The Gist Of It

Monday, August 21, 2006

In the beginning...

Simon decided he might just have some more things to say...

To be continued...

Thursday, December 01, 2005

In the end...

...Humans weren't meant to blog. Ask Levi, or Bo, or myself. I'd love to discuss why that would be psychologically or spiritually, but, again, I haven't the time. So I'll leave you all to ponder.
May God be glorified in all that you do.
By the way, I've always favored short and sweet goodbyes.
So goodbye.

Friday, September 30, 2005

Loose Ends

This is the part of the blog where Simon comes out and covers a few odds and ends.

The Rebelution will not be televised; rather, it will be disseminated over the blogosphere. These two brothers are living proof that homeschooled kids are hands-down smarter than those who are publicly "edumacated." Of course, for those who know and love Levi, he is proof enough. But for those who don't have the privilege of knowing Levi, or for those skeptics-at-heart who remain unconvinced, Alex and Brett Harris will pound the final nail in the coffin of "higher" education. Their blog is at once didactical, satirical, and downright brilliant. This type of wisdom does not often flow from the mouths and minds of sixteen year olds. So check it out. I'd start with this post. By the way, did I mention that they are the brothers of Joshua Harris, of "I kissed Dating Goodbye" fame? Please look at this blog; you won't regret it.

After a crucial recount, the Lord of the Rings Poll is finally completed. The question, simply enough, was "what is your favorite Lord of the Rings movie?" I've decided to cut it off after two months and 192 votes, and I must say, I'm rather surprised by the results. Are you ready? Da, Da, Da-da-da! (in case you didn't figure it out, that was from the LOTR soundtrack)

1. Dude, there a trilogy. You can't choose a favorite. 62 votes, 32% of the votes cast
2. The Return of the King 35 votes, 18%
3. I'm not casting my vote until "The Hobbit" comes out. 33 votes, 17%
4. The Fellowship of the Ring 26 votes, 14%
5. They're all so good I can't choose 24 votes, 13%
6. The Two Towers 12 votes, 6%

There you have it. The overwhelming majority believed that you can't separate the whole into parts without causing violence. You know, it's kind of like the Trinity: One in three, three in one, distinguishable yet indivisible.
So, which one was my favorite, you ask?
I would have to say "The Fellowship of the Ring," because I entered the theater with no real expectations, and was subsequently blown away. I was drawn into the movie in a way that has rarely if ever happened. I didn't want it to end, and when it did, I left the theater feeling that I was actually leaving what was more real and entering a world of fantasy. When the second and third movies came out, I then had that expectation, and I came out a little disappointed. There's my two cents.
I know need a new poll. Something that will garner a lot of votes, quasi-controversial and definitely interesting. Any ideas?

Lastly: I have found myself to be at the receiving end of a tag, instigated by John Dekker's Journal. I would be happy to respond, although I admired his method of covering one piece of the tag each day, rather than listing them all in one post. So, I'm going to try it his way.
Here's the list:

5 things I plan to do before I die;
5 things I can do;
5 things I cannot do;
5 things that attract me to other people;
5 things I say most often;
5 celebrity crushes; and
5 people I want to do this.

And here's my first response.

5 things I plan to do before I die:
1. Have a lot of kids and teach them to love God (does that count as two?)
2. Learn some programming language.
3. Read all the books that are on my bookshelf.
4. Learn to play guitar like Levi. (Who is this Levi guy, anyway?)
5. Show my wife that I love her, in every way and in every day.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Shakers - More than Chair Makers

So:

