Planning to Vote for Jesus? Think Again.

As this sendup demonstrates, the state of political advertising in America has sunk to such a low that even Jesus could be made to look bad without too much difficulty. Two minutes.



Thanks to Friendly Atheist.

À la recherche du benzine perdu

Our moronic governor, Sonny "Head in the Sand" Perdue assures us there is no gas shortage in Atlanta.

.

Unfortunately, 18 of the 20 gas stations I've passed in the last day didn't listen to the news.

.

Somebody needs to tell them, so they will start selling gas again.

.

[P.S. In the French language, "perdu" means lost. A good name for our gov.]

I Am Not an Imposition, Part 4 (The Jewish View, Part 3)

Are cities “bad”? Is Nature “good”? Should we curtail our actions in order to protect endangered species? The Jewish view of the creation mandate provides an interesting perspective on these questions, as shown in this excerpt from Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition:

The general hostility toward industrial development that is often evidenced by environmental activists is frequently rooted in a pantheistic opposition to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and is as old as the Tower of Babel. Judaism takes note of how industrial development tends toward the spiritual and away from the merely material. In our own times, this is quite clear as we see development lead societies past the manufacture of steel and large machinery to the creation of data and knowledge. . . . Judaism views this as a movement toward human recognition of the primacy of the spiritual over the material. It is no coincidence that this tendency for society to move toward the spiritual also brings along with it less disruption of nature. Instead of imposing barriers to industrialization upon the developing world, we could be better served to assist developing nations in moving through this early phase of growth. In this fashion, each part of the world can make its own decisions and judgments about how it will balance its own needs . . . . Those of us in the developed world may not want a rubber-tire factory next door. However, if we lived near Cairo and presently were neighbors to the world’s biggest garbage dump, which is populated by ghostly skeletons rummaging through the filth to find food for another day’s existence, we may welcome the arrival of a tire plant to displace the garbage dump. Judaism has great faith in the ability of ordinary human beings to make their own decisions and to find ways to overcome tragic circumstances.

This faith comes from another religious conviction not shared by many environmentalists. Again, if we are nothing but sophisticated animals, it is only right that important decisions should be made of us by an elite group of people playing the roles of zookeeper or farmer. In this view of reality, we are not capable of determining for ourselves just how much prosperity we are willing to sacrifice to halt development. Since nature is the ultimate good, our zookeepers will determine that no burden is too heavy for us to shoulder in service to our god of nature. . . .

The basic Jewish principle of balance and middle path also conflicts with the contemporary environmental doctrine that preserving each spotted owl and each kangaroo rat is more important than any costs borne by humans and any sacrifices made by people. Judaism would never countenance loggers suffering the indignity of joblessness in order not to disturb the nesting habitat of the owl. . . . People need not justify their needs or desires to nature. They are warned only against destroying things for no good purpose. . . .

Our task is, in essence, to subdue nature and redirect it for holy purposes. . . . Your labor is welcome, and its results are pleasing to me, says the Lord. For this reason, Judaism is prouder of man’s skyscrapers than of God’s swamps, and prouder of man’s factories than of God’s forests.

- pp. 24-26

See the previous post on this subject by clicking here.

I Am Not An Imposition, Part 3 (The Jewish View, Part 2)

Here are some more thoughts from the Judaism section of Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition (Part 1 of the Jewish view was posted Sunday). In this excerpt, we learn why eating meat is a sacred act and why a good Jew can't be a vegetarian:

The Hebrew for conquering, koveish, clearly distinguishes between annihilating and conquering. The former is a verb for utterly destroying one’s enemy. The latter refers to leaving one’s enemy’s resources and abilities intact, or even enhancing them, but redirecting them for one’s own end. That is what we are told to do with the resources of the natural world. We may not destroy, but we may use them in every possible beneficial manner. Animals are part of the natural world, and their purpose is strictly in the context of human life…

A religious Jew may choose to restrict his diet to vegetables during the week, but come Saturday and most holidays, he is to eat some meat as a religious obligation. The reason for this is that God created a world of hierarchy. Minerals are consumed by a higher life form, namely plants. Animals survive by consuming plants, while the highest life form of all, humans, eat animals. It is interesting to note that those animals permissible to Jews as food are animals that eat only plants. In other words, those animals that violate the hierarchical order, such as wolves and bears, may not be eaten by Jews. Now, for a Jew to attempt to improve on God’s definition of morality by refraining from eating any meat on moral grounds is another way of announcing that one is nothing more than an animal oneself. Animals are supposed to eat only plant life. Thus, a Jew who eats only vegetables is announcing himself to be a very good animal. Once each week, God demands of his people that they leave the moral refuge of vegetarianism. We are then forced to confront the reality that an animal died to provide our meal. That places an obligation upon us to be worthy of the sacrifice…

While always prohibiting cruelty or wanton destruction, Judaism abhors the entire notion of animal rights since it violates the very foundation of biblical belief in God’s sovereignty and God’s role as ultimate arbiter of moral right. Judaism and secularism are fundamentally incompatible, and the doctrine of animal rights is a doctrine of secularism.

-pp. 22-23

In upcoming installments, we'll move into the Jewish view of issues we more typically identify with environmentalism.

When Abortion Fails - Obama's Disingenuous Response

OK. Now I'm angry. Yesterday, I told you about Gianna Jessen, the aborted baby who didn't die and is now a grown woman. And I gave you a YouTube clip of her ad.

Now, rather than admit that he might actually have been wrong on this issue, Obama has fired back with this own ad in which he indignantly makes several false claims in only 30 seconds:

1. The McCain attack ad is the sleaziest ad ever (interestingly, the voiceover says "the sleaziest," but the text on the screen says, "one of the sleaziest"). Actually, Gianna's ad wasn't paid for by the McCain campaign, but by her own organization.
2. Even the bill's sponsor said the claims about Obama are untrue. Actually, you can read below the entire letter the sponsor wrote (not just the single quoted sentence) and see that Obama has intentionally quoted him out of context.
3. "Obama has always supported medical care to protect infants." But he has not ever supported the medical protection of aborted babies born alive. The voting record on this is clear, and the facts clearly contradict his contention that he would have voted for wording that matched the Federal statute. It did, and he didn't.

