Those who live by the sword...

from Monday, Oct. 29, 2007
Marketplace:

Neal may be out on subprime results

Merrill Lynch CEO Stan O'Neal reportedly will be leaving the investment house following its announcement last week of $8 billion in subprime write-downs. Steve Henn reports O'Neal would be the highest profile casualty of the subprime mortgage debacle.

KAI RYSSDAL: Rumors that Stan O'Neal wasn't long for Merrill Lynch started bubbling to the surface on Friday. We told you last week after that $8 billion in subprime writedowns was announced that O'Neal said he's responsible for the performance of the firm -- and the board has apparently decided to hold him to that.

Marketplace's Steve Henn reports O'Neal would be the highest-profile casualty of the subprime mortgage debacle.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Henn: Last week, Merrill Lynch announced a $2.3 billion loss, one of the worst in its history. The bloodbath stemmed from investments in bundled subprime mortgages securities. Other big banks hedged their bets in subprime and did a lot better.

David Abella: Merrill Lynch is supposed to be a very cutting edge prestigious investment bank and it looks like they were totally caught sleeping at the wheel.

David Abella is a portfolio manager at Rochdale Investment Management.

Abella: Merrill's loss... the magnitude is just so much greater than the other institutions.

Abella says it's not surprising that the blame for the debacle has reached all the way to Merrill's CEO, Stanley O'Neal. Last week, after wiping out billions of dollars in shareholder equity, O'Neal began unauthorized negotiations for a merger with a rival bank. That deal could have netted O'Neal personally around a quarter of a billion dollars.

When O'Neal took the reins at Merrill Lynch five years ago, he set out to change the firm's corporate culture, making it more aggressive. He laid off almost 15,000 employees, and dozens of senior executives left.

Winthrop Smith: As a result, I think he has lost the loyalty of both former and current employees.

Winthrop Smith headed Merrill's international brokerage until 2002. He says O'Neal pushed out many top managers who had weathered similar credit crises in the past.

Smith: That loss of experience and loss of memory certainly has had an impact.

And Smith says today, it looks a lot like O'Neal is falling victim to the more cutthroat, unforgiving corporate culture that he helped create.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Does this have anything to teach us, as the Church?

My Husband finally has become a Blogger

Woohoo! Steve finally has begun blogging.



Check him out at Tight Lines on the River of God .





(If you have trouble with this link, the URL is http://email.valleycovenant.org/blogs/pastorsteve/index.htm

Christ, our true Safety Deposit Box

Like many other folks here in Eugene, I am going to apply for a part time, seasonal position with Harry and David tomorrow morning at 10. If they like me, they'll keep me for about four hours, testing and training me to take telephone orders for their Christmas catalog.

I went to the safe deposit box today to get my passport for proof of citizenship for the HR people. It's been ages since I was in that box. We rarely disturb it, and when we do it's usually Steve who is in need of something.

I spent a while tripping down memory lane, looking at all our birth certificates, our marriage license and our wills, the deed to Steve's family's cabin and my mom's wedding ring. Precious and important things, but not the most precious and important: those things can't be put in boxes for safekeeping.

My favorite philosopher-theologian, Thomas Aquinas, says the greatest good is that which increases the more it is shared. And what is that good? Christ--given to us through the Spirit by the grace of God. So when we have a chance to minister to those around us with the love and truth and life of Christ, it really is a privilege. We are making deposits in Him even as He is depositing Himself in us.

I Timothy 1:
For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline. 8 So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 11 And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. 12 That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet this is no cause for shame, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day.

13 What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14 Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you--guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

Christ is simultaneously our safety deposit box, our deposit, and our inheritance. The most important deposits we make are by Him, with Him, and in Him.

Marriage as the Jesus School of Faithfulness

This Sunday I am to teach the Middle School/High school class on Matt. 5:31-32, "Divorce." Reed is asking us to follow a pattern presented by Glenn H. Stassen in his article, "The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount." The assignment is made somewhat easier by the fact that I taught last week on the preceding section of the Sermon on the Mount, "Adultery," in verses 27-30. Even so, it will be a challenge.

