional polish that ours as software developers has, but it gets the job done cleanly. I don’t want their job, but they do it well.

You cannot write about it all.

This follows directly from the principle that time is limited. There are an infinite number of things worth writing about. There is a finite amount of time and passion for doing so. This is the way God wrote the world, and it is good. There is no shame that you can’t get to everything: you were never meant to. Not in the span of a life, anyway.

You cannot pray about it all.

Ibid. Looking at the prayer bulletin in church today was daunting. Considering my family and my friends and my country and my world (and my own life, which tends to be #1, sadly), there are an infinite number of worthy things to pray about. And a finite amount of time in which to do it. There is no shame in being unable to pray about everything in the time you have: you were never meant to.

Pr 13 3 is interesting.

“Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.” (Proverbs 13:3, ESV)

I talk a lot. I should be careful about that...perhaps I shouldn’t.

Life in a square foot.

A shamefully few times in my life, I’ve knelt down and carefully examined a few square feet of ordinary grass. It’s marvelous. There is so much there! Little bugs you don’t know the names for, toiling along. Putting yourself in their perspective the world is an incredible place! Every grass blade is different. There’s always something odd that makes you wonder “How the heck did that get there?” And there’s an answer to that question ... that you’ll probably never know. What’s the story of the stray twig? How did it get there? What has this bug done today? Where’d that trench come from? This universe is a miraculous place. In both directions. The size and glory of the planets, star systems, interstellar space, galaxies, intergalactic space, local clusters ... it just gets bigger. Pondering the size of the universe and the wonders it holds is one of the most exciting things for me. I know I’ll never be bored.

But the universe is equally large and amazing in the other direction: in the unnoticed life of insects and birds and small creatures, in bacteria and viruses, in cellular life and molecular interactions, in atomic and subatomic and quantum interactions ... it’s a marvelous universe in every direction.

Post on evolution.

That is not a small subject. It deserves its own post ... book, more like it.

I read a sci-fi book.

So I did ... and it is not a small subject either. I should write the book’s author ...

Redemption and renewal.

Corporations as AI.

What do you want the truth to be?

Nope: too big.

Isa 6 9–10: people harden their own hearts because they don’t want to hear.

And he said, “Go, and say to this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

Then I said, “How long, O Lord?” And he said: “Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is a desolate waste, and the Lord removes people far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose stump remains when it is felled.”

The holy seed is its stump.

Isaiah 6:9-13, ESV

I have struggled with this passage (or, more correctly, its New Testament citations) many times. It always seemed to me to mean that God Himself swore to “make the heart of this people dull...” so that they would not turn and be healed, similar to times in strategy games where I would do things to ensure that my enemies would not offer peace before I wanted to accept it (since rejecting an offer of peace was a no-no for a democracy, IIRC).

But I think I may have misread it. What if it isn’t God who hardens people, but people themselves? There have been times when I choose to (or at least am strongly tempted to) stop listening, stop seeking to understand because I know (or fear) that if I keep listening, if I keep trying to understand, I will ... and that I’ll have to change. Easier to stop listening now, before my choice to not believe what I know to be true is no longer a secret ... from myself as well as others.

Nikki is gone so editing might be worse.

My wife has departed on a three-week vacation to Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. Normally I run my posts through her: she reads them, points out editing errors, and gives me advice on controversial posts. She isn’t here now, though, so my writing will probably be rougher.

It’s hard to sleep without my wife. One of my most favorite things about marriage is snuggling close to Nikki before going to sleep. I’ll survive somehow, though. :) On canned soup, mostly. :)

Rom 1–2 state of man and the West; people are corrupt and none of us have an excuse. West like children of Israel; we have the law and think we’re better than the rest of the word but we do the things we preach against.

It occurred to me that much of what Paul says about the children of Israel in Romans 1 & 2 can be applied to the modern West. The Bible is deeply embedded in our culture (much to the annoyance and frustration of some ...) and Christian mores are a foundational element of our ethics. We have the law. And, like the Jews, we have a tendency to think it makes us righteous.