Watch Obama's 30-second ad below, and then read the rejoinder from Real Clear Politics, which is a Time/CNN blog and not a partisan site:

Now, here's what Real Clear Politics had to say. I've bolded the sentence Obama uses in his ad, just so you can see how he misrepresented the writer:

The Obama ad cites a September 5 letter to the Chicago Tribune written by the Republican co-sponsor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Rick Winkel, in declaring, "even the bill's Republican co-sponsor said it wasn't true." To put this in context, here is Winkel's letter reprinted in full:

A storm of controversy has risen in the presidential race concerning Barack Obama and legislation I sponsored in 2003 ("Obama's '03 abortion vote on forefront," Eric Zorn, Metro, Aug. 21). I introduced Senate Bill 1082 because of a nurse's claims that abortions at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn resulted in living infants whom hospital personnel then allowed to die without medical or comfort care.

SB-1082 defined born-alive infants and required that courts recognize them fully as persons and accord them immediate protection under the law—including statutes outlawing infanticide. Opponents of the bill believed it was an attack on Roe vs. Wade, so I added neutrality language identical to the 2001 federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act that the United States Senate approved 98 to 0.

On March 12, 2003, I presented the neutrality amendment before the state Health and Human Services Committee chaired by then state Sen. Obama. All 10 committee members voted to add the amendment. Nevertheless, during the same hearing, the committee rejected the bill as amended on a vote of 4-6-0. Obama voted no.

I was stunned because the neutrality amendment addressed the concerns of opponents. It was the same neutrality language approved by U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in the federal bill.

None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide. Rather their zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.

In 2005, I joined 116 state representatives and 54 senators in voting for HB-984, which contained the same born-alive definition and neutrality language as Senate Bill 1082, plus some extra language to satisfy the most zealous pro-choice legislators, yet harmless to the bill's purpose. No one voted against it. We had finally accomplished what we had set out to do - protect a newborn baby's life.

- Rick Winkel, Former state senator, Urbana

I used to think Obama was a person of integrity, but I'm over that now. I would like to start calling him all manner of contemptuous names, but I'll save that for another time.

When Abortion Fails

My friend David put this on his blog recently. It's an appearance on Hannity & Colmes by a woman who was aborted at 7-1/2 months. Gianna Jessen lived, obviously, and her story is engrossing. (Yes, there's an obvious political aspect in this election year.) Take 5 minutes:



There's a longer video on YouTube of her speaking at an annual Right to Life rally, in which she shares more of her story and more of her heart. If the lousy introduction annoys you, skip the first minute.

Jessen's website is bornalivetruth.org.

I Am Not An Imposition, Part 2 (The Jewish View, Part 1)

Continuing the series which I began September 17 . . .

.

In the book, Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition, I found the Jewish discussion the most provocative. In this first excerpt, the authors differentiate between rights and responsibilities, between Creator and created, between ownership and stewardship, and between humans and everything else:

The Torah unhesitatingly prohibits cruelty to animals. This is not because animals also have rights; it is because only human beings have obligations. In the Torah’s depiction of moral reality, nobody has rights – only obligations. Naturally, if everybody discharges their obligations, we all end up enjoying those things we vainly attempted to obtain by claiming them as our rights.

The animal rights movement can best be understood by viewing it as an attempt to undo the opening chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis. The Torah and its accompanying oral transmissions insist that Genesis describes more the beliefs underlying Creation than its facts. This is to say that the Bible’s central premise is that humans and animals are qualitatively different, a contention violently opposed by the animal rights movement. . . .

The Bible teaches that the human person is the apex of God’s creation and that all creation is there for the human person to develop and use as a responsible steward. The principle at work here is, of course, precisely the same biblical principle that prohibits self-maiming, destroying a rented apartment, or even having an abortion. This is to say that tenants do not have the same rights as owners. We, as humans, do not own the world, our bodies, or the habitations we rent. Thus, we may improve them but not destroy them. According to the Torah, not only do women not have the right to do with their bodies as they wish, but neither do men. Our bodies are given to us by a gracious and generous God so that we may occupy them for a certain period of time. During that time they are to be treated with the same deference that a tenant should employ in caring for his rented premises. Similarly, we humans are granted use of the world and all it contains. We may hunt animals for food or clothing, build homes out of the wood we cut from trees, and mine the earth to extract the minerals it holds. However, we may not wantonly destroy anything at all.
- pp. 20-21

More from the Jewish tradition in an upcoming post.

Exquisite

I found a video clip of our new worship team that will be leading us tomorrow morning at church. It's only 3 minutes long, but it will change your life. Be sure to stick around for the semi-Calvinistic "Zap" moment at about the 1'50" mark:

Speechless

I sounded strange yesterday, but at least I could talk.

.

Today I have no voice.

.

Eventually, this cold or whatever it is will pass, and I'll start speaking again. Meanwhile, I'm thankful that I'm an introvert and that I know how to use e-mail.

“Do you want to win, or are you more interested in your principles?”

Tony Jones is a leader in the emergent church movement. He supports Obama for President. In a blog post of a couple days ago, he tells of a teleconference that he and seven other unnamed "Christian leaders" (his term) had with members of Obama's religious outreach staff.

Of course, the issue of abortion came up, and there was some disagreement among the eight "Christian leaders" as to whether Obama should tackle this head-on or try to do an end run. Some felt that if Obama jumps in, he's letting the religious right set the agenda. Jones writes:

The Five continued to protest, saying that abortion is not an issue that O should deal with much. To which I replied, “Do you want to win, or are you more interested in your principles?”

Does anybody have a problem with that question?

We all know that politicians find ways to "shift" their positions in order to gain more votes. They could even be accused of changing their principles in order to win. But "Christian leaders"? Should they employ a similar approach to life?