Toward a Positive Understanding of Marriage

Both topics presume that listeners already have some positive teachings about Christian marriage, before they address the ways sin can corrupt it. Last week we touched on the concept of "one flesh" in Genesis 2, Ephesians 5, and 1 Cor. 6:9-20. In addition, Gilbert Meilaender gives this helpful precis in his First Things article, "Marriage in Counterpoint and Harmony:"

In any case, for Christian spouses who understand marriage as a sphere in which we begin to be trained in the meaning and discipline of fidelity, marriage will be understood as a task. Committing themselves to lifelong union, they must learn in the countless ways appropriate to different marriages the meaning of our fellow-humanity, the hard work of being faithful in the whole of life to one who is not just an-other person but who-within this marriage-remains "other." C. S. Lewis came to marriage late in life, long after writing the passage I have cited above. But he was able to say, after the death of his wife, what commitment to that bond made possible. He wrote in A Grief Observed (1966):

We did learn and achieve something. There is, hidden or flaunted, a sword between the sexes till an entire marriage reconciles them. It is arrogance in [men] to call frankness, fairness, and chivalry "masculine" when we see them in a woman; it is arrogance in [women] to describe a man's sensitiveness or tact or tenderness as "feminine." But also what poor, warped fragments of humanity most mere men and mere women must be to make the implications of that arrogance plausible. Marriage heals this. Jointly the two become fully human. "In the image of God created he them." Thus, by a paradox, this carnival of sexuality leads us out beyond our sexes.

To begin this work of correction and transformation is a task at the very heart of the marriage bond.

If Meilaender is correct, that [Christian] marriage is the task of correction and transformation so that, together, both husband and wife image Christ to the world, then the question must be asked of each spouse: how has marriage corrected and transformed you, so that you incarnate the faith, hope and love of Jesus Christ? But this is all pretty abstract. I need to find a way to make it more accessible to the teens I will be speaking with, so it seems natural to portray Christian marriage as a spiritual "school." Here is part of what I am thinking of saying.

Relating this to Teens

In taking vows of Christian marriage, we have applied and been accepted into the Jesus School of Marriage, to be trained to reflect Him through a one-flesh relationship with someone different from ourselves.

There are some strange things about His school:

1) There are countless ways to fail and ultimately to drop out:

• by not paying proper attention and respect to the Teacher or to one's classmates
• by failing to do one's "home" work
• by displacing the Teacher or His designated subs and attempting to take the Teacher's place oneself
• by getting into brawls
• by cutting class
• by cheating

2) If one partner drops out, the other must drop out as well.

3) There is only one way to "graduate:" together.

Marriage is not His only school, but once we've enrolled, there are just two ways out: to drop out or to graduate. The closer one gets to graduation, the more one experiences unity without uniformity--exactly what each person of the Trinity experiences. This requires a lot of changes for us as fallen men and women. But upon graduation, we are taken up into the very life of God, finally fit to fully give and receive the love that each of the Persons of the Trinity has enjoyed from eternity, for all eternity.

Transformation and Fear

Now transformation is a scary thing. It means losing some familiar part of ourselves in order to receive something new and different. It means "losing control" and trusting Christ to change us. It means focusing on Him, and not on self. Now in our fallen state, the more control we have over situations, the less we tend to be fearful. But the flip side to that is the less practice we get having to deal with fear. When we find ourselves in positions where we no longer have control, and inevitably, fear hits us, there are different ways we can cope.

Here are two popular but disastrous ways:

1) we can think we are responsible for everything and so try to control everything. Here, faithfulness is distorted to mean micro-managing. This just sets us up for failure and even more fear. (Aristotle would call this the vice of excess.)

2) we can opt out, drop out, refuse to be responsible. Here faithfulness is distorted to mean "to thine own self be true." We rationalize our failure by changing the rules or changing "school districts." We anesthetize ourselves from failure by focusing on distractions and ignoring what we are really responsible for. (Aristotle would call this the vice of deficiency).

Both of these ways tempt us toward behaviors that lead to failure and "dropping out" (divorce).

