Regarding the London Riots and Responsible Society

This was posted as a series of tweets by Tony Evans of The Times around noon British Summer Time today, and really struck me with truth. (Thanks to JoshR commenting on this interesting Mightygodking article for bringing it to my attention!)

First off, I don’t know what’s best. But this is what I do know. Unlike most of you, I’ve fought with police, I’ve thrown missiles at them, I’ve kicked in shop windows and looted stuff. I was born into an area that people told me was full of ‘the dregs of society’. I’ve been young, poor and angry. I’ve felt there was no opportunity in life and all that stretched in front was a bleak, penniless future. And I know that most people with happy, fulfilled lives don’t go on rampages of violence. I also know that successive Governments have put the pursuit of wealth ahead of maintaining a sense of community. When you’ve been told there’s no society, why would you care about other people? When you see the bankers nearly destroy capitalism and still get their bonuses, what do you think of personal responsibility? The key is making people believe they have opportunities in life, not opportunities to loot. And maybe the money spent intervening in a civil war in Libya would be better spent on schools. I could go on, but most of you have made up your minds. You get the society you create. Enjoy it.

Dear Prospective Employer

Dear Prospective Employer,

I'm looking for a job. I'm looking specifically for a job teaching the English language (such as is useful for students with a working fluency already) and literature published in the English language. And your school looks like one I'd really love to work at. I can't say how badly I want to work there. Or else your school looks like one I'd tolerate working at in preference to giving it all up to become a stock trader. (I hate complicated money issues, competition, and regular risk-taking. Stock trading rates below digging ditches on my potential job interests.) Sadly, I can't tell you if you're merely tolerable, and if your school is one I love, the praise sounds like flattery. There's no winning there.

Of course, I can't tell you why I'm no longer at my last job; I'm not too clear myself. The only thing I'm clear on is that it wasn't my choice, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to hear that. Not sure you want to hear that "I'm a potentially amazing teacher if I get some help in these areas", but it's true. I have a ton of assets that I can bring to the job. I'm just not entirely self-sufficient.

But you don't want to hear that, do you? You want to hear about my exquisite perfection as a potential employee. You want to hear about how great I am, how flawless I am, etc etc. And I guess I could brag on myself some more. Thing is, though? I'm much more aware of my faults. I spend a lot more time worrying about them.

But enough about me. Let's see what you want to know. Sadly, those of you who fall into the "love" category have not told me much; all I know is what the "tolerable" folk want to know:

After a bad day...

He appeared to be a singularly ill-used man. His parents had never appreciated him and none of the five schools at which he had been educated seemed to have made any provision for a talent and temperament such as his. To make matters worse he had been exactly the sort of boy in whose case the examination system works out with the maximum unfairness and absurdity. It was not until he reached the university that he began to recognize that all these injustices did not come by chance but were the inevitable results of ...

-C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

I cut the quote where it stopped being remotely relevant to me (digressing into political issues), but the remainder might be summarized as "two further pages of displacing all responsibility."

Feeling this today. I am exactly the sort of girls in whose case the examination system works out with the maximum unfairness and absurdity - in my favor. It is all the fault of the system that my childhood and adolescence taught me that hard work and responsibility are legendary things which, in my own case, are entirely useless for anything but spoiling fun. It is the fault of the system that I now lack the discipline and willpower to do everything needed in my life.

It's the fault of the system entirely.

In other news, taught my students about irony today. Hope this is recognizable as verbal irony.

Fair Use and Film

"In thinking it through, I made the analogy that if a student had written a paper that utilized four cleverly selected quotes from significant novels to make their point [instead of using four video clips], I would be exceedingly impressed by their literacy skills." -Quoted in The English Teacher's Companion by Jim Burke, page 326

This line struck me like a thunderbolt as I was reading for class. Since the inception of copyright law, fair use clauses have permitted people to quote limited amounts without any concern for copyright. I don't need to pay the author to lift a line or two, as long as I don't claim that author's work as my own; I can quote for reviewing or academic purposes freely, and no one cares if I quote a few lines in an original work of my own (again, as long as I give credit where credit is due).