The principles by which we live our lives define who we are. The principles by which Christians live their lives determine whether they are truly followers of the Jesus whom they claim. Fidelity to Christ and His kingdom must trump all other principles, wouldn't you think?

So when Bell asks, "Do you want to win, or are you more interested in your principles?", he is, in effect offering a conflicting principle: that winning is more important than integrity and fidelity.

Somehow, I see a tie-in with the emergent church movement. Doctrine, creeds, history, and dogma all fall to the wayside in the search for conversation, not conversion. I'm not sure what is won in the process, except a "good time had by all." Becoming all things to all men is a Biblical principle, but the driving force underlying it is that men and women would be won to Christ - not to conversation, coolness, relevance, or anything else.

.

Are we willing to stick with our principles, even if that makes us "losers"?

I Am Not an Imposition

Global warming concerns have temporarily taken a back seat to hurricanes, financial crises, and the question of which shade of lipstick looks best on a pit bull. But the subject is far from dead.

A couple weeks ago, some European guy was in the news for suggesting that the best way to attack global warming was to stop having children. I didn't pay too much attention to the story, but I do find that it plays into an underlying assumption, often unspoken, sometimes almost subconscious, that accompanies the arguments of anti-global warming advocates.

The assumption seems to be that people are an imposition on the planet. That we should do as little as possible to change it (or as much as possible not to change it). That the earth is in some sense sacred and that we have no right to use or exploit its flora and fauna for our purposes.

And that all leads up to a small book I read recently. It showed up in the mail one day for reasons unknown to me, though I suspect it was sent to all people who subscribe to First Things. The book is published by the Acton Institute and is entitled Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition. This book has separate chapters from Jews, Catholics, and Evangelical Protestants, with each sharing the perspective on environmental stewardship that their faith tradition offers. Reading this helped to put thoughts to my sense of unease regarding the philosophy behind much global warming advocacy. And it supports my main contention when it comes to environmental issues:

I AM NOT AN IMPOSITION

(Nor Are You)

In upcoming blog posts, I'll explain what I mean by the above statement, as I share some of the thoughts from this book.

Nouwen On: Silence and Entertainment

Being silent seems like doing nothing, but it is precisely in silence that we confront our true selves. The sorrows of our lives often overwhelm us to such a degree that we will do everything not to face them. Radio, television, newspapers, books, films, but also hard work and a busy social life all can be ways to run away from ourselves and turn life into a long entertainment.

The word entertainment is important here. It means literally “to keep (tain from the Latin tenere) someone in between (enter).” Entertainment is everything that gets and keeps our mind away from things that are hard to face. Entertainment keeps us distracted, excited, or in suspense. Entertainment is often good for us. It gives us an evening or a day off from our worries and fears. But when we start living life as entertainment, we lose touch with our souls and become little more than spectators in a lifelong show. Even very useful and relevant work can become a way of forgetting who we really are. It is no surprise that for many people retirement is a fearful prospect. Who are we when there is nothing to keep us busy?

- Henri Nouwen, Can You Drink the Cup?, p. 94

Sarah and Hillary, Together For the First Time

Sorry to post two videos in a row . . . the lazy man's approach to blogging . . . but these 5 minutes from Saturday Night Live are pretty humorous, indeed:



If you don't see the video above, you can access it here.

Oh, So THAT'S What They're Saying

I've never been a big fan of rap, in part because I've never really understood the syntax and vocabulary. But thanks to the following video (of 3-1/2 minutes' duration), I now have help in translating the "lyrics" into standard English.



I still don't like rap.

(I do, however, like my friend Roy, but I don't understand him, either. He's always using these words . . .in the original languages.)

Thanks to my roommate Eric for pointing out this valuable resource.

Spurgeon On: Predestination and Free Will

I recently came across these quotes from Spurgeon and think they represent a good balance regarding a paradoxical issue:

"That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place [in Scripture] that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover
that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring." (New Park Street Pulpit, 4:337)

"Men who are morbidly anxious to possess a self-consistent creed, a creed which will put together and form a square like a Chinese puzzle, are very apt to narrow their souls. Those who will only believe what they can reconcile will necessarily disbelieve much of divine revelation. Those who receive by faith anything which they find in the Bible will receive two things, twenty things, ay, or twenty thousand things, though they cannot construct a theory which harmonizes them all." ("Faith," Sword and Trowel, 1872)

- C.H. Spurgeon, 1834-1892

Thanks to Derek at theoparadox.blogspot.com

Abe Lincoln, the Religious Wacko Fundamentalist (and what it may teach us about Sarah Palin)

.

The ignorance of the press when it comes to religious matters is astounding. People of faith are too often treated as if they come from an alien planet and have habits normal mortals can never hope to understand. I've often referred to the GetReligion blog as an excellent site for cataloging much of this cluelessness - and pointing out the praiseworthy exceptions when they do occur.

Sarah Palin is being pilloried by some who see her as a Christian incarnation of a Muslim fundamentalist. And this is in the mainstream media. See, for example, Juan Cole's column on Slate.com.

One Palin comment raising eyebrows came in her address to graduating students at her former church, when she said, "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

Now, every "normal" evangelical, especially those who listen to the message in context, will understand her to be saying that our leaders should ask for God's guidance as they make decisions about (the) war, and that every citizen should beseech God to guide those leaders. Praying for our leaders is, in fact, a Scriptural injunction (see, for example, 1 Timothy 2.1-3). But the rigid secularists see her as claiming divine mandate for every decision that she might make. Then they take it even further and warn that she may singlehandedly attempt to usher in the Apocalypse in order to hasten the return of Christ. I'm sure such religious wackos do exist, but there's no sane reason to believe that Sarah Palin is one of them.

Somehow, this leads to Abraham Lincoln. I was remembering how he said that we should "do right, as God gives us to see the right," and how that statement wasn't much different than Palin's. And that got me to looking at Lincoln's second inaugural address. It's only 700 words long - if only today's political speeches were so short! - and the most notable aspect is that almost 2/3 of it reads like a sermon. I'll reprint that portion below. There's more theology in this civic address than I've heard in a lot of sermons. What was Lincoln's view of God's will? Of divine Providence? Of prayer? Of the attributes and character of God? Is this the kind of relgious wacko who should be entrusted with leading a nation at crisis?