But here is one healthy way to cope with fear:

3) We cannot be faithful about things we are not responsible for, nor for that which is beyond our control. So first, we can pray for and receive wise discernment (from God, friends, counselors) to understand what we are actually responsible for, and what we really are able to control. Our attitudes and actions must grow from this. Then, we can practice trusting God with those things which are beyond us.

Students Who Refuse to be Trained

Sometimes a student is so disruptive that she must be put in time out, in hopes that she will calm down, reflect on her behavior, and be open for it to be changed. In troubled marriages, this practice is known as "separation." More threatening behaviors can result in expulsion.

You can admit a student to med school, but that alone won't make him a doctor. In the school of marriage, Jesus will not force a student to be trained to imitate Him if s/he refuses to be taught. He will not chain a student to his desk, nor does he expect a spouse live with a spouse who is unfaithful. In those circumstances, divorce is permitted. (Matt. 5:32; 19:9).

When Marriages Fail

Marriage is at bottom, a school--maybe it would be better to say a boot camp-- for learning faithfulness/ faith in Christ. We need to do our best in the school we have been enrolled in. But remember that is not the only school. It is tragic when we drop out, or when we are forced to drop out. I know a tiny bit of the pain and fear that accompanies failure on this level. I had to quit the doctoral program at Notre Dame when I failed my metaphysics comp two times in a row. But the good news is that Christ had other ways of teaching me how to be faithful to His truth; in the end, perhaps even better ways? Only He knows.

It is important that we stay enrolled in His District, and not seek training in outside schools. Of course his first choice is to keep us in our present school and make us repeat a grade. But if necessary, he is able to transfer us to a school where we can better learn to be faithful to Him.

"Perfect love casts out all fear." What matters most is that that He is faithful, even when we fail to be faithful. He loves us, perfectly, even when we can't love perfectly. He forgives us when we truly repent and open ourselves to His transformation. Again. And again. And again, until we finally find ourselves taken up into the life of God, who is Love.

2 Timothy 2:11-13

11 Here is a trustworthy saying:
If we died with him,
we will also live with him;

12 if we endure,
we will also reign with him.
If we disown him,
he will also disown us;

13 if we are faithless,
he remains faithful,
for he cannot disown himself.

(c) Beth Bilynskyj

How to be relevant

"To be always relevant,
you have to say things which are eternal."

--Simone Weil

Halo Controversy: Do the Ends Justify the Means?

Here's a thought-provoking conversation from Abet. I wonder: Are there occasions when the Great Commission cannot be taken as the ultimate driving mandate for Christian theology and ecclesiology? This seems to be one of them. At the very least, just as in ethics, a consequentialist theology/ecclesiology has serious problems. Check out Dan Whitmarsh's blog for more discussion.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Person A wrote:

The latest event in the world of video games is the appearance of Halo 3-- a violent star wars sort of game which has a rating of M, as in for mature audiences only. Now normally that sort of rating would result in Christian parents making sure their under aged children had nothing to do with this sort of time consuming mayhem on a screen. But NOW we learn that many youth ministers are using it in churches to recruit teenage boys (especially) to come to their youth groups. In my view, it's time to ask--- What is wrong
with this picture?

Here is the link to the story in this weekend's NY Times. Read it and weep:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/us/07halo.html?th&emc=th

The headline in the Times reads 'Thou Shall not Kill, except in a Game at Church'. If even a Times reporter can see there might be a two fold contradiction here, then it shouldn't be hard for those of us involved in the church every week to recognize the danger here as well.

Let's start with the fact that the maker of this game has quite specifically told everyone it is for adults, and has adult content. Imagine if you will using the tactic of show skin flicks to attract young men, or offering beer blasts in the church back yard. Doubtless you would attract a crowd, but would you have just vitiated your whole credibility as conveyors of the Good News of Christ in the process? The answer is yes.

If you read the article closely what you notice is the 'ends justifies the means' kind of arguments by the youth ministers in question. But frankly if the means are unethical, and indeed contradict the ends you are trying to achieve, aren't you guilty of using unethical tactics to attract people to
Christ? Aren't you sending an enormously mixed message to youth--- "come to church, and after you've blown the brains out of the enemies, we will tell you about the Prince of Peace and how God so loved the world (even the enemies)!"