So what's the deal with fair use for films? A quick Google search yields no regulations about film use, but there's a certain illicit feel to film clips and screencaps. Am I legally liable if I arrange a bunch of film "quotes" from copyrighted works into a new work? If I use a series of screencaps for a show? Why is there a distinction, and why are companies permitted to employ DRM which prevents even fair use of their works?

I don't deal in music and video editing, so the relevance to my life is limited. But with YouTube becoming increasingly regulated re: copyright, I can't help wondering whether anyone will remember the vital use of fair use in analysis, study, and creativity.

Christianity And

My dear Wormwood,
The real trouble about the set your patient is living in is that it is merely Christian. They all have individual interests, of course, but the bond remains mere Christianity. What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call 'Christianity And'. You know -- Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring...

That would be the introduction to the 25th Screwtape Letter, and if you don't know what that means, please see the link. C.S. Lewis at his finest.

I have grown particularly sick of the current Fashion in America to describe Christianity as Christianity and Conservatism, or Christianity and Republicanism, or the battle cry "For God, America and St. George W. Bush!" (or whomever shall replace said fallen idol). While God may have opinions in American politics, I doubt very much that He has anointed any particular political party or political organization with the whole measure of His blessing and favor; democracy leaves little room for the divine right of kings, after all, and if God favors America, He surely favors democracy. The inherent conflation of "religious" and "neither left nor center" in "Religious Right" worries me, especially the gnawing suspicion that some members see a different "right" in that phrase - "We are the ones to the right; therefore, we are the ones IN the right!"

Still, I know plenty of people who belong to the Religious Right who place their faith in God first and foremost, who are wonderful, decent Christians and possibly better in their faith than I can ever be. The movement, therefore, is not spawned of Satan, whatever I would like to believe when Religious Right spokespeople appear on television. I've learned to view quite a lot of fallacies as either merely amusing or fallacies on the part of the liberal interpreter rather than the conservative speaker.

Therefore, I was shocked to learn about the Conservapedia Bible Translation Project. Now, my link is to an outside source. This is intentional. I do not wish to encourage the project by diverting any traffic its way, and this article does a fairly good job describing and quoting it. If, like me, you find it unbelievable, an exaggeration or joke, there is a link to the actual project inside the article. The link to the actual project may not work at the moment; Stephen Colbert set the Colbert Nation to work last night vandalizing the project, and probably-not-coincidentally the servers for the Bible Project are currently unreliable. But you know. You can figure it out.

This project, ladies and gentlemen, proposes that the Bible itself is too liberal as received and needs to be adjusted accordingly. There appears to be some restraint; excisions are technically limited to later additions to the text and the suggested word replacements have at least a shred of validity. But any "translation" which works by adjusting the KJV by fiat rather than learning and interpreting the original languages... does not deserve the name "translation". At best, it is a paraphrase; at worst, a retcon. The guidelines look suspiciously like a retcon. (I was not aware, for instance, that Jesus' parables were supposed to be a clear and unambiguous statement of support for the free market.) This is considerably beyond Christianity And. This is getting into And Christianity. Or, Is Christianity. We can change the Bible, because if God Himself supports our ideology, we are justified in putting words in His mouth to clarify His position.

This is exactly the kind of thing I hate. Christianity is loving the Lord thy God and loving thy neighbor as thyself. Christianity is doing unto others as thou wouldst have them do unto thee. Christianity is not defined by capitalism, small government, military spending, the death penalty, or harsher jail sentences by any logical stretch. Christian politics ought to have priorities in line with Christ's. To me, this means that homosexual marriage is a nonissue; divorce is a more pressing one. If abortion is to be a priority issue, for the love of all that is holy, hold politicians accountable - don't permit a politician to buy your vote with an entirely empty promise to "support" abortion prevention, and don't permit a politician to give lip service to that ideal while performing unChristian acts in every other area.