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

A New Community

My friend Garrett and I are starting a new discipleship group tomorrow evening. It will be smaller than the one pictured above, and I'm praying for a few other differences, as well . . . community and missionality for a start. Everybody staying awake would be good, too, though we'll let the dog sleep if she wants to.

I recently read Henri Nouwen's book, Can You Drink the Cup?, and found his description of community to represent one of the things I greatly desire for this new group:

Nothing is sweet or easy about community. Community is a fellowship of people who do not hide their joys and sorrows but make them visible to each other in a gesture of hope. In community we say: “Life is full of gains and losses, joys and sorrows, ups and downs – but we do not have to live it alone. We want to drink our cup together and thus celebrate the truth that the wounds of our individual lives, which seem intolerable when lived alone, become sources of healing when we live them as part of a fellowship of mutual care.”
…
[Community is] a fellowship of little people who together make God visible in the world.
…
So often we are inclined to keep our lives hidden. Shame and guilt prevent us from letting others know what we are living. We think: “If my family and friends knew the dark cravings of my heart and my strange mental wanderings, they would push me away and exclude me from their company.” But the opposite is true. When we dare to lift our cup and let our friends know what is in it, they will be encouraged to lift their cups and share with us their own anxiously hidden secrets. The greatest healing often takes place when we no longer feel isolated by our shame and guilt and discover that others often feel what we feel and think what we think and have the fears, apprehensions, and preoccupations we have.
…
The important question is, “Do we have a circle of trustworthy friends where we feel safe enough to be intimately known and called to an always greater maturity?

Vulnerability, growth, and mission. May they all be true of our new group as we seek to follow Jesus and be transformed into His image.

Nouwen On: Solitude

There is absolutely no reason for most people to be as busy as they are. You want to earn more money than you need. You want to see more television than you need. You want to read more books than you need to read. You want to see more people. You want to keep in touch with too many friends. You want to travel too much. You can even be busy with looking for the meaning of solitude! . . . . I shall have no time to pray whatsoever unless I radically say that prayer and solitude - being alone with God - is a priority. But my senses aren't saying that to me.

...

Solitude is a hard discipline, because we have the luxury of so many stimulations.

...

Solitude is listening to the voice who calls you the beloved. It is being alone with the one who says, "You are my beloved, I want to be with you. Don't go running around, don't start to prove to everybody that you're beloved. You are already beloved." That is what God says to us. Solitude is the place where we go in order to hear the truth about ourselves.

- Henry Nouwen, Beloved, pp. 11-13

Particle Acceleration For Dummies

CERN's Large Hadron Collider has been under construction for the last 10 years. It will be the world's largest and fastest particle accelerator when it comes on line next month, moving protons at 99.99% the speed of light.

Not up to speed on particle physics? Need a refresher? Take five minutes to watch this "Large Hadron Rap," and you'll know as much as I do:



Want to know more? Wikipedia has a nice summary.

Truth Your Doubts

Nietzsche’s [claim] was that our desire for truth above utility is just one of the many symptoms of human weakness and lack of self-reliance: we are incapable of carrying the burden of our solitude and asserting our will as the ultimate ground of everything we believe; we cannot bear the realization that we are self-grounded, unprotected by any universal order of things.
…
But on this point, as in most other areas of philosophizing, he was not consistent: he glorified the spirit of doubt, but failed to see that if there is no such thing as truth, there cannot be doubt either. My act of doubting implies that I believe something to be true, but am unable to decide what that something is. If we get rid of truth, doubt becomes impossible.

- Leszek Kolakowski, Metaphysical Horror, p. 29

My Home State, Where Whales Explode

Tomorrow, I'm headed for Oregon to visit Mom and my sister. Somehow, that ties in to the following video, which dates from 1970. It's news coverage of the famous exploding whale incident, and if you can watch this without laughing, please ask your relatives to bury you, because you're already dead . . . and possibly as stinky as this whale:



This was big news (pun intended). Previously unbeknownst to me, Wikipedia has its own Exploding Whale page, there's a web site called theexplodingwhale.com, and a Google search for exploding whale oregon yields 28,000 results.

"Elsewhere"

Our need to live in an ordered world, a world whose origin, destiny and rules we can understand, is not a temporary, historically relative whim; it is an enduring part of our constitution as human beings, and the entire history of religion – an eternal aspect of our culture – is there to demonstrate this. In claiming that this need arises from a feeling of weakness, Nietzsche was in perfect agreement with Christian tradition, and probably with religious tradition as a whole. The crucial conviction we find in religious experience, a conviction that recurs repeatedly in various sacred books, may be summed up in one word: alibi – ‘elsewhere’.

Throughout its history, religion has told us that we are ‘elsewhere’. This implies that we are in exile, and that we have a home where we belong. To be elsewhere is our permanent condition on earth.

- Leszek Kolakowski, Metaphysical Horror, p. 30

Eat Food. Not Too Much. Mostly Plants.

I don't normally read books about food, nutrition, or diets. After 50+ years of life, I feel like I've heard it all. Caffeine is good/bad for you. Margarine is better/worse than butter. Saccharine will/won't give you cancer. The Atkins diet will/won't make you thin, but at some/no cost to your heart. The grapefruit diet does/doesn't burn fat. And on it goes, endlessly. You could add to the list.

My basic approach to food over the last few years, as I've seen my metabolism slowing down, is to control portions and eat no more calories than what I expend, to go easy on saturated fats, and otherwise to eat a bit of everything but not too much of anything. That's been working reasonably well for me, though any doofus would know that adding regular exercise to all the above wouldn't be a bad idea.

My skepticism at dietary advice met an unexpected friend in Michael Pollan and his book, In Defense of Food. I first encountered Pollan in a lengthy interview on XM Radio's Bob Edwards Show. (You can download a podcast of an shortened version of the interview here.)