I'm sorry but this whole sorry approach to youth ministry smacks of absolute desperation and fear-- fear that if we are not relevant, we cannot attract a crowd. Is this really what Jesus would do? I don't think so.

Nor Paul for that matter-- in his 'garbage in, garbage out' speech he urges his audience in Phil. 4.8--" Finally brothers and sisters, 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." There is frankly nothing admirable about this whole approach to youth ministry. If you have so little creativity or imagination that you
imagine that the only way to appeal to youth is by appealing to their most base and basic fallen instincts, then get out of youth ministry-- you haven't got the tools for the task, and your means betray your message. If you want creativity and effective appeal to youth, look at some of the things Rob Bell is doing in his Nooma videos (about which we have commented before on this blog).

I must say that I am stunned that Focus on the Family has not come out and said something against this whole debacle. Even the Southern Baptist Convention hasn't managed to completely condemn it yet. Why not? Perhaps because they do not see the inherent contradiction between violence and the Gospel of peace, or vengeance and forgiveness. But log in and tell me what you think.

-------------------------
Person B replied:

Does everything a church youth group do these days have to be a
recruiting tool? Can't kids get together and play video games (at our church, they play Guitar Hero), because they are kids and they're having fun?
---------------------------
Person C wrote:

The pharisees grumbled because Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. On the other hand, Jesus did not participate in the extortion of tax collectors or in the debaucheries of sinners.

However, Jesus did not want anything to hinder children from his presence. Even as he warned us that, rather than causing scandal on the little ones, it is better to go swimming with a millstone.

Football is programmed violence. Most games include injury; mostly trauma sustained from getting hit. Furthermore, sideline and locker-room camaraderie often includes regular expressions of blasphemy and other language that is "R" rated at least.

5-Part Question: How many pastors have ever:

1. Used football illustrations in preaching?
2. Approved of their congregation's efforts to use football games televised or otherwise as a featured fellowship or outreach event?
3. Rescheduled regular church programming because of key national football events like the Super Bowl?
4. Played full contact football themselves?
5. Are any of these pastors objecting to the Halo outreach efforts?

As a grieving Packers fan, I can tell you that I have done four out of the five listed above. My mind is not made up about Halo 3 as a hook, but I do know that I will not be quick to spot the speck if I am carrying a log.

--------------------
Person A responded:

1) I don't think I've ever used a football illustration. Maybe baseball, and certainly Star Trek, but never football. And never, ever, golf.
2) Guilty. We had a get-together for the biggest game of the year (that game we can't mention for fear of litigation) last year. And all the teenagers ignored it completely, choosing instead to sit in the back and play board games.
3) Nope. Don't think I ever would, either.
4) I played a flag football game once that got out of control. . .it was teens vs. adults, and the adults send a couple teens to the hospital. Felt very good about themselves, too.
5) Can't speak for everybody else. I wouldn't necessarily say no
outright - I think I'd just ask "isn't there a better way to go about this?

As a grieving Seahawks fan. . .I would agree you can't be legalistic about it. But I do worry that too many are going into it without pondering the consequences. Youth ministries have been using this "we need to be hip and relevant" argument for the last 50 years or more, and all the evidence seems to say that it's not working. Instead of growing disciples, we're gathering a few extra kids who won't be around 4 years from now. I know its a countercultural thing to say, but I think it's time youth ministries stopped trying to be relevant, stopped trying to appear cool, stopped trying to use Halo as an outreach tool, and instead focused on creating healthy communities of teens who truly live out the Kingdom life, letting love, grace, mercy, hope, and joy be the "hooks to reel in the fish."
----------------

Beth: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why shouldn't what Person A says about youth ministry apply just as much to all ministry?

Chicago-centric? Lessons from Baylor and Notre Dame

This is an excellent article written a decade ago by W. David Solomon for the Baylor U Alumni Magazine, (Winter, 1997).