This weekend we watched a Ken Burns documentary about The Shakers, an enigmatic and eccentric Christian group that reached its height in the 1800's. The Shakers received their name from the frantic dancing and gyrating that often accompanied their worship; a modern day example would be some Pentecostal churches (absolutely no offense intended). It's interesting to me that their style of worship was so passionate, because everything else about their lives: clothing, lifestyle, work, and yes, the furniture seemed rather dull or drab, constructed for utility rather than ornament. If you've seen a Shaker chair, you would observe that there is no extra beams, no unneccesary flourishes or additions.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Shakers was their view of marriage and celibacy. Everyone who wanted to join a Shaker community had to sign "the covenant," the most important aspect being the absolution of any marital and parental relationships. So, when your family joined, your wife became your "sister," and your husband your "brother," and your children became the spiritual siblings of the entire adult community. It's interesting that the Shakers held this belief, because without it I have no doubt that they would have become one of the most influential religious communities in early American history. They chose to grow their community through converts, not procreation, and I do applaud their efforts in that regard. However, because of their unwillingness to sanctify marriage, the Shakers today number less than a dozen.

When asked why they held to such a doctrine, their answer was simple: "We strive to live completely like Jesus in this world. He was not married, therefore we are not to be married."
Of course, I disagree with their ideas based upon many scriptural considerations. 1 Timothy 4 warns us explicitly of teachers who would forbid marriage, denouncing the idea as a "doctrine of demons." However, I do appreciate very much where they are coming from. The idea of singleness and celibacy is often sidelined in churches today, and many who feel the desire to remain celibate are pressured to heed the call of the church to be married. I think we need to understand marriage in a more scriptural light.

In the Bible, marriage is a beautiful thing, an earthly picture of the spiritual relationship betwen Christ and the church. It was God, and not man, who initiated the first marriage in the Garden of Eden. Hebrews 13:4 says "marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled." When speaking of the "reasons" to get married, however, there seems to be only two explicit reasons for people to do so: to avoid sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 7:2) and to avoid gossip and becoming a busybody (1 Timothy 5:11-14). Now, there are many implicit reasons to get married that remain unstated in the Scripture, I do not deny that. However, we must agree with Paul's statement that "he who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord--how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world--how he may please his wife" (1 Corinthians 7:32-33). Paul does not denounce marriage because of these facts, nor pronounce celibacy as the only truly holy route. He is simply stating a fact: this is how it is. I am not denigrating marriage nor elevating singleness to a higher plane. We as the church must understand the necessity and perils of both walks of life. As one of my favorite teachers put it, it's a choice between "a golden anchor or the wings of eagles."

One thing I must also say: the Shakers would probably be denounced today for their withdrawal from most of society and their communal living. Today, the message is "we must be in the world and not of it." Again, this ideal is supported by many scriptural passages. However, open to debate is how much we are to be in the world. I have to be honest, these Shakers were a darn sight more spiritual and more loving that most Christians today. The Christian mantra of "in the world and not of it" is often no more than a pale excuse to justify watching movies that you'd normally be ashamed of, listening to music that most would call morally repugnant, spending money on folly and wasteful things.

The Shakers did not cut off all ties to society. In fact, because of their true and great love for one another, society flocked to them. There were the "winter shakers," so-called because when the weather turned they would confess the faith and receive shelter and food for the entire winter. They would "fall away" as soon as the weather turned more agreeable. However, in spite of knowing that these people were taking advantage of their hospitality, they never turned them away. When they realized that thieves were coming in the night and stealing some of their crops, they planted extra rows, enough to feed themselves, the crows, and the thieves, as they put it. In their worship they would leave the doors open. They never put up fences or guarded their property as if it was something they truly had a claim in.

As I ended the movie, I realized that I had been shaken (pardon the pun) to the core. Despite their doctrinal shortcomings, the Shakers had a richer spiritual life and a real love that most of us Christians don't even dare dream of. I know that most of you out there have felt a lack in your Christian life and experience at one time or another. You have felt that something's missing. Now, I'm not suggesting that we all move in together (at least not right away), but I do want us to meditate on our lives as they stand now. The question is not so much, What are we missing, but, What are we adding? What are we piling on top of our Christian confession and living that drowns us in spiritual shallowness? This is not so much a preaching as it is a heart's cry, from my heart to yours, that you all would encourage me to live a bold life of faith, and that I would encourage you to do the same.
And that's all I have to say about that.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

My Better Half Continued...

The Grace of Life.