Pollan is a professor of journalism at UC Berkeley and shares my skeptical approach to much of life. In his book, he asks why a country so obsessed with nutrition and health food can simultaneously be the fattest nation on earth. What are we missing? His common-sensical analysis is eye-opening, and his writing is consistently engaging.

I had intended at one time to post excerpts from each chapter of his book on this blog, but there's just too much. I would have ended up retyping most of the book. His basic conclusion about nutrition is the title of this blog post, but there's a wealth of data and research (much of it historical rather than nutritional, surprisingly enough) that leads to this simple seven-word summary.

As a result of reading this book, I've changed some aspects of my diet to favor whole foods (fruits, vegetables) and items which only have ingredients whose names I can pronounce and which can be created somewhere other than in the chemistry lab. I'm still not a purist, but I've made a few changes. (Oh, and I drink wine a lot more often, but that may have more to do with Trader Joe's coming to town and making oceans of plonk abundantly available.)

You could buy the book - and there are certainly worse ways to drop $13 - but if you read this lengthy essay by Pollan that appeared on the NY Times website in January 2007, you'll get the gist. You can also read the first 26 pages of the book on Google Books here.

Office Slaves

Recently at work, I've been developing a new product and having a lot of fun at it. This kind of work plays to my strengths and interests and gives me a feeling of satisfaction. If the product comes to fruition, millions of people will see it every day. (Yes, I'm being coy on purpose.)

But last week, I was effectively redirected to work on a different project. Project 1 will have to go into limbo for at least two months while I work on Project 2. My role in this new project is important - some might say essential - and if this project succeeds, you'll read about it in the newspapers. Or news web sites. Whatever.

The problem is that this second project does not really play to my strengths. I can do the job, and I believe I can do it well enough, but as of now I don't expect to find it enjoyable at all or anywhere near as satisfying as Project 1.

I spent most of last week feeling rather depressed about this change of job assignment, and my inability to change the situation to my liking. I felt a bit like a slave. But wouldn't you know it? God, always apropos, seems to have orchestrated my Scripture memory program so that these circumstances would coincide with my memory verse that came up for last week. This is what I aspire to live out, difficult though I'm finding it to be:

Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. (Ephesians 6.7,8)

(P.S. My verse for this week is about the second coming of Christ. I hope your bags are packed.)

"At What Point is a Baby Entitled to Human Rights?"

If you didn't see the discussion Rick Warren had at Saddleback church last night with Barack Obama and John McCain, this 3-minute excerpt video does a good job of showing one significant difference between the two candidates. Helpful hints: Notice Obama's nonanswer to the question, "Have you ever voted to limit . . . " [the accurate answer would have been "No"], and notice McCain's answer to the question that is the title of this post.

Ahmadinejad felicitates Ivory Coast president on National Day

That delicious headline comes to us courtesy of the Islamic Republic News Agency. The first paragraph of the story reads as follows [sic]:

[Iranian] President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad felicitated President Laurent Gbagbo and the people of Ivory Cost's on the anniversary of Ivory Coast's National Day in a message on Wednesday.

That sounds rather illicit, doesn't it?

As repressive as Iran is, I'm surprised felicitation is still legal, especially between presidents.

Hide the Beer, the Pastor's Here!

The following article is stolen in its entirety from LarkNews.com. If you don't subscribe to their free monthly newsletter, you really should.

WATERVILLE, Maine — After stepping down from the pastorate last month after fifty years in ministry, Albert Finley did something no one expected: he had his first beer.

"I was curious what it actually tasted like, after all these years of preaching against it," he says. The results? "What a marvelous drink," he says. "It tastes much better than it smells." The Sierra Nevada Pale Ale he chose delivered "surprisingly complex and satisfying tastes." "I actually said ‘Praise God’ right in the middle of it," he says.

But people in his former congregation are not happy. "He’s tarnishing the reputation of himself and this church," says one woman. "I always pointed to the pastor and told my kids, ‘See? There’s a man who has chosen not to drink.’ This puts a big question mark after everything he has preached."

Another says Finley reminds her of Noah, "a righteous man who ended up a worthless drunk," she says.

But Finley says he no longer has to be an example. He is also upset that he has held misconceptions about beer for so long. "My dad always told me you could get drunk off of one sip, and I preached that for decades," he says. "I thought that’s why people on beer commercials were having such fun. But that’s completely untrue. I’ve had one, even two beers with no effect."

Finley says he relishes the flavor of hops and barley, and favors darker stouts and the more robust ales to the pale lagers.

He always thought post-ministry life would be "sort of puttering around the house, praying for the world and so forth." But beer has changed his mind. "I subscribe to a beer of the month club, so every week I have a new bottle in my fridge to try. Sometimes that’s my main reason for waking up," he says.

He has been emboldened to make other lifestyle changes as well. "This weekend I might just see a movie in an actual theater," he says. "I understand it’s quite an experience."

The title of this blog comes from the classic Daniel Amos/Swirling Eddies song by the same name. Lyrics here and video here.

Please Come Here. Now Go Away.

The other day, I accused Dietrich Bonhoeffer of writing turgid prose, and I stand by that accusation. But some of that turgescence is worth wading through, such as in the following quote about the importance of balance between community and solitude. Whether you're an introvert, an extrovert, or some undefined other, this is good stuff.

Let him who cannot be alone beware of community. Let him who is not in community beware of being alone. Each by itself has profound pitfalls and perils.

One who wants fellowship without solitude plunges into the void of words and feelings, and one who seeks solitude without fellowship perishes in the abyss of vanity, self-infatuation, and despair.

From Bonhoeffer's "Life Together," 1939

Can Beauty Exist Without the Transcendent? Sebastian and Fred Duke it Out on the Pianoforte

I recently read a book by James R. Gaines entitled Evening in the Palace of Reason: Bach Meets Frederick the Great in the Age of Enlightenment. This lively book is a fascinating dual biography of two men who lived contemporaneously, met exactly once, and had radically different world views. If you are interested in Bach, Enlightenment history, or philosophy, it's worth checking out.