But if you call yourself a Jew [Christian] and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles [non-Western world] because of you.”

For circumcision [Christian culture] indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision [Christian culture] becomes uncircumcision [heathen culture]. So, if a man who is uncircumcised [a heathen] keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision [heathen-ness :)] be regarded as circumcision [Christian culture]? Then he who is physically uncircumcised [does not call himself a Christian] but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision [Christian culture] but break the law. For no one is a Jew [Christian] who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision [Christianity] outward and physical. But a Jew [Christian] is one inwardly, and circumcision [Christianity] is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Romans 2:17-29, ESV, comments mine

It is a common error among people possessing a Christian culture to believe themselves superior to those without it and to ignore their own violations of it. As Wilson has put it (and I can’t find it so I’ll paraphrase), such people believe inane things like there are no noble or wise people from non-Christian cultures, that being a Christian automatically makes you one of the “good guys” and not being one one of the “bad guys.”

I dreamed of a mission project with my family in DC. At the end of it there was a presentation to a church and a love offering taken and I was richly rewarded. And my dad said he was proud of me for the way I’d handled the first assignment. “They also serve who...” I’d filled out a time sheet like I do at work, but only for the first day because I’d forgotten, yet I still was rewarded. People were also really impressed that I worked for Epic.

Granted, this was a dream. I remember only wisps of it now (which is why I wrote notes for it as soon as I could). Yet God is not above using dreams (e.g. Joseph, Nebuchadnezzar) and I felt this one was ... special. That it was (at least in part) God’s way of letting me know he is pleased with me. That he hasn’t written me off as a loss to His kingdom, even though my field is not mission work or the pastoral ministry and even though I seldom see much eternal value in what I do. IIRC from the dream, I never did anything fantastic or terribly ministry-related. I just did the things I normally do. And yet I was still richly rewarded.

As the son of a wonderful missionary, with siblings dedicated to the ministry and a strong family culture of serving God with one’s life, I often have nagging doubts about my own value. I’m a bloody computer programmer. I don’t save people, I rarely talk about my faith, my life seems fairly sterile. I often wonder if God is secretly disappointed in me. I wonder if He’s written me off as a failure and has turned His face to more promising children. People who do things right. Who dedicate their lives to Him and serve Him wholeheartedly. I wonder if God hates me. Or just doesn’t care. Or has forgotten me. Or if I’m just one of millions of children he vaguely loves but never thinks of (believing that such children exist is heresy).

I hope that counts a post, and that you didn’t mind its haphazard switching among topics. If you have any comments, either leave them openly here or send them to me. (If you don’t know my e-mail address, post a comment asking for it. I’ll try to get it to you.)

Peace be with you all.

Unquestionably the biggest event of the past week was Moore and Sharon's wedding, which I was privileged to attend. I nearly missed it, since I haven't looked at the main Shadow Council page in a very, very long time. I vaguely knew that Moore and Sharon were getting married, but certainly not when or where. Master Wilson was kind enough to fill me on on both of those when I talked to him last week. Thankfully, the wedding was in Illinois, so I was able to drive down and make it. It would have been a great shame to miss it, both for the sake of seeing Moore and Sharon and also because so many of the SC would be there. It was great to see you all.

The bride and groom were radiant, as they should be. I don't think I've ever seen a groom and bride quite so happy and ... at ease. I feel no foreboding regarding their future together. While my own wedding will always rank first in my own eyes (both for reasons of loyalty and in an objective sense, at least thus far), this was a great wedding to attend. All the more so because my own lovely bride was able to come with me and share the event. However, I failed to bring my camera, so you must rely on others for photographic evidence of the event.