I figured that I'd talk a little bit more about 1 Peter 3:7 and its meaning and instructions. Previously, in my first pos t on this subject, we focused more specifically on the idea of the wife as the "weaker vessel" and discussed the varieties of possible meanings.

1 Peter 3:7 : "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."

This is how I put it in the last post:

We, as husbands, are told to live with our wives with understanding, or knowledge, or consideration. Part of that consideration is met by giving honor to the wife. Peter then gives us two reasons why we should honor our wives:
1. Because she is the weaker vessel
2. Because she is an heir with us of the grace of life
And warns us what will happen if we don't honor our wives:
1. Our prayers will be hindered

"Heirs together of the grace of life." I've mulled this phrase over in my mind for quite a while and came to some surprising speculations. Previously, when I encountered this verse, I read it as meaning simply that our wives are heirs of eternal life just like we are, and I felt no need to take the verse any further. Of course, that could still remain the meaning--but what are some other possibilities?

1. I've often thought about our relationship to our spouses and how that would play out in the next life. I know that Jesus said that in the resurrection we will be like the angels in heaven, in that we will not marry nor be given in marriage. However, it seems weird that, unless we experience enforced amnesia regarding our entire earthly life, in heaven we will relate to our spouses as if they were the fellow who lives down the street. The relationship of the husband and wife is expressed in very unique terms: one flesh, heirs together.

Perhaps there's something more intriguing, more full than we have previously realized in the marital relationship which is expressed in this life and possibly in the world to come. A very perplexing verse is found in 1 Corinthians 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."

Now, most people recoil at the thought of the unbelieving spouse being "saved" simply by having a believing spouse, and the children being saved as well. I admit it goes against much that we have been taught as evangelicals, and I do not believe that this is what Paul is saying. Look at verse 16 for the reason why. However, having reached that conclusion, we shouldn't deaden the effect of his words. Words like "sanctified" and "holy" are reserved for spiritual conversations and matters, and we should strive to find a meaning of the verse that does justice to these words. Most people think the husband is more likely to be saved because there is a godly influence in his most intimate sphere of life, and I agree with that. But could there be more? I leave it up to you...

2. "Heirs together of the grace of life." Again, most people read the "grace of life" as the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus. May I present another alternative: the "grace of life" could mean the bearing of children. With an open mind, you can see that it fits the verse just as well or even better than the generally accepted meaning. Husbands are to treat their wives with honor and understanding, because together you share the task of raising your children, who are "gifts of life." We know that the Bible speaks of children as an "inheritance from the Lord" (Psalm 127:3), and we know that the only time "the grace of life" is used is in speaking specifically to husbands and wives. Think about it. Peter could have used any number of terms to speak of eternal life, and in fact he does in other parts of his epistle. But not here; instead, we have this enigmatic "grace of life."

Now, for a second there I thought I was being original in my interpretation of this verse, and I must say I felt real good about it. But then I realized that if no one else had ever had these ideas cross their mind I was probably wrong. If in the New Testament's two-thousand year history, a book that has been studied more than any other piece of writing, no one ever had the same suggested interpretations that I have, than it's safe to say that I am way off. So before I posted these thoughts I looked into a number of commentaries. Thankfully, many commentaries suggested this as a possible meaning or a plausible alternative.

"That your prayers may not be hindered."
This suggests that how you treat your wife is of utmost importance to the Lord. If you are mistreating her through lack of honor as the weaker vessel, or as a mother to your children, you are severely displeasing to the Lord.
All right, I'm done. For now.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Two Things

Where do all the big pairs of scissors go once they've cut the ribbon?

After many hours spent tinkering with a programming language that I didn’t really understand, I finally created a template worthy of The Gist of It. Consider it a new look for a man entering the second half-decade of marriage; a mid-decade crisis, if you will. However, rather than going out and buying a shiny new sports car (those new vintage-looking Thunderbirds spring immediately to mind), I decided to save money and settled for a new template design. I was even too cheap to have someone design it for a small fee. No, I decided to do things the old-fashioned way, with sweat and elbow grease (and typing).