Bach was what we now would call "old school." He believed there was a God in heaven who governed the affairs of man and was worthy of our worship. He preached sin and redemption in his music, and saw Jesus as the only hope of mankind. As a master composer and performer, the saw the purpose of music as something to glorify God and build up the soul. Even his "secular" works were dedicated to God.

Frederick, on the other hand, was a man of the Enlightenment. He believed that man was the master of his destiny and that science, government, warfare, and art would bring about the best of all possible worlds. As King of Prussia, the forerunner of today's Germany, he captured much territory, began to unite the disparate nation-states of that area, and was arguably the most powerful man of his time. (And you say, "Who?")

Bach and Frederick the Great met each other exactly once, when Bach came to visit his son Carl Philipp Emanuel, who was in the king's employ as a musician. Frederick, himself a musician of modest ability, presented Bach with a theme that he (or Carl?) had written, and he challenged Bach to play a three-part fugue on this convoluted, rather unmusical theme. Apparently this was a taunt and a mean challenge, but Bach rose to the occasion, and according to a newspaper report of the time, astounded his hearers with the fugue he improvised.

Not to be shown up, Frederick challenged Bach further by asking him to improvise a six-part theme. Bach couldn't do it, and Frederick sent him home with his tail between his legs. The tail came out a couple months later, however, when Bach mailed off to Frederick what we now know as "The Musical Offering," which includes not only a six-part fugure on the king's theme, but several other pieces which use the theme as a starting point. Even the title "Musical Offering" is an interesting invention, as it can also be translated "Musical Sacrifice." Every indication is that Frederick's theme was designed to show that Bach wasn't such a wonderful musician, after all...to cut him down to size by presenting a royal theme beyond Bach's compositional or improvisatorial abilities. Bach was "sacrificed" on the altar of Frederick's malevolence (Frederick at this point in his life being a lover of only himself - he came from one messed-up family, that's for sure), but Bach came back to life and wrote something that is still played and listened to today. Few people, on the other hand, bother to read the books Frederick wrote.

All of this is simply excessive set-up to a quote from Gaines's book that draws an interesting distinction between beauty and prettiness. Without religion, can beauty exist?

Bach's Musical Offering leaves us, among other things, a compelling case for the following proposition: that a world without a sense of the transcendent and mysterious, a universe ultimately discoverable through reason alone, can only be a barren place; and that the music sounding forth from such a world might be very pretty, but it can never be beautiful.

News You May Have Missed: Liquid Eel for Summer Refreshment

I drive a Japanese car, and I almost like sushi, but I don't think I'll be stocking the refrigerator with the latest Japanese creation:

TOKYO (AP) — It's the hottest season of the year in Japan, and that means it's eel season. So, bottom's up!

A canned drink called "Unagi Nobori," or "Surging Eel," made by Japan Tobacco Inc., hit the nation's stores this month just ahead of Japan's annual eel-eating season, company spokesman Kazunori Hayashi said Monday.

"It's mainly for men who are exhausted by the summer's heat," Hayashi said of the beverage, believed to be the first mass-produced eel drink in Japan.

Many Japanese believe eating eel boosts stamina in hot weather.

The fizzy, yellow-colored drink contains extracts from the head and bones of eel and five vitamins — A, B1, B2, D and E — contained in the fish.

...

Demand for eel is so high that Japan has been hit by scores of eel fraud cases, including a recent high-profile incident in which a government ministry publicly scolded two companies for mislabeling eel imported from China as being domestically grown.

... The $1.30 drink costs about one-tenth as much as broiled eel, but has a similar flavor.

Eel extract is also used in cookies and pies made in Japan's biggest eel producing town, Hamamatsu.

Yum. Eel cookies for dessert!

.

Source: Associated Press. Slightly edited for brevity.

Noted and Quoted: Strength From Adversaries

"He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper."

- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

.

I first came across this quote a few years ago, when I was working with a rather difficult individual who was later to become my boss. We ended up getting along quite well, as it turned out, but I've held on to the quotation, nonetheless.

.

Whether in the workplace or in our personal lives, our tendency is to see those who disagree with us (not to mention those who are out to get us) as obstacles, problems, and annoyances. But there is a sense in which they are the ones who do the best job of making us think. I may know exactly what I believe, and as long as I'm around like-minded people, I'll never have to think my convictions through. But put me with a person of a different mind, and all the applicable presuppositions, analyses, and conclusions come into question and beg reexamination.

.

I'm not at the point of seeking adversaries; they seem to come along often enough, unbidden. But when they do come, I want to welcome them as friends in disguise. They will help me think farther and live better.

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
James 1.2-4

For by wise guidance you will wage war, And in abundance of counselors there is victory.
Proverbs 24.6

The Wittenburg Door On: Church Music

A preliminary note to the irony-impaired: This is satire. Or then again, maybe not.

Your Guide to Contemporary Christian Music
06/19/2008
By Dale Peterson

Thank you for choosing to worship with us today. If you are from a church that uses traditional hymns, you may be confused. Please take a moment to read through this guide to contemporary Christian music.

In our church you will not hear "How Great Thou Art," "Wonderful Grace of Jesus," or "Like a River Glorious." (Generally, hymns that have words like “Thou” are not used. They are too archaic and are normally replaced by words like “awesome” and “miry clay”). Yes, okay, we may do "Amazing Grace" or "Peace Like a River" at some point, but as a general rule we avoid songs with too many different verses or those that can't be played easily on guitar and drums.

If you are new to worship here, you may wish to know the reasons for this. One is that deep theological concepts do not belong in contemporary Christian worship. We frown on songs that change more than one or two words for each verse. For example, our version of "Holy is the Lord" consists of repeating that phrase six times per verse and then changing "Holy" to "Worthy," "Mighty," "Jesus" and finally changing "the" to "my." Isn’t that much simpler to sing and easier to remember? The twin goals here are a) repetition and b) chanting quality. We don’t focus on what we’re singing, but how we’re singing it. The main thing is to get that kind of tingly, "olive oily" feeling. Don't worry if you don't get this right away. It will come as you learn to disengage your intellect. Just free yourself. Immerse yourself. Relax.