I don't have many long-winded thoughts to share on the event. The things that stand out most about it to me that I'll share are these:

1. As previously mentioned, the bride and groom's great happiness and unharried joy. The time leading up to a wedding is almost always stressful; Moore and Sharon handled it wonderfully.
2. My wife really enjoyed the event. She was worried that she wouldn't have anyone to talk to; she was pleasantly surprised to be fondly remembered and to have plenty of people to talk to. In talking about this afterward, we reckoned part of this to the fact that the intervening years have given us all stuff to talk about and catch up on, and another part due to the fact that so many more of them are now married themselves. I was the first of my peer group to be married and Nikki often felt that my friends of my "former life" weren't quite sure how to react to my new married status. But we've all had practice, both for us in relating to others as a married couple and for them in relating to formerly-single-now-plural friends. It's all part of growing up. I am very pleased she enjoyed herself; thanks for making my wife feel welcome!
3. There was dancing at Master Moore's wedding. Few of the dancers had any experience, but at least that made us all equally foolish. Unfortunately, my wife did not want to dance, so I wasn't able to dance with her. But I was able to dance with Miss Tucker, and I greatly enjoyed it, both for the dancing itself and for the friend herself. Dancing and music-playing are two arts I would greatly enjoy being better at ... but they go into my good-idea-someday bag, which has an awful lot of wonderful things in it.
4. We went out for bowling afterward and ate good pizza. I generally tend to be partial to thicker pizza (Pizza Hut tends to be my and Nikki's favorite), but this was thin pizza, and it was very good.

It was good to see you all. I've missed you.

But it's also a good thing to add to the list. Life goes on, and I continue to meet varied and wonderful people worth remembering. And I present one to you today: Mitchell Senti.

Nikki and I first met Mitch and his wife Rochelle soon after we moved to Bellingham, back in 2005. This was before he started the Three Trees coffee house in Bellingham that he's most known for today. Mitch invited us to a meeting with a few friends; we shared some food, artwork, and some our various talents. IIRC, I recited "A Nauseous Nocturne" (from Calvin and Hobbes) to much acclaim. :)

Over the next two years, I met Mitch off and on. I attended a men's bible study in his home with him and a small group of other guys. While the theological opinions of that fellowship were often ... interesting ... the love was genuine and the faith fervent. It was not a waste of time, which is high praise for any meeting. :)

Three Trees Coffeehouse was a brainchild of Mitch and his wife and a few others from the community. They had in mind a place where anyone could come and be welcome and talk about God. They succeeded. I've written about it once before; it was a place I visited to sword-fight, debate, and to see Mitch. Here's another perspective on the place I turned up in finding the links for this post.

We fenced with boffer sticks off and on over the years, sometimes by ourselves, sometimes with others, generally on Thursday night. Sometimes Mitch and I would walk to his home together, a distance of a mile or two, discussing Jesus and other things of the heart.

People who genuinely remind one of Jesus are rare and precious. Mitch Senti is one of them. Like all of us, he's am imperfect person; he's young and has maturing to do, but he honestly reminds me of Jesus; both in his words and in his actions. His love for others is genuine, and his joy in life is real. He's a good sparring partner and a fine friend. One of my greatest regrets in leaving Bellingham was leaving the Sentis: Mitch, Rochelle, and their son Jonathan. They're a fine family that this world is not worthy of.

To Mitch:

Thanks for everything. I enjoyed our every conversation and relished our every duel. You're a fine, rare man; it's a pleasure to see God work in your life. Thanks for the encouragement you were to me over the years, and the blessing knowing you and Rochelle was to me and Nikki. God bless you.

Dr. Stewart interjected here; I have a valid reason for wanting to escape: the to do list is endless and daunting, and it never gets any smaller. When I do work on it, it never diminishes in size (at least, not for long), and I find it emotionally exhausting to try. He then brought up an old proverb of time management: "Work is infinite. Time is not. You cannot manage the infinite." There's a lot of truth in that.

I related a joke I used to tell in college: I wished that I only needed to sleep for a single hour ... and that none of my professors knew that. Dr. Stewart asked me why I would want to only sleep for one hour. I was taken slightly aback: the benefit of only needing to sleep for a single hour was so evident to me that I'd never bother to put it into words. Basically, I desired to need less sleep so that I could get more stuff done. But, contrary to the firm belief of modern American culture, getting more is not a path to happiness, but to futility. Even desiring to get more stuff done is dangerous if you find your value in what you've gotten done. If you get more done, you believe yourself more valuable. If less, then less. And just as the desire of man is infinite (being made to be satisfied with God, who is infinite), so is the list of things that would be worthwhile to do. It's infinite.

