Thoughts on college

So, as I was reading an OSU sports blog (one I greatly recommend visiting if you like Oklahoma State sports), the blogger mentioned that today is the first day of school for many college students, including OSU.  The blog had a poll regarding how we feel now that summer is over, and one of the answers was “I have a job, I’d walk a 5k on broken glass for 1 more semester of college”.

As someone who now has a job and is out of college, this is a viewpoint to definitely consider.

College was a lot of fun.  I was on my own and pretty much independent.  I wasn’t a party animal at all, but I rarely went to bed before 1 or 2 am, and the dorms (sorry, residence halls) were a lot of fun, as I hung out in the Parker Hall lounge or played foosball.  Although I was flat broke, usually going to Denny’s to order a side of fries, I had a lot of fun.

College was also a great time of mental stimulation.  Whether it was the classroom, an opinion article in the O’Colly, or a discussion in the lounge, I was faced with all sorts of viewpoints different from my own and had my faith challenged.  It was in college that I started to have a passion to follow along with my aptitude for math, and learned basic ideas about how the universe worked in Physics 1.  It was also then that, through the O’Colly and some comic strips posted on someone’s door, that many libertarian ideas of mine started to take root, although lying dormant for 4 years.

Most importantly, I met my wife there.  I remember when I first met her, although we didn’t start dating for a year after that.  She is definitely the greatest thing that happened to me at OSU (although 2002 Bedlam was pretty sweet too).  I sometimes look at my life and feel that, if this was a movie, she’s my happy ending.

That takes me to where I am now.  Now I have a job.  I can afford to order a full meal at Denny’s.  This stage of life doesn’t have the spontaneity of college life, but I wouldn’t trade it for anything.  I now have my wonderful wife and two great kids.  I also have a job that I enjoy, one that challenges me.  While college was great, and sometimes I miss what it offers, that was in the past, a season of my life.  Now I enjoy this one.

Some people like adulthood, some don’t

I like adulthood much more than I liked childhood.  Adulthood has a lot of responsibilities, but I like the freedom that it offers.  I like making my own choices – if I want to go to Arby’s for lunch I can go there, I don’t have to ask my parents.  I can eat cookies before desert, and I can stay up as late as I want. I can also choose, to some degree, how to spend my own money, although I still have to pay my mortgage and feed my family.

That being said, I have to face the consequences for my choices.  I can stay up late, but I’ll be tired for work the next day.  I can eat and drink whatever I want, but I know that has some consequences health-wise.  That is the nature of adulthood.  To some extent, I have external factors governing my decisions, i.e the bank that loaned me money for my house, my employer, but I have much more freedom now than I did as a child, and I don’t have an active force preventing me from making those decisions, I will just face the consequences later, as opposed to a parent or guardian.

I think there are a large contingency of people who don’t like adulthood, or, they want to be the parents for other people.  These people want to ban smoking, or tax fast food, or tell us how exactly how we should spend our savings.  Let’s look at the fast food tax – this is the antithesis of adulthood.  When I was a child, my parents didn’t let me eat happy meals for every single meal, and even if that was affordable, they still wouldn’t have done so because I needed more balance in my diet.  As an adult, they don’t tell me what to do, I make my own choices and pay the consequences later.  The fast food tax, and similar ideas, tells me I’m not responsible enough to make my own decisions, that I need discouragement from making the wrong choices.  For people who are on board with such an idea, I have two words.  Grow up.

What’s special about Christmas and Country Music?

Some of this stuff I’ve touched on before, in this post, but I wanted to explore it a little bit more.

In mainstream music, there seems to be a strong divide between secular and Christian music.  There’s the Christian category in music, then there’s everything else.  There’s a few artists, like Switchfoot and P.O.D. that started out in the Christian genre but now have their feet in both sectors of the music industry, or other groups that play secular music but have Christian members, such as U2 and Lifehouse, but they seem to differ from the norm.  For the artists that do exist in both spheres, they are constantly analyzed to determine whether or not they are truly “Christian”.