Nevertheless, a traditional hymn may sometimes be used. For example, we’re not averse to "Holy, Holy, Holy." You may be tempted to sing this as you would have in your former church, but please note that it is sung here with changes, mainly the fact that we repeat it several times and try to sing as slowly as possible, thereby emphasizing the funereal nature of the verse.

Repetition is very important in contemporary Christian music. We repeat: Repetition is very important in contemporary Christian music. Just because a song may have one verse and one chorus does not mean that you only sing it through once. Old hymns have several verses, each of which introduces a new theological concept, and are meant to be sung once followed by "Amen." This is no longer how it’s done. The correct procedure is to sing the identical verse and chorus at least three times. Often it is preferable to repeat the verse two times initially before moving on to the chorus.

Also the worship leader may want to repeat a verse or chorus found in the middle of the song. This is signaled by “calling an audible." When this occurs, the worship leader will say the first few words of the verse or chorus he will be singing next. Sometimes, due to the similarity of the verses, this may be confusing and the overhead projector may flash several pages of text until the correct one is arrived at. Don't panic, this is normal. Just continue singing as though you know the words and soon either the correct slide will appear or a new chorus will begin.

After the verse and chorus are sung at least three times, it is permissible for the song to end. However, the chorus must first be repeated in its entirety, then the last paragraph, then the last line. When singing the last line it is important to slow down a little and look upward. Raising a hand is permissible and often done at this time. This may take a little getting used to but don't worry, if you just join in, in a short time you won't even notice and soon you will forget that you ever did it any other way.

We are just really glad you chose to share the worship experience with us today. Thank you and we hope to see you again soon.

Thank you and we hope to see you again soon. Thank you. Thank.

Source: The Wittenburg Door

Augustine On: Church Music

I waver between the danger that lies in gratifying the senses and the benefits which, as I know from experience, can accrue from singing. Without committing myself to an irrevocable opinion, I am inclined to approve the custom of singing in church, in order that by indulging the ears weaker spirits may be inspired with feelings of devotion. Yet when I find the singing itself more moving than the truth which it conveys, I confess that this is a grievous sin, and at those times I would prefer not to hear the singer.

.

- St. Augustine, Confessions, A.D. 354-430

A(nother) Book I Dislike But Am Supposed to Love

I admit it. There are some books and authors I just don't "get." John Piper and I probably share the same theological convictions on most items of substance, but his overwrought style (even in print) makes me want to buy him some quaaludes and tell him to go home, put on his bunny slippers, and chill out with a high gravity beer and a cigar. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's turgid prose makes my eyes glass over - does he just need a better translator? My aversion to John Eldredge is legendary and enduring, and had a lot to do with starting this blog and my website.

There are others. But today, I want to focus on Brother Lawrence and "his" book, The Practice of the Presence of God. I put "his" in quotes, because Brother Lawrence (hereafter to be referred to as BL) didn't even write this book. Some unnamed narrator(s) did. Since its publication around 1675, this book has been beloved by millions of Christians. I am almost the only person I know who hates it. I've read it at least three times over the last three decades, by the way - most recently in April of this year - so at least give me credit for trying.

What's my problem? Well, let's see:

• BL comes across to me as a wacko social misfit who couldn't make it in the real world so retreated to a monastery which he seldom if ever left for the last 54 of his 77 years.
• I have never understood how an eccentric monastic like this is supposed to serve as a role model for the rest of us who live in the real world, with all that living here entails.
• The book is poorly written and ploddingly translated. I've read two different versions, and both were tedious.
• The book is an organizational mess. In my version, there are two prefaces, a "conversation," a section of letters, and after a few other odds and ends, a character sketch, followed by "gathered thoughts," not to be confused with the "maxims" that were 25 pages earlier. Huh?
• There's no coherence to all this, and no one takes credit for writing any of it. There are no details, such as when the letters were written or to whom they were (or weren't) sent. If this book were a high school project, the kid would get a "redo."
• The book is a hagiography. BL seems more a caricature than a real person.
• Most of the time, I can't figure out what the heck is going on or what point BL or the narrator are trying to make. The book is uncritical, unedited ramblings.
• BL makes tons of unsupported assertions about God, prayer, our spiritual obligations, etc. The narrator seems to assume that if BL says it, it must be true. So this leads to goofy statements like times of prayer shouldn't be any different from other times, because we should always be tuned into God (p. 26 in my Spire version). Sounds good, but how does that explain Jesus's practice of withdrawing from ministry for times of prayer?
• Is there any evidence that BL had any missional (i.e., evangelistic) interests whatsoever?
• BL is in constant awareness of the presence of God, ostensibly, yet there are only 9 references in the entire book to God Incarnate, Jesus Christ. In my version, that means Jesus is mentioned once for every 12.4 pages. What's wrong with this picture?

In 112 pages, there were a small handful of thoughts I found valuable, but I remain at a loss to understand the belovedness of this book. Maybe I'm not really saved? Or, perhaps, is it that we simply like the title and praise the book on that account without actually reading it? Many years ago, I did read a book called Caring Enough to Confront. It was pretty boring and not very helpful, but the wonderful title has stuck with me for 30 years, and I still use the phrase from time to time in conversation. Perhaps Practicing the Presence of God is like that.

The LORD replied, "My Presence will go with you and I will give you rest." (Exodus 33.14)

"And surely I [Jesus] am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28.20)

Who Reads a Blog? Does it Matter?

Following the advice of Ralph McInerny that I quoted in a blog post over a year ago, I try to write my entries here in such a way that others will want to read them.

.

But I've never really been satisfied with the number who do read. Why do other blogs have hundreds or even thousands of readers, while my own incredible blog struggles along with a mere handful?

.

A quotation I came across in yesterday's Wall Street Journal helped me understand that while every writer hopes for a large readership - and every author wants to write a best seller - maybe the act of writing is a good in itself. Even if no others read, the author may still gain.