Got that?

Now here's the hellishly tricky part for me. It's incredibly tempting to fight Christianity and Conservatism by becoming Christianity and Anti(Christianity and Conservatism). I have friends who entice me into Christianity and Liberalism - which, with some idiot Conservapedia people thinking that forgiveness is a Liberal concept (fine, I caved and linked directly), seems awfully tempting to believe. If being forgiving is inherently liberal, wouldn't that mean that Christianity is inherently liberal? The only judgment and damnation I recall in the NT was on people who claimed to be believers but acted falsely. There I go, buying into the Christianity And Anti-Anti-Christianity again.

It comes back to learning to stand - learning to follow God Himself, to stand for God rather than against something else. I am not called to rant about the follies of legalism. (Howevermuch fun Paul might have had doing so. So, so much fun.) I am not called to go out of my way to confront fringe elements, and it's not like I have any erring high authorities to correct in the daily course of things. I have to drop "Christianity And", even when the "and" is fighting "Christianity And". Of course, this can create an infinite regression of Christianity And Anti(Christianity And)...

I see only one thing to do at the moment. Your patient has become humble; have you drawn his attention to the fact? All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them, but this is specially true of humility. Catch him at the moment when he is really poor in spirit and smuggle into his mind the gratifying reflection, 'By jove! I'm being humble', and almost immediately pride - pride at his own humility - will appear. If he awakes to the danger and tries to smother this new form of pride, make him proud of his attempt - and so on, through as many stages as you please.

Oh, Number 14, how thou knowest me.

Screw introspection, dangit

And the question pops up again, making me want to tackle innocent bystanders until it gets answered.

Did you click the link?

No?

I can wait till you do.

Okay, hopefully you clicked the link and hopefully it took you to Johnny the Tackling Alzheimer's Patient. If not, look it up. It's worth it. Best Scrubs-joke-to-become-a-running-family-joke ever.

Who am I?

At the moment, I'm not terribly concerned about the deep philosophical implications. I feel like I know myself pretty well. The whole existential who-are-we-as-human-beings thing? It's an interesting question to pursue, but not one I have a pressing need to figure out at the moment. I'm good with self-knowledge and pretty happy with my current level. 'S all good.

But apparently, it's not enough to know myself. I have to explain myself to everyone else - within the space of a single piece of paper. Or multiple pieces of paper. You see, I'm doing a job application which involves not only a resume, but also an autobiographical statement. Simultaneously, I'm having to revise my "Who am I?" essay for my teaching class. I have to figure out, not who I am, but how best to project my identity onto a few pieces of paper - and not even my identity, but that part of my identity which is acceptable for introducing myself to a stranger who may wish to employ me. So I have to figure out the balance between honesty and reserve - as Hitch would say, "not show it all at once, but show the real you." What part of me is the part that needs to go on that paper?

And do I really care?

I'm irreverent and flippant and silly, because I'm passionately, fervently and intensely dedicated to things that either don't interest or outright scare other people. (Old stories and language would be in the former, religion the latter.) I'm slow to commit and I keep my commitments few on the ground, because I'm intensely loyal and I'll give my all once I'm committed. I follow the rules meticulously when I agree with them and break them spectacularly when I don't - which makes me an unpredictable employee. Don't get me wrong, I don't randomly break rules - I go through discussing, disputing, etc if something really doesn't work for me. I'm just going to do what I think is right, and if negotiation doesn't work...

Well, that's not something you put on stuff for an employer to see. "Creative," "determined," what have you, but not "occasionally stubborn as a mule." Also, "laid back" and "adaptable" can be good, but "lazy" really can't. Not that I'm okay with laziness, but if I'm talking about myself...

Also I have a possible addiction to ellipses...

But I'm not sure...

Gah. This doesn't even get into detailing accomplishments for my resume. I hate resumes.

And I don't wanna talk about me. Don't wanna talk about "I". And if I want to talk about Number One, that's some other Guy. Why? Why? Why?

Screw introspection. And linguistics, while we're at it.