The real question is what you guys think of it. Is it too daring, too garish, too distracting? Or is it the most beautiful thing you’ve ever seen? Of course, you can feel free to say that it is something in between these extremes.

The interesting thing, and you can consider this a segue way into the second topic of discussion, was that even though I have an extremely limited knowledge of programming, I was able to tinker around with the language enough to suit my desires. By comparing my new template with the old, by trial and error, by prayer and fasting, I came up with a template that I am relatively proud of (it being my first and all). I didn’t create the cool ball thing on top, nor the very basic layout, but the tweaking is of my own creation.

My point is, even though I didn’t really understand what I was reading or looking at, I was able to piece it together in my head well enough to get by. While part of me did not comprehend it, another part of me did comprehend it.

Confused? Here’s an example:
(Courtesy of Paul Jerome Legge)

(By the way, don’t pass this by because it looks weird. Believe it or not, you can read it…)

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Such a cdonition is arppoiately cllaed Typoglycemia :).

Amzanig huh? Yaeh and you awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt.

Welcome and Good-bye from the New, Improved Gist of It.

Monday, September 12, 2005

My Better Half

On the road of life, together...

Specific:
Recently Alison and I celebrated our fifth wedding anniversary. The day passed as most others, without much fanfare or pomp and circumstance. We didn't even get each other the compulsory anniversary gifts advocated by Hallmark (this being the fifth year, the traditional anniversary gift is "wood," and the contemporary gift is "silverware;" Go figure...).
I love being married to Alison. If any of you reading this know her personally, then I don't really have to explain why. When I first met her, I knew there was something different about her. She had an energy that people rarely if ever have. When most of us walk through life lethargic, she walks through life with a vivaciousness that I cannot match. That is what drew me to her and continues to draw me. Out of all the billions of people that I could have potentially married, I am continually grateful to God that He allowed me to marry Alison, the love of my life. Plus, she's shorter than me, which is a delightful peripheral quality to someone of my "stature."

General:
I've been thinking a lot about marriage and the biblical verses that speak of marriage. I have recently been captivated by the verse that speaks to husbands in 1 Peter 3. I've found that this one verse is full of ambiguity as well as deep meaning, and if one takes the time to fully mine it, one will be rewarded with an enriched view of husbands and marriage. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it.
1 Peter 3:7 : "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."
I don't know about you, but I've read this verse through a lot of times without fully comprehending the depths of its meaning or studying its intricacies. I think that too often this is the case when we read our Bibles. Well, not anymore!
We, as husbands, are told to live with our wives with understanding, or knowledge, or consideration. Part of that consideration is met by giving honor to the wife. Peter then gives us two reasons why we should honor our wives:
1. Because she is the weaker vessel
2. Because she is an heir with us of the grace of life
And warns us what will happen if we don't honor our wives:
1. Our prayers will be hindered

Sure to enrage the feminists is the moniker given to the wife: "weaker vessels." I know a lot of Christian men and women who have troubled themselves with that description of a woman as well, and have therefore tried to soften the words in various ways. One thing Christians say is that when Peter speaks of wives as "weaker vessels," he simply means physically weaker, e.g. this commentator:
"The husband must ever keep in mind that she is the weaker instrument of the two, not morally or intellectually, but physically. This attitude toward the wife on the part of the husband therefore includes loving consideration of the wife in view of the fact that she is not physically as strong as he is."