Such a distinction does not seem to exist in country and Christmas music realms.  Artists like Carrie Underwood sing unabashedly about their faith, but there seems to be much less debate about whether Underwood is a Christian or secular artist.  It’s quite normal for any country artist to sing about their faith or put God in a song, and it’s not a huge deal.  Why does such a huge divide not exist.

A similar thing exists with Christmas music.  It is not unusual for a Christian station to play secular Christmas songs, or a secular Christmas song to sing  an overwhelmingly spiritual Christmas song.

I’m not sure why such a heavy distinction exists in mainstream pop/rock, but not in country.  The only theory I have is that perhaps country music is composed primarily of middle America culturally conservative type people where faith is a big part of their lives, and there’s no separation between their faith and the rest of their life.  But I know the same has to be true for some rock groups as well.  Is there something different about Nashville, and that where a person records (i.e. Nashville vs. L.A.) that makes such a huge difference?  Is it that most rock groups come from big cities, which tend to be more culturally liberal and less involved in faith/religion?

Even then, these theories discuss why the secular stays away from the religious in rock, but why does the religious stay away from the secular?  Do groups that are composed of Christians feel pressure to focus on “Christian” music?  Is this an effect of the “Christian Bubble” in which sometimes Christians want to stay?

Anyway, just thinking out loud.  Brant Hansen, formerly of the Way-FM radio station – I don’t know what he’s doing these days – has some interesting thoughts on the distinction of sacred vs. secular in music, and how these lines are “blurry”.

Why Harry Potter doesn’t bother me as a Christian

The last installment of the Harry Potter series is coming out July 15, which I greatly look forward to seeing.  I’ve seen all the movies and listened to book 6 and read book 7.

In Christian circles much has been made of the HP series, although it’s died down over the years.  But the presence of magic in movies and books is something that Christians should consider and address.

First of all, let’s take a look at “magic” or the supernatural in real life.  Sorcery was condemned in the Bible in the Old and New Testament.  Why?  I think because the supernatural does exist in our world, and it comes from one of two possible sources.  It is either God or his enemy, and I’m pretty sure sorcery as we know it came from the enemy.

In a fictional world, such a dilemma does not exist.  Magic doesn’t have to come from a demonic being.  It is no more unwholesome than a mutation that gives Wolverine his powers or a radioactive spider bite that gave Spiderman his.  This magic, like technology, can be used for good or evil purposes.  Also, if one condemns magic in the Harry Potter series they have to do so in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and even possibly the Chronicles of Narnia (although one could argue that Narnia is different since Aslan represents Christ).

That being said, I recognize some of the issues that Harry Potter can represent to younger children.  For one, these stories are about everyday young kids who appear normal, yet happen to have magical gifts.  Consequently, the idea of a child being able to possess magical gifts seems a little more feasible than a child being able to walk through walls because of a mutation or a visitor arriving from a distant planet.  Impressionable young kids may wonder if they too, could possess magic powers.  But hopefully this can be quickly remedied by the parents steering them back to reality.  Also, the books get progressively more violent and dark, so that’s another thing parents need to keep in mind.  Even in that case, the Harry Potter series becomes an issue of discernment, not a cause to rise against.

I’m not going to mourn

So, Bin Laden is dead. In the era of Facebook, I get to see people’s various reactions. The one I wanted to focus on was the Christian response – not to rejoice even when the wicked perish, and that we should never be happy when someone is suffering in hell, even if that person was evil incarnate.

Nine and a half years ago, I wanted Osama to pay. He killed thousands of people and I wanted him to suffer. Death was too good for him; I wanted him tortured. Over time, my anger has faded. When I heard the news last night, I felt a sense of excitement. But I don’t think this excitement was out of revenge or vindication. I thought we would never catch the guy, despite all our efforts for the past decade (and probably beyond that). Catching him was a huge victory, even if it was largely symbolic. I believe I would have been just as happy if he was captured, although I’m not sure by what court he would be tried and if he would have received the death penalty. So, my excitement was not due to Osama’s suffering, but just the enormity of the news.

That being said, the reaction of “not rejoicing” is still technically correct. We shouldn’t rejoice that someone rejected God and is now suffering in hell. For a great perspective, visit Mornings with Brant (ironically the picture posted in the blog is what Brant is reacting against).  We are all deserving of hell, so we shouldn’t really rejoice when someone gets what they deserve.  The Bible lumps murderers together with people who disobey their parents.