I occurred to me at this point that this limitation is built into the universe. It is not even the result of the Fall: it is part of the way human beings perceive time. Even if we live forever, we perceive time in indivisible units. To choose to devote time to one thing is to choose not to devote it to another. Only God can get an infinite number of things done in a finite amount of time. Desiring and striving to do so yourself is futile ... and reminiscent of Satan's boast.

Dr. Stewart then proceeded to refer to the fundamental limitation of time as a gift ... a blessing. I was sharply taken aback, because I had been thinking of it as a curse. A nasty limitation on human beings that keeps us from being like God (a rather diabolical thought). But it is in fact a blessing. Because our time is limited, we are free to be humans and not gods. To be able to do everything leads to an obligation to do everything. I'm not arguing God has an obligation to us to do everything, but in some ways he has one to himself. God never makes a mistake. Never misses an appointment. God does everything He's supposed to. (Though only He knows everything He's supposed to do). To a certain extent, He has to: He's perfect and He's God.

We are free to choose how we spend the limited time we have. Not everything can be done. Scarcity gives rise to value, as every economist knows. Our time costs us something.

I still have a lot of work to do ... finding, setting, and living with priorities. I still play more video games than I should. But I strive to let go of the notion that I can do everything that's worth doing. I can't.

Once I got back on from my appointment with Dr. Stewart, I wrote this message on my whiteboard at work:

Work is infinite.
Any given span of time is not.
Therefore, within any given span of time, there will be work left undone.
"And God saw that it was good ..."

A friend of mine noticed the message. He looked at it for a minute or to and proceeded to make the following changes:

WorkBeer is infinite.
Any given span of time is not.
Therefore, within any given span of time, there will be workbeer left undoneundrunk.
"And God saw that it was good ..."

I have left it like that.

However, watching it was useful in one respect: it led to a really good conversation between Nikki and I me as I mused about the thoughts and feelings we had about the film and explored the rabbit trails that discussion turned up.

Nikki chanced to say something that really caught my attention. We were discussing the attitude I take toward some of my friends; how much I trust and value their opinion (don't ask me how we got here from Wanted: I have no idea). Nikki pointed out that a great deal of the reason I trust and value these people is because they're really smart.

I place an enormous value on intelligence. Perhaps because I place fairly well on that scale. I have a healthy skepticism about my own infallibility, but Nikki pointed out that I have no such skepticism about people I consider smarter than me. I suppose my underlying belief is that my fallibility is a result of not being smart enough: if I was smarter, I wouldn't be as fallible.

A closer look at my feelings on that turned up a number of interesting things:

• I have a tendency to think that failure to agree is failure to understand, and that failure to understand is due to a failure of intelligence (if not adequately explaned by differences in background, training, or communication.)
• I have a tendency to put people I consider smarter than me on pedestals, constantly comparing my own opinions to theirs and often modifying mine to more closely fit theirs (I seldom carry this to ridiculous extremes, or it would be more obvious).
• Disagreeing with someone I consider smarter than me is painful until I can find an alternative "expert" who agrees with me. (Not generally a difficult thing to do).

I'm not sure of what to do about this. The problem of knowing truth is an old one, and is intractable from a human standpoint. Smart people are valuable allies in a search for truth ... but every idea under the sun has smart people defending it. And it is perilous to forget this: "In that same hour he [Christ] rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.’" (Luke 10:21, ESV) And even further:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

(1 Corinthians 1:18-25, ESV, emphasis mine)

And further: "Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and do not lean on your own understanding." Or that of someone else.

It is perilous to trust smart people. It gives you an excuse to avoid doing your own thinking. As they go astray they lead you astray. Do not set up smart people as little gods in your life.