.

I do find that this blog helps me think issues through. It's a repository of some notable things I read elsewhere and want to remember. And it meets my needs for creativity which, though small, do exist.

.

Here's the W. Somerset Maugham quote that got me thinking about this yesterday. With apologies to a dead man, I changed "book" to "blog" to make the thought more obviously applicable:

It is a salutary discipline to consider the vast number of blogs that are written, the fair hopes with which their authors see them published, and the fate which awaits them. What chance is there that any blog will make its way among the multitude? And the successful blogs are but the successes of a season. Heaven knows what pains the author has been at, what bitter experiences he has endured and what heartache suffered, to give some chance reader a few hours' relaxation or to while away the tedium of a journey. And if I may judge from the reviews, many of these blogs are well and carefully written; much thought has gone to their composition; to some even has been given the anxious labor of a lifetime. The moral I draw is that the writer should seek his reward in the pleasure of his work and in release from the burden of his thought; and, indifferent to aught else, care nothing for praise or censure, failure or success.

From "The Moon and Sixpence" by W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965)

From Compliance to Formation to Transformation

"The genius of the moral teachings of Jesus and his first students was his insistence that you cannot keep the law by trying not to break the law. That will only make a Pharisee of you and sink you into layers of hypocrisy. Instead, you have to be transformed in the functions of the soul so that the deeds of the law are a natural outflow of who you have become. This is spiritual formation in the Christian way, and it must always be kept in mind when we consider Jesus’s teaching about various behaviors – in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere.

For example, his famous teaching about turning the other cheek. If all you intend is to do that, you will find you can do it with a heart still full of bitterness and vengefulness. If, on the other hand, you become a person who has the interior character of Christ, remaining appropriately vulnerable will be done as a matter of course, and you will not think of it as a big deal."

- Dallas Willard, The Great Omission," p. 152

Preview of the New Star Wars Movie

My scouts are everywhere. Here's a clip from the new Star Wars installment that George Lucas is working on:



You're welcome.

Holy, Strong, Loving, . . . Smart?

Today many evangelicals are trying to reexamine this issue [of the role of reason in faith], and they must do so in order to capture Christ as Teacher and begin to think of him as an intelligent person - which is now almost impossible for many people, evangelical or not. If you ask evangelicals to pick the smartest man in the world, very few of them will list Jesus Christ. And surely that is sad. It is a modern-day form of Docetism. But if he is divine, would he be dumb? And how can you be a disciple of someone you don't think of as really bright?

- Dallas Willard, "The Great Omission," p. 168

News You May Have Missed: Stimulus = Stimulation

Yesterday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution tells us where a lot of those $600 economic stimulus checks have been going. And you thought it was for gas or paying down debt. Think again:

Stimulus checks boost adult Web sites
By Tammy Joyner, Cox News Service
Tuesday, July 08, 2008

ATLANTA — Seems Uncle Sam's economic stimulus checks are boosting an unlikely part of the economy.

Adult entertainment Web sites began seeing a spike in business shortly after the first wave of checks went out in mid-May, according to Adult Internet Market Research Co., a New York firm that tracks the adult online world.

The checks paid up to $600 to individuals and $1,200 to married couples.

The online spike is unusual since the warmer months — beginning in May — tend to be slow for the adult online entertainment industry, said Kirk Mishkin, director of the market research firm.

The market research firm was alerted to the increase by one of its for-pay Web sites.

"Thirty-two percent of respondents referenced the recent stimulus package as part of their decision to either become a new member or renew an existing membership," said Jillian Fox, a spokeswoman for LSGModels, the company that tipped off the research firm.

The market research firm polled the rest of its 800 pay site members and 4,000 affiliates sites, and found similar results after compiling data over seven weeks.

Some 20 percent to 30 percent of the people who responded said the stimulus checks were an incentive to go onto the sites, Mishkin said.

The surveys didn't ask how much of the stimulus checks went to online visits, Mishkin said, but purchases tend to be around $50 for a monthly membership.

"People know how much they need to pay for rent, buy gas and take their kids to school," he said. "The stimulus check was a way for some people to entertain themselves."

The biggest surprise from this article? Actually, two: first, that the "adult online entertainment industry" is seasonal; and second, that this reporter could write an entire article about pornography without once using the word.

Viral. Contagious.

I must be about the last person on earth to see Matt Harding's "Dancing" video. I first heard about it today on the NY Times website . After reading the article, of course I wanted to see the video, which is here:



This video has nearly 5 million views, and over 23,000 people have rated it (with an average rating of 5 stars).

On the face of it, this is just a video of a guy doing a goofy dance. With some beautiful music for the soundtrack. But for me, and I'm guessing for a few million others, this strikes a deeper chord, even a sense of longing, or yearning. What do people see in this? What do I?

• Community?
• Acceptance?
• Joy?

Matt Harding's web site is here.

Full Time Christian Work

Happy Monday. Here's a thought for the week:

It is not what a man does that determines whether his work is sacred or secular, it is why he does it.

.

- A.W. Tozer, "The Pursuit of God," p. 118

Church in Less Than Three Minutes

Thought you might enjoy a 1-minute video of church today:



And here was the scene across town at the Episcopal cathedral (warning: includes profanity. . . you know how those Episcopalians can be):

Who Needs Grace?

You will consume much more grace by leading a holy life than you will by sinning, because every holy act you do will have to be upheld by the grace of God.

.

- Dallas Willard, "The Great Omission," p. 62

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

That's the question asked in the July-August 2008 issue of The Atlantic. How is our incessant use of the Internet changing our brains? Are we thinking and learning differently as a result of our exposure to the Web? I see elements of myself in this article, and it gives me pause. Check out a couple excerpts:

Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.

...

As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

...

“I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print” . . . . Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”

You can read this thoroughly fascinating essay here, and I hope you will. I'd love to hear your feedback. Is there something to this? And if so, should we be doing something different in order to preserve or retrain our minds?