I was reminded of it as I read Donn Johnson's October 6 blog entry, "Chicago-centric." Solomon is concerned with how religious universities respond to forces of secularization, and discusses how the differences between Protestant Baylor and Catholic Notre Dame might hasten or impede that process . As I read Donn's blog, I wondered if it might be profitable to replace "Baylor" with "Fuller" or "Bethel" and "Notre Dame" with "The Covenant."

The alternative to being "Chicago-centric" is de-centralization. In a postmodern age, decentralization is an attractive option. But could it be that being Chicago-centric actually has an upside? After discussing the similarities between Notre Dame and Baylor, Solomon writes,

"These similarities should not, however, blind us to important differences between Notre Dame and Baylor. Even in these ecumenical days, there are theologically related cultural and institutional differences that run quite deep. One difference with some relevance to the question of religious identity is the culture of governance at each institution. Baylor faculty, like all faculty members I have ever known, frequently complain about too much centralized and top-down management at the university. They push for more faculty oversight and involvement in administrative decisions. They may be right to make these demands, but to an outsider Baylor seems, if anything, to be too burdened with bottom-up committees. The same faculty members at Baylor who complain about centralized administration also complain about the burdens of committee work. However this may be, governance at Baylor is much more distributed and much less centralized than that at Notre Dame, where decision-making is more hierarchical and paternalistic.

Governance at both schools tends to mimic clerical structure. For Catholics power has traditionally radiated from Rome, bishops, and clergy. Baptist organization is a kind of constrained anarchy. Baptist preachers have to earn the authority they possess in their congregations; priests have authority conferred upon them. Both Nashville and Rome attempt to exert power over their scattered congregations, but Rome starts with a decided theological advantage in this regard over Nashville.

These differences in administrative style are relevant to questions of religious identity in a number of ways, but the most important is the relation they have to techniques of institutional control. Given the more centralized control characteristic of Catholic universities, it is easier to maintain religious identity in secularizing times in such universities. This may partially explain why Catholic universities as a group have been so much more successful at resisting secularizing influences than Protestant universities have.

A second difference between Notre Dame and Baylor – and it would be especially striking to a Catholic visitor to Baylor – is the lack of religious objects and images on the Baylor campus. A visitor who walked around the campus and looked it over would have no clue that it is a Christian – or Baptist – university. Things are quite different at Notre Dame. At the entrance to the Notre Dame campus is a statue of the founder, Father Sorin, in complete clerical regalia; at the entrance to Baylor’s campus is a statue of its namesake, a judge, in full judicial regalia.
Bells are played at Notre Dame from the tower of a French neogothic church at the center of campus; bells at Baylor are played from the tower of the administration building.At Notre Dame, the neogothic church is the architectural focus of the campus; there is no church on the Baylor campus. When alums return to Notre Dame, they frequently stroll across campus to visit (and light a candle at) a replica of the grotto at Lourdes; at Baylor, one visits the bear pit where the university mascot is housed. At Notre Dame, there is a crucifix in every classroom, a chapel in every dormitory (where Mass is said several times a week), and religious statuary distributed around campus; at Baylor there are no religious objects of this sort to be found.

A Catholic visitor to the Baylor campus would be immediately struck by the lack of sacred space on campus. Indeed, the building which houses the space with the most sacred aspect is the unrelentingly secular Armstrong Browning Library, a replica of an Italianate villa housing research materials and memorabilia of the Brownings.
The Browning Library contains much beautiful stained glass, and its central room, the Foyer of Meditation, has as its focus the altar-like bronze cast of Robert and Elizabeth Brownings’ clasped hands. But the reach of the Browning Library toward the sacred exceeds its grasp. It remains a temple to a dead Victorian poet. The stained glass celebrates the Pied Piper of Hamelin, not the events of the gospels; the statue of the innocent young woman that graces the front of the building is of Pippa and not of the Mother of God. The sign inside the front door of Armstrong Browning Library reminds the visitor that this building contains the world’s largest collection of secular stained glass. One could go on to mention the two most recognizable symbols of Notre Dame to the wider world: the statue of the Virgin Mary atop the golden dome and the ten-story-high mosaic of Jesus on the library.