Thread Breaks

At the moment, I'm earning my daily bread in an embroidery shop. It's nice working with my hands after working with my brain all through college, but some days make me want to scream.

Like today. Our embroidery is done with some marvelous computer-run machines which, once set up, are supposed to run automatically through the intricate patterns to produce yet another stunning work of art (or, more often, simple logo or monogram). The worker, in theory, goes about her business setting up the next run, doing small chores, etc while the machine plugs away. The only thing which can stop this beautiful process is a thread break. I leave it to the reader to imagine how rare this event is in this age of miraculous technology.

Today we got to run a 43,000-stitch design. This is about ten times as long as a typical design - tricky to start with, because the machines are more prone to thread breaks the longer they run. (Not that I'm implying that these marvelous machines ever have thread breaks.) This is, however, doable; we ran this design on Friday in under an hour. So it's time to make it more challenging, and do it on a leather vest! Leather is about the least embroidery-friendly substance in the known world, at least out of the things anyone would ever consider embroidering. (And I'm an expert on that list. Our customers have had us embroidering everything from car covers to interesting segments of men's boxers.) And just in case we might get bored, the design would run right over two seams on the back of the vest - seams done blue jean style, only thicker because of the leather. The needles almost burst themselves with, er, joy.

But how many thread breaks? you ask, being too clever to be fooled by my bitter sarcasm. How many thread breaks? I lost count. But to give you an idea how this was running... well, I said we got to do this "today." In reality, we started this thing at 1:30 PM on Friday. At 4:45, it was a little over halfway done, and I was nearly stark raving mad. How many thread breaks? I must remember to ask the marvelous computer that was running the machine. Given that the average time to fix a thread break is 2 minutes, and the average running time between thread breaks was 20 seconds, it ought to be mathematically possible to figure it out right now. Even so, it was running better than today: the last third took from 9:30 AM to 1:00 PM.

By the end, my biggest peeve was not the thread breaks. I understood that the leather was tricky (and probably sticky, from the point of view of a rapidly running machine). What drove me mad was the machine's attempt to take care of them itself. It would detect a thread break and stop immediately - even if the thread break was nonexistent, or something that would quickly take care of itself if the machine would run through it. At other times, I would watch the thread fray to nothing before my eyes, and yet the machine would keep running, determined to make it work. In either case, I would have to back the machine up and make it do twice as much work to make up the mixed-up section. Sometimes, the tangled mess would fray the thread still more, and I'd have to redo a section three, five, ten times.

Being the wonderfully spiritual obsessively analogizing person I am, I distracted myself by trying to find Great Lessons in the mess. It started out seeming obvious: Listen to the operator. However smart your programming might be, however adjustable you might be, you will be wrong often enough that the operator's opinion ought always to come first. And ignoring that will lead to a lot of mess, and a lot of fuss that could be avoided the second the operator is heeded. Good good. Excellent idea. Then I realized the analogy breaks down at the point where the operator feels an intense desire to take a sledgehammer to the whole operation after a certain point. And especially when the operator starts hating the whole business. I don't think God's patience is so finite.

So, make of it what you will. I will settle on spiritual warfare. Demonic interference is the only explanation for the machine managing to get still worse when I started humming "It Is Well With My Soul." They're out to get me, I tell you.

Tidings of Comfort And Joy

Another Christmas has come and gone, much the same as every other Christmas. Family comes, family goes, gifts come and go, the feast comes (and comes... and comes... we'll be working through leftovers for the next couple weeks here). Our church had a service on Christmas, but with a dress code ranging from evening wear to blue jeans. The sermon was a marvelous illustration of Jesus as our hero, using comparisons to Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, Return of the King, Superman, and the Matrix - mostly Return of the King. It's wonderful having a pastor with similar rabid hobbies.