Wuest, K. S. 1997, c1984. Wuest's word studies from the Greek New Testament

Now, this will still enrage the feminists, but it does set a lot of Christian minds at ease. This interpretation appeals to the use of the word "vessel" as signifying the physical shell of a human being merely, so that a weaker vessel simply means weaker body. It can also be "proved" by looking out at the world, though in a general sense rather than an exhaustive one. For instance, I can bench press more than my wife. Some men who aren't as buffed as I am cannot (Read: Joke).
Is this, however, what Peter is really saying? That giving honor to the wife as the "weaker vessel" means opening the ketchup bottle and moving boxes into the attic, or beating up people that are flirting with her? I can concede that it is a possibility, though I find it difficult to believe that this was all Peter was getting at. But when we begin to look at alternatives to this generally accepted meaning, we step immediately into water that is both hot and deep. Which is why people typically don't move beyond this proposed meaning.
In what way can a woman be said to be weaker? Remember first that weaker doesn't mean inferior. It means simply that God has chosen different roles and strengths for the husband and wife. A sledgehammer is stronger than a teacup, but if Abby invites me to a tea party I won't be very well-suited for the occasion. Conversely, if I need to break some cement, a slegehammer might perform a little better in the long run. Does that make either one inferior? But of course not. So:
Is she weaker in a social sense, in that she doesn't have as many social rights (at least in Peter's time)?
Is she weaker spiritually? I don't think that can honestly be the case, simply because a majority of the Scriptures mitigate against the idea of spiritual superiority or inferiority.
Is she weaker emotionally? It depends on what you mean. My wife has often wondered if I even have emotions, and I don't think she is alone in that train of thought. Does the ability to think about possible solutions to a problem without emotion make one "stronger" emotionally? Is it because women are generally more influenced and under the sway of their emotions?

When we were speaking about this, my wife brought up an awesome point. She was amazed that some Christian women leered at being called "weaker." Her point was that in the Bible we are all called weak. The Bible is not for someone who wants to feel good about themselves. We are called names much more debasing than "weaker" throughout its pages. Rather than feeling icky about being called "weaker," women should revel in it. "For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called." Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked...'
I did not mean for this to stretch so long, so I'll have to finish up my thoughts about 1 Peter 3:7 later. Funny, I didn't even get to what I really wanted to talk to...

Thursday, September 08, 2005

On Writing Again - Influences

I'd like to thank everyone for the awesome comments on our previous post. You have honestly given me more impetus to continue shaping my craft in the hopes that someday it will reach and affect an audience larger than myself. Now I'd like to talk quickly about influences.
My wife has often called me a chameleon, because in any given social setting I can take on the personalities, likes and dislikes of the people around me. Now, this isn't necessarily a good characteristic, simply because some days I might not be hanging out with a choice crowd, but will inadvertently begin to act and feel like they do, to my own detriment. It is often the case that instead of myself constructing a change or will to change in those around me, I am changed by them. So what does this have to do with writing?
Influences.
One of the hardest things about writing is creating an effective and unique voice that pervades all of your stories. If I take two authors, say, Stephen King and Dean Koontz, writers of the same genre, and perform a simple "taste test" by reading excerpts from the writings of each without revealing which one wrote which piece, I think all of you would easily guess the correct author. Why? Because each of them have their own unique voice, and it shines through regardless of which character is talking or which situational dilemma they have constructed.
My fictional voice is constantly being changed by what I am reading at the moment. As they say, "garbage in, garbage out." Deep inside each of my stories is a uniform voice begging to be fully realized. This voice has mainly been influenced by three writers, whom I will share with you now. Among the shifting winds of my own fictional voice, and my struggle to find my way to a real unique voice, these three remain the undergirding for every story I have constructed and will construct.
I used to limit my sentences to a certain length. I felt it was easier to read and left more to the imagination. That all changed with "Plainsong."
Check these sentences out:

"Here was this man Tom Guthrie in Holt standing at the back window in the kitchen of his house smoking cigarettes and looking out over the back lot where the sun was just coming up. After a time he put out the cigarette and went upstairs and walked past the closed door behind which she lay in bed in the darkened guest room sleeping or not and went down the hall to the glassy room over the kitchen where the two boys were."
I am now a firm believer in long sentences, solely because of this work.

I was first introduced to Tobias Wolff from reading "This Boy's Life," an awesome work. I quickly fell in love with his short story anthologies, especially this one. I would often end his stories scratching my head. If there was a "moral," it often eluded me and continued to do so as I pondered over the story's contents. All to say, you don't necessarily need a moral to tell a good story. He is a devout Catholic, and sometimes you catch glimpses of his devotion. But you have to look hard.