One might say, of course, that these differences in the physical presence of the religious on the two campuses is the result of deep differences in the religious beliefs and practices of Baptists and Catholics. But that is to make my point.

There are a number of ways in which these differences are relevant to the larger topic of religious identity, but one is of particular importance. Secularization would be more difficult ultimately at Notre Dame than at Baylor, and this would be true just because the religious identity of Notre Dame is embodied in the physical being of the place. The faculty and students might give up any interest in things religious, but the campus would still be laid out in the shape of a cross. And it would be difficult to remove the mosaic of Jesus from the front of the library. There is an old saying at Notre Dame that "the blood is in the bricks" – meaning that the life’s work of the founders and sustainers of the university course through the yellow mud bricks from which the campus buildings are constructed. But in a deeper sense, the religious traditions of the university have left their mark on the physical structure of the place. To render Notre Dame finally and fully secular would require tearing it down and rebuilding it – and renaming it! Baylor possesses no such barriers to secularization."

What happens to a university/denomination when there isn't even a location, muchless mosaics grottoes or statues? Could it be that "distance learning" is harder for the Covenant than for Fuller or Bethel because we still aspire to be a Covenant--in the old Swedish sense of the word--that is, "forbundet?" Can you have a "forbundet" without some physical center for locating relationships?

Jews have Jerusalem; Catholics have Rome, Moslems have Mecca, and the Orthodox once had Constantinople. As Protestants are we so spiritual that we consider ourselves "beyond" the need for place? Or perhaps is it the case that we have grown (apart) so much, physically, intellectually and emotionally that "forbundet" is itself an antiquated notion, which needs to be given up for the greater good of the kingdom?

Can there be incarnation without location? Does a denomination need a physical center? If the answer is yes, then what are the conditions for best locating that center? If the answer is no, how then do we avoid an incipient gnosticism in our relationships?

The Mom Song

What a mom says in 24 hours, condensed into 2 minutes and 55 seconds! Comedian Anita Renfroe gives a hysterical tour de force on YouTube, sung to the William Tell Overture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxT5NwQUtVM

Lyrics for "The Mom Song" is given below. (Thank you BelleFlower15!)"

"The Mom Song"

Get up now
Get up now
Get up out of bed
Wash your face
Brush your teeth
Comb your sleepyhead
Here's your clothes and your shoes
Hear the words I said
Get up now! Get up and make your bed
Are you hot? Are you cold?
Are you wearing that?
Where's your books and your lunch and your homework at?
Grab your coat and gloves and your scarf and hat
Don't forget! You gotta feed the cat
Eat your breakfast, the experts tell us it's the most important meal of all
Take your vitamins so you will grow up one day to be big and tall
Please remember the orthodontist will be seeing you at 3 today
Don't forget your piano lesson is this afternoon so you must play
Don't shovel
Chew slowly
But hurry
The bus is here
Be careful
Come back here
Did you wash behind your ears?
Play outside, don't play rough, will you just play fair?
Be polite, make a friend, don't forget to share
Work it out, wait your turn, never take a dare
Get along! Don't make me come down there
Clean your room, fold your clothes, put your stuff away
Make your bed, do it now, do we have all day?
Were you born in a barn? Would you like some hay?
Can you even hear a word I say?
Answer the phone! Get off the phone!
Don't sit so close, turn it down, no texting at the table
No more computer time tonight!
Your iPod's my iPod if you don't listen up
Where are you going and with whom and what time do you think you're coming home?
Saying thank you, please, excuse me makes you welcome everywhere you roam
You'll appreciate my wisdom someday when you're older and you're grown
Can't wait till you have a couple little children of your own
You'll thank me for the counsel I gave you so willingly
But right now I thank you not to roll your eyes at me
Close your mouth when you chew, would appreciate
Take a bite maybe two of the stuff you hate
Use your fork, do not burp or I'll set you straight
Eat the food I put upon your plate
Get an A, get the door, don't get smart with me
Get a grip, get in here, I'll count to three
Get a job, get a life, get a PHD
Get a dose of,
"I don't care who started it!
You're grounded until you're 36"
Get your story straight and tell the truth for once, for heaven's sake
And if all your friends jumped off a cliff would you jump, too?
If I've said it once, I've said at least a thousand times before
That you're too old to act this way
It must be your father's DNA
Look at me when I am talking
Stand up straighter when you walk
A place for everything and everything must be in place
Stop crying or I'll give you something real to cry about
Oh!
Brush your teeth, wash your face, put your PJs on
Get in bed, get up here, say a prayer with mom
Don't forget, I love you
And tomorrow we will do this all again because a mom's work never ends
You don't need the reason why
Because, because, because, because
I said so, I said so, I said so, I said so
I'm the mom, the mom, the mom, the mom, the mom!!
Ta da!!!