But before he got to the story comparisons, our pastor went on a nice riff about heroes in general. He talked about how people come up to him a lot with problems, and ask, "Am I doing something wrong?" He says terrible things happen without our doing anything wrong, and we don't have to be strong enough to deal with them. We don't have to be big enough, or special enough, or smart enough to deal with every obstacle. It's as ludicrous as trying to stop an airplane from falling. And yet we've got a Superman ready to dash away from his day job at the first sign of distress. We might be stuck in a castle surrounded by a cage of thorns and beset by a dragon, but we've got a Prince fighting his way through. We have horrors in our lives, but we have a Beautiful Savior whose healing love can cover them. We have a King whose sword drives back the inexorable juggernaut of evil, a King whose hands bring healing in the aftermath, a King whose reign brings joy to the edge of darkness. And we have the One who will truly set us free.

It might have been observed that I'm fond of Isaiah. Aside from the passage that gives this blog its name, I particularly like Isaiah 59. It begins with an unshirking look at the utter injustice of this world. Then, midway through verse 15,

The LORD looked and was displeased
that there was no justice.

¹⁶ He saw that there was no one,
he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;
so his own arm worked salvation for him,
and his own righteousness sustained him.

God has seen, and He's said "Enough. I'm coming down there, and if anyone's interested in making a world of hurtin', they'll be getting one." Christmas Day is about our newfound opportunity for peace on earth, about our hero winning the battle, about the fact that we can leave this bloody mess to God and just collapse in a good cry and a rest while He takes care of it. It's about tidings of comfort and joy.

Learning to stand

I was recently ranting my mom about my frustrations with the evolution debate, and my mother, being a wonderful lovely person whom I do not deserve to have as a parent, listened politely and said little in disagreement, despite the fact that we agree on almost nothing in that field. We batted back and forth about whether intelligent design belonged in the classroom at all, whether strict division of instruction along subject lines is desirable, and the general nature of science as a subject. We had hammered out some rough truces, which was roughly satisfying, and then I fumed:

"Why do so many people waste so much time with this intelligent design in science class thing? It's not the end of the world to leave it out, nor to put it in."
"Some people just need to fight, I think."

And this is very true. I named this blog after a Bible passage which I feel expresses this desire to argue, to debate, to test. But for some reason this made me think.

There are a number of Great Debates at the moment in which Christianity figures prominently. Evolution. Abortion. Homosexuality. The boundaries of "freedom of religion." Actually, in each of the above Christianity is not only a player, but it's generally assumed that God's position (if there is a God) is set out in genuine Mt. Sinai stone for the world to see in, er, gray and gray. And Christians (on both sides) will claim that their desperate struggle is part of a desperate stand to protect God's interests, or at least God's interests for His people. Christians will bemoan the lack of spine which keeps fellow believers from standing against the prevailing winds of unbelief.

Certainly there are a lot of people in this world who could stand to learn a thing or three about standing up for the right thing. But being involved in a debate is not an indication of standing, or even swaying with the wind. It's hard to believe, I know, because it's so rarely observed, but humans can be contrary critters. There are actually people out there who prefer to lean against the wind. I know, I'm one of 'em. And some of us like to lean into the wind so hard that when the wind stops blowing, or we're taken into shelter, we fall flat on our faces.

I've wondered why I was born into privilege, into comfort, into a loving home in a relatively safe and prosperous country, and I think this is why. I need to learn to stand independent of the prevailing wind. I think the truly strong person is able to stand for what they believe without needing to push or pull against anyone or anything else, and I think God moves us away from the props which inhibit this. Now I just need to push everyone else into understanding this, and getting along while appreciating diversity of opinion, and then corralling everyone into the Right Point Of View as soon as my studies ascertain exactly what this is. Yeah.

Impressions after a tragedy

6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains. -Matthew 24

18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. Romans 8

38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8

14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. Ephesians 3

I don't know how much the Pakistanis will appreciate expressly Christian prayer, but they have it. They and all the other victims of this mess of a world. Would God care to explain if He has any particular message in mind, before He gets drowned out by the explanations of His self-appointed spokesmen?