Often hailed as the king of the minimalist school of fiction, his bare bones short stories ring through with raw emotion and guttural yells of humanity lost within its own depravity. I think Raymond Carver is the reason that I write stories without much action. His stories were often pieces where a character came to a revelation, or should have come to a revelation but did not. "Cathedral" is an awesome short story about a man who has a religious experience when he helps a blind man draw a picture of a cathedral. Carver does not waste so much as a word. And that's why I love him so.

So what are your favorite authors, and why? If you write, who has influenced you the most?
Until next time...

Friday, September 02, 2005

On Writing

I have been told on numerous occasions that everyone has at least one book milling around inside of them. This book is so crystallized in people's minds that it seems like all one would have to do to write it would be to find time, and when you put that pen to paper (or your hands on the keys) the words would simply spill out of you, as if you've been taken over by your story and are simply a conduit, a channel to bring it into existence. Until then, this story waits patiently inside, like a prom date sitting at the bottom of the stairs, pulling absentmindedly at his necktie, waiting for his date to appear and the magical night to begin, knowing that until then he's just an overdressed fellow with no place to go. As humans we have the power to create ex nihilo a thing of such beauty and passion that it cannot help but enrapture and engage an entire generation of readers.
Or something like that.
I used to like to write. As a child I would write science fiction stories, Robetech-esque space operas with a lot of action. As a child I also co-wrote "The Kidnapping at Grandma's House" with my friend Zak Pavitt, a sixty page tome in which he and I were the main characters and somehow managed to be riddled with bullets, blown up by grenades, and come out alive in each chapter. We were only nine years old, after all. What else would we possibly find interesting enough to write about?
I worshipped Stephen King, and as I grew older many of my stories were teenage-angst ridden horror stories in which the parents never seem to make it out alive. This was perhaps one of the reasons why my parents saw fit to put me in therapy. Of course, my therapist encouraged my writing; they love those "creative outlets." Why else do you think they have jigsaw puzzles in the insane asylum?
In college, I was one of the prestigious few who knew vaguely what our interests were and who didn't switch majors with every passing year. I came in as a Creative Writing major, and I would leave as a Creative Writing major. At the end of my first year I was accepted in the Creative Writing program and my path was fixed. And then something happened.
I got saved. I became a Christian.
Not that this is a bad thing. Far from it. I became a child of God, accepted in the Beloved...but I couldn't figure out what to write. I had seen the face of Christian fiction, and I quickly ran the other way in horror. I'm not talking about the Chronicles of Narnia, which some people would call quasi-Christian rather than overtly Christian. I'm talking about what you'd find in the CBD Catalog under "fiction." So immediately, as a Christian and as a writer, I was faced with a huge dilemma:
Do I want to write fiction that takes place exclusively in Pennsylvania in the 1600's in small Amish communities? Do I write "fiction" that is really just under-glamorized romance? Should I write fiction as a Christian, for a Christian, for non-Christians? Should I write dark, depressing fiction about the futility and hopelessness inherent in a life without God? If I were to write Christian fiction, should I include the good and the bad in the Christian experience, warts and all? What is my focus in writing fiction? To foster repentance, encouragement, and devotion, or merely entertainment and emotional highs?
Such was my dilemma.
To make a long story short, because I was still in college, and still in the Creative Writing program, I had to continue to pump out stories. Necessity was laid upon me. And so I did, rather haltingly and forcefully. To this day, having been out of college for three years, I still struggle with the place of my writing in my Christian walk.
And so I need help from you all.
I've posted some of my writing on the sidebar, at the bottom of all the other stuff. If you have time, read through a few stories. Some are funny, some are serious. I've noticed that in most of my stories nothing much happens; rather, it's about small revelations, God letting us know that He is with us.
Are these stories effective? If you don't have time to read them, please at least answer me these: what is the place of fiction in the Christian life? Must it be overtly Christian to be truly Christian?And so on...
P.S. I'm not sure if I posted the writing correctly, so let me know if the links don't work...