Memo to self: look for this book

I should read this.
The Table of Contents looks intriguing.

Part 1: Three Premodern Theologies:
Aquinas, Luther and Calvin
(hmmm. I'm especially interested to see how he understands Luther and Calvin as premodern.)

Part 2: The Modern Turn: God
The Domestication of God, The Domestication of Grace

Part 3: The Modern Turn: God and the World
Nearer than we are to ourselves
Where God is and What God does: Some modern problems
Grace and Works in Modern thought
The marginalization of the Trinity

Part 4: Some Critical Retrievals
The Image of the Invisible God
Evil and Divine Transcendence

The Booklist review:
To the extent that Placher's purpose is to convince us that--in their radical visions of divine transcendence--premodern theologians have lessons to teach us, he succeeds brilliantly. The great strength of this book is its reintroduction of Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin to the postmodern theological conversation. Readers will encounter them here in ways that, to Placher's credit, will render the object of postmodern criticisms of "classical theism" thoroughly strange. That object, Placher maintains, is much more appropriately identified with a wrong turn taken by philosophy and theology in the seventeenth century, which he describes as a domestication of transcendence. Even readers who are not convinced by Placher's critiques of process thought and Mark C. Taylor's a-theology will find much of value in this beautifully and thoughtfully written account of God's essential "wildness." And it is a timely meditation on human response to wildness which, paradoxically, inspires silence at the very moment that it enfolds us in a world of words. --Steve Schroeder

Stories of Unconditional Love: "This American Life," August 8, 2007

A while ago (08.31.2007,) Chicago Public Radio's This American Life with Ira Glass had an exceptional episode presenting two stories of unconditional love. I was especially moved by Heidi Solomon's story. She and her husband adopted a child who was neglected for seven years in a Romanian orphanage. As a result of this deprivation, they had to deal with his severe attachment disorder.

Listening, I remembered 1 John 4, and realized that in relation to God, we all suffer from severe attachment disroder.

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another....19 We love because he first loved us."

"If you're the kind of person who actually needs love--really needs love--chances are you're not the kind of person who's going to have the wherewithal to create it. Creating love is not for the soft and sentimental among us. Love is a tough business."--Alix Spiegel (minutes 33:35-36:00 into program)


Listen to the program here

317: Unconditional Love

Stories of unconditional love between parents and children, and how hard love can be sometimes in daily practice.

Prologue.
Hard as it is to believe, during the early Twentieth Century, a whole school of mental health professionals decided that unconditional love was a terrible thing to give a child. The government printed pamphlets warning mothers against the dangers of holding their kids. The head of the American Psychological Association and even a mothers' organization endorsed the position that mothers were dangerous—until psychologist Harry Harlow set out to prove them wrong, through a series of experiments with monkeys. Host Ira Glass talks with Deborah Blum, author of Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection. (10 minutes)

Act One. "Love Is a Battlefield."
Alix Spiegel tells the story of Heidi and Rick Solomon, who adopt a son raised under terrible circumstances in a Romanian orphanage—so terrible that he's unable to feel attachments to anyone. (27 minutes)
Song: "Loveless Town," Sarah Blust

Act Two. "Hit Me with Your Best Shot."
Dave Royko talks about the decision he and his wife faced about their autustic son's future, including whether their son should continue living with their family. (19 minutes)
Song: "I Wanna Be Loved," Buju Banton