Secondary Causes

I've been seeing a lot of stuff from the anti-evolution forces these days, and I've come to a conclusion: I'm heartily sick of the terms in which the whole debate is framed. I have gone from creationist to ID to evolutionist and back.

The various groups pushing alternatives to evolution under such names as "creationism" and "intelligent design" usually do so for at least one of two reasons. The first, and more annoying, is the belief that if God ever becomes unnecessary to explain our existence, God will Himself be disproven. The second, and more understandable, is the belief that God did indeed create the heavens and the earth, and that it would be wrong to teach anything less than the Truth.

But science isn't about Truth. Science isn't about God. Science is about God's handiwork. Science is about secondary causes.

Secondary causes are the causes after God. Secondary causes are the things we learn to understand more about the cause and effect. For instance, the first cause for a baby might be "when a mommy and daddy love each other very much...", but the secondary causes are the biological mechanisms which actually complete the intent of the first cause, and without understanding the secondary causes, our understanding of the process is incomplete. It's fine to summarize "Mommy and Daddy made a baby" or "God did it", but it leaves a lot less room for awe at the complexity.

Think about it! What glories of creation would we not know if we summarized with "God did it" or "God does it"? The heavens declare the glories of God in supernovae, in black holes, in quasars, in the faint whisper of microwave radiation broadcasted across time. God made the heavens so that light travels at a constant rate in a vacuum (or does it?), so that the moon holds the Earth safely steady on her axis, so that the sun governs the days and the stars govern the seasons. The God who knows the movements of each quantum particle is far more than the God who can chart only the fall of each sparrow or the hairs of one's head, and the God who can number the days of a galaxy far more than the God who can number my days alone.

We discover these things when we ask things like "Where does light come from?" and "What force keeps the planets in motion?" and refuse to accept "God did it" as an answer. We discover what a marvelously well-designed Creation this is when we consider it apart from its designer.

Neither creationism nor intelligent design follow this pattern. The first, as a scientific movement, falls apart entirely: it cannot work without a Creator. There is no way to explain, for example, how light and vegetation could exist prior to heavenly bodies except "God did it, it's a miracle." This is about as scientific as the Resurrection: It may be true, but it's a miraculous theological truth and not a scientific one. And no, there's no need to be insulted by that; since science is only concerned with secondary causes, why worry if it doesn't answer Primary questions? Intelligent design is similarly out of bounds. Where we cannot say how the Designer did something, it says merely "the Designer did it." Perhaps true, but scientifically cheating.

And this is why I'm going to try to drop from the scientific debate. It's a mess of science and theology and philosophy with no ground rules, no common ground, and little interest in disinterested truth. I've gone from "creationist" to "intelligent design," and now seem left with "evolutionist," which describes my scientific persuasion, but who will side with my theological persuasion that Genesis is an absolutely truthful (if not scientific, if not factual) account of creation? And who will take the time to discern among them? It's an unholy mess, and may God free us from it to spend more time doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with Him.

Katrina

What's in a hurricane?

I'm a little callous about natural disasters, generally. Possibly because most of my memories of surviving Hurricane Hugo are quite pleasant - Dad buying ice cream (which had to be finished immediately in the power outage!), camping out in the hallway, playing on the new jungle gym of fallen trees. So when a disaster strikes with warning, I kind of tend to assume that everyone will be okay, that everyone will sensibly and safely evacuate, and if not, well, maybe they can go swimming a lot closer to home than usual.

Then today I was informed that, in my town in North Carolina, gasoline was going to be out of supply from 6:00 PM tonight until at least Monday, thanks to Katrina. That slightly cloudier, slightly windier day we had the other day had spent itself wrecking our nation's petroleum ports and refineries.

I've never heard of one storm having such a wide effect in the States. It started me wondering about the depth. I'd been avoiding the news stories, you see, because I've been sticking to reading every moment I'm not working. But tonight I look it up, and discover that the death toll is likely to be in the thousands.

In the thousands.