Friday, August 26, 2005

Baby Update!

Good afternoon.
Due to the urging of at least one faithful reader, and my persistent desire to make this post as uncontroversial as possible, I have decided to post...

A Baby Update!!!!!!!!!!!!
While I don't think this is the cutest picture we have of Eden, I do think it is one of the funniest. And yes, she is cute. She is already six weeks old, and is starting to smile and look at you like she really sees you. I always forget, because they start out so helpless and they sleep twenty hours a day, that this little baby is going to become a little girl like Abby is, with a personality and likes and dislikes (and hair). In a lot of ways I can't wait for Eden to grow a little older, and see her personality come to life, but at the same time I want her to stay as little as possible for as long as possible. I miss cradling Abby in my arms, and I know when the time comes I will miss cradling Eden as well. The severe and immutable bittersweetness of life becomes shockingly clear when you have children. You love watching them grow and mature, but all the while you lament the loss of the feeling of an infant in your arms, their helpless bodies delicately niched into the fold of your hands. You can't wait to see their first step, the first time they ride a bike, meet the man they're going to marry...and yet a part of you feels as if it could wait forever. Those who feel this way don't want to turn back time; we merely wish to pause it. And yet it marches on inevitably. Now, this is not meant to be a "downer" post. I don't intend it to read this way. I am incredibly blessed to be a part of my children's life, and I will pour all that I know as good into their lives, and at the right time I will kick them away from the shore and watch with peace as they set sail on their own voyage. Man! Why do I always end up philosophizing whenever I talk about my kids?

To make sure Abby doesn't feel left out:

And yes, Abby is the cutest girl you've ever seen.

On a different note:

My wife and I have watched a few documentaries that were very good lately, so I'd like to share them with you.

First (only for the reason that we watched this one first):

If you think you're a real man because you know how a carburetor works, or because you can bench two-fifty, or because you play softball, let me advise you: You're not.
The men aboard this ship were real men. This is the story of Ernest Shackleton and his doomed voyage to reach the Antarctic continent. Their ship got trapped in the ice folds leading to the continent, and they subsequently made a voyage of such strength and providence and will that it has become one of the most legendary stories around. I don't think I could create out of thin air a more epic and fantastically dangerous story. Please watch it.

America is a land of sub-cultures. There are the surfers, the disc-golfers, the left-handed, the veterans...and the spellers. This documentary caught me by surprise. I knew beforehand that it was nominated for the best documentary Academy Award, but seriously: who wants to watch a documentary about a spelling bee, much less the spelling bee itself? But I was enraptured by the children and the amazingly divergent paths that ended them at the National Spelling Bee in Washington. Some put all their hopes on the event, others saw it as merely a game, some saw it as a way out of what was to them a hopeless economic future. The thing that caught me the most was the parents of the children. Rather from being radical militant cheerleading moms who would pay others to hurt their children's competitors, they were extremely kind and supportive to their children. They wanted their child to win, of course, but when they fell short the parents came to them in love and support and couldn't stop saying how proud they were of their effort. Some of the parents had been raised in a different country, and their children were the first full generation to have lived in the US. And you know what? The parents praised the US. They saw it as people have seen it for hundreds of years: a land of opportunity, where commitment and hard work could give you a real chance at success, for you and your future generations. Lest we forget the beauty and real glory of our country, we should listen to those who have seen life lived another way in another land. The really, really cool thing was that they interviewed this kid named George. He was a semi-nerdy Indian boy, and when they asked him how he got here he said, "Trust in Jesus, work hard..." um, I forgot the third one. It wasn't my point anyway. I thought it was so cool that he was a Christian. I guess that was my point.
So, check these docs out. And tell them Simon sent you...

What good is it to live a long life when we amend that life so little? The purposed and poised thoughts of a Northern Californian living in a purposed and poised universe.

: Name: Team Kerbel; Location: Northern California, United States

View my complete profile