One storm. And this isn't a tsunami striking without a decent warning system. This is one we've been watching approach for days. We've known for at least two days that it was likely to hit New Orleans and the surrounding area. We have sophisticated communication and transportation systems. Why couldn't we avert the tragedies? Property damage is painful, but loss of human life is ...

is...

.

And I can't understand it. Why should rescue missions even be necessary? Why in Heaven's name were there more than a tiny handful of people left, and why were any people left outside, say, the Astrodome?

It probably has to do with logistics and complications I don't know about. Who knows what kind of glut was on the highways out? How many stubborn souls simply refused to move? Who was forgotten, left behind as evacuees streamed by on every side...

I recall hearing that people will be dying of dysentary and dehydration because of the impossibility of maintaining a supply of drinking water. How little it takes for our society to crumble. I may not see my sister this weekend, because her roommate may not be able to refill her tank upon reaching this place. Suddenly, a few hundred miles have grown from a few hours away to an impassable distance. I'm trying to imagine how it is where there are no roadways left above water.

And I'm imagining floating in a little boat on a lake, with maybe some treetops and alligators, but fun enough in the end, right? *sigh* I really am too callous about disaster. Now to go get that stupid song (I'll let you guess which one specifically) out of my head.

Screwtape Writes Again

C.S. Lewis discovered a valuable trove of correspondence between Screwtape, a rather important infernal bureaucrat, and Wormwood, his nephew, a junior tempter. These Screwtape Letters provide useful insight into the inner workings of Hell.

I believe I may have found a fragment of another letter of Screwtape's, though to a different tempter. (Wormwood had but one patient, a male, before he failed and was fed to his superiors.) I record it below.

... You complain that your patient is self-aware and dedicated to thwarting her own faults. You complain that this makes it impossible for you to introduce subtle sins of sloth, self-indulgence, etc. You complain, in short, that this self-awareness and dedication render your job impossible.

My only reply is to wonder yet again what Slubgob is teaching you young fiends. How can you fail to notice the delightful possibilities inherent in her trying to thwart her faults? All you need do is bring her faults to her attention, and she will try to thwart. Humans are always worse than they think they are; I am sure that you will be able to surprise her with enough genuine faults (and even flagrant sins) that she will spend the greater part of her day trying to thwart. Her self-awareness simply means that she will do half the work for you. Soon she will become so engrossed with thwarting that you will be free to introduce imaginary sins and failings to the burden as you please. The result is a veritable banquet of misery, self-hatred and doubt.

Now this is a delicate point. You must never allow her to pause and ask herself, "But didn't Christ say that He came not for the righteous, but the sinners? Is not His sacrifice great enough for even my sin?" Our side have lost many to the Enemy in such circumstances, and those who have got past this obstacle can become deadly weapons in His hands. But I think the danger negligible. Any activity which focuses the patient away from the Enemy is to be desired. And if it is disguised in a noble package such as self-examination, so much the better.

It may surprise you to learn that this is one activity where revealing your influence can be helpful. The knowledge that she is (or has been) vulnerable to you may drive your patient into a still-deeper frenzy of negative soul searching. Never allow her to see the difference the Enemy has had in her life in the same time period. If she does ask that very obvious question, ask in return whether she has made as much progress as she ought. Then focus her not on her progress, but on the distance remaining (which, as I have said, is always greater than these humans suppose). Try convincing her that the sin is too great to be forgiven - a nice dash of pride and hubris which increases despair nicely. If all else fails, make her aware of how much time has been spent wrestling with such silly things as self-doubt and despair, and convince her that she must fix herself before anyone discovers how wretched she has permitted herself to be. Then of course you may trot out her failings again for her review, and begin the cycle again.

The great joke, of course, is that humans are always at least as wretched as your patient believes herself to be. The Enemy had taken this into consideration when He made His atrocious offer of amnesty, just as He considered how His people would fail after accepting Him. (Remember Peter's denial?) And yet He still promises that He, "who began a good work" in each of His people, "will be faithful to complete it". This is all part of His mysterious plan, which He calls "unconditional Love". Our top fiends are even now working to unmask this fiction, but until the facts of the matter are revealed, we must content ourselves with the Enemy's term. At any rate, this is the reason why contact with the Enemy is so dangerous. It might begin all sorts of pursuits of His "Love", which are never desirable.

Posted for the benefit of two friends - one literal, one proverbial. I hope it's coherent enough.

Rescue Stations

I saw an entry in Dry Bones Dance today which reminded me of a parable I love.

There was once a treacherous stretch of shore which caused deadly shipwrecks on a regular basis. People drowned almost every day.. Then one day, a group of people decided to build a rescue station on the shore, from which they could go out and save shipwrecked people. The station was small and primitive, but as more and more people were saved from the water, more and more people made contributions to it for the benefit of others. Bedrooms and hospital facilities were added. Comforts were added one by one, such as fine dining and rec centers. Soon, people became more concerned with the station than with rescuing the shipwrecked people. The rescue station became a sort of country club for a very exclusive clientele.
A few people in the group were outraged at the change. They demanded a return to their original mission - people were drowning once more. These few were not heeded, so they went and made a new rescue station next door.
Unfortunately, within a few years the process repeated itself. And repeated itself again. Until now, the beach is famous for its stretch of exclusive country clubs, just in sight of the rocks where people drown almost every day. And no one is left to do anything about it.

Sometimes I feel like the modern Church spends a lot of time worrying about minutia, or disproportionately worrying about certain sins. How many of us beg God to have mercy, dance joyfully in His grace, or lavish His love upon the world He made, upon the people He redeemed with His Son? How many of us act to seek and save the lost, rather than search and destroy?
Love should be the chief hallmark of the Christian. We should in humility consider others better than ourselves. If we are not self-seeking, if we keep no record of wrongs, if we always hope, always trust, and persevere in these traits, we should have no cause for bitter battles with our brethren. Doctrinal issues become a mere question of theory, when the real question is how we can help heal a fallen world.
I'd almost be happier if I saw the church bitterly arguing about which way to help the poor, to feed the hungry, to succor those in misery. Or how to draw all peoples to God. Arguments about which political party to support or how badly we should hate a particular sin seem like a waste of time, and I'm tired of it. It seems like a great many other people are tired, too. I wonder if we're due for an Awakening soon? Only unlike the previous Awakenings, one more interested in the summons of heaven than escape from hell.

Starting with an explanation of the title

Last night, I wrote in my LiveJournal,

I've been trawling the blogosphere again. I should start a blog. I always like to shout and contradict people. The only trouble is, I'd be forced to be quiet and agreeable. Because that's the only way to contradict all of them.

Then I realized that I don't have to contradict everyone. I can contradict one person at a time! I can debate to my heart's content!

This would have delighted me to no end four years ago, a freshman starting college, ready to take on the errors of the world. Lately, though, I'm noticing a troubling trend in my contradictions: they seem to come from a single source. I've actually started to believe something, something bigger than a mere desire to always show the other side of an argument.

That something is rooted in one of my favorite passages of Scripture, Isaiah 27:2-5. NIV specifically - most other translations come across somewhat differently.

2In that day -

"Sing about a fruitful vineyard:
3 I, the LORD, watch over it;
I water it continually.
I guard it day and night
so that no one may harm it.
4 I am not angry.
If only there were briers and thorns confronting me!
I would march against them in battle;
I would set them all on fire.
5Or else let them come to me for refuge;
let them make peace with me,
yes, let them make peace with me."

I've always been stunned by this God who is so fiercely protective of his own, yet willing to make peace with all. And I realize this is one good impulse I have: to fight evil where I see it, and yet to make peace afterward. I like peace. I like faith, hope, and love; I like love, joy and peace; I like all these things so short in supply in most blogs.

And yet I keep thinking - in Philippians 4:8, we're told what sort of things to think about. "Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things." Truth tops the list. So if some ugly truths have to be faced before we can get to what is lovely and admirable - well, bring it on.