While I’m not rejoicing at Osama’s fate, I’m not mourning either.  Maybe some of this has to do with my desensitization.  People die across the world, tragically.  Unfortunately, there is so much death in the world that it is hard to be moved by tragic news, unless it’s on a large scale like 9/11 or natural disasters.  So, when I hear of one person dying, and that person happens to be an infamous terrorist, I won’t rejoice at their fate, but I won’t mourn either.  I’m not saying that’s necessarily the right attitude, so it’s something about which I have to pray to God so that I would have the right attitude.

Sometimes it is hard to believe in some things

So, I finally have time to do a little bit of blogging, so I’m reacting, in a way, to something that happened a month ago.  This is in response to all the new conversations about heaven and hell.  But I’m not going to talk so much about that, but the nature of believe in general.

I don’t think many people, even conservative Christians, want to believe in hell, at least, most people.  I don’t want to.  I think there are more vindictive Christians who are happy at the thought of sinners suffering at the hands of an angry God; I don’t personally see myself as one of them.  I don’t want anyone to suffer.  I wish universalism was true in the sense that I don’t want people to suffer; I don’t want it to be true in the sense that I have to trust God and believe that He knows what is best.

Sometimes this not wanting to believe in hell affects theology.  The idea of hell is so horrible that we change what we believe about God and eternity, or we reject Him all together.

But I think we all, to some extent, minimize or reinterpret what God said to reflect our cultural values, or we simply see things through our cultural lenses.

Sometimes that means not believing in a hell, or the devil, or certain commands Jesus said. For me, probably the hardest thing to interpret is Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek.   I’ve always interpreted this to mean to not seek revenge, but not an indictment on self-defense.  And it is to be used in the individual sense, not the national sense (war, etc…).  But am I softening what this verse is really asking?  These are the types of questions I have to ask myself.

I’ve always been hard on liberal theologians because I feel that they reshape the Bible to fit their cultural perspective (ironically blaming the “wrong” things on the Bible on the cultural perspectives of those writing it).  But do I do the same?

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man…

I don’t think they make cartoons like they used to. I was watching Pinocchio with my son the other day. This movie is far from PC. There are characters drinking and smoking – granted, they are the bad guys, but you wouldn’t see such a thing in a G rated Disney movie today. But the movie is also far more morally powerful than any cartoon today. It’s not a complex moral – you make bad choices and you get in situations you are not supposed to be in. We see Pinocchio as he matures and as his conscience in the form of Jiminy Cricket continually pester him when he makes bad choices. We see pure folly in the form of youngsters who immediately jump at the chance to go to Pleasure Island without the supervision of parents. Those boys pay the consequences and fortunately Pinocchio escapes just in time.

In many Disney movies or any cartoons today the focus is different. The parent or parents are the ones going threw some growing and learning life lessons. It is hard to see a movie or TV show where the children are not smarter than the parents. Finding Nemo moral concerns primarily the father fish learning to not be overprotective of his son. (To be fair, my wife pointed out that it was Nemo’s disobedience that caused him to get in trouble). In the Shaggy Dog and The Haunted Mansion we are repeatedly beaten over the head with the father character who is too wrapped up in his work to pay attention to his kids. (I talk more about the father character portrayed in media here).

I’m not sure what has caused this paradigm shift. I suppose one could say society is becoming increasingly rebellious and we see that displayed on film by the depiction of clueless parents and children who have it all figured out. It could have to do with absent parents, but I would think the depiction of the parents would be more negatively extreme, such as parents who are absent altogether. Perhaps it has to do with a generation of parents who were present, but maybe were not strong moral agents, or at the very least, fostered an environment that allowed the child to think they knew everything and the parents knew nothing. Or, based on the depiction of the father figure, they had fathers that were there, but simply were not there enough.

Obviously my position as a dad has changed my perspective. I’m now one of those over 30 that people under 30 can no longer trust. Parents are far from perfect and I know that I have a lot of growing to do as a person, a father, and a child of God himself. But the majority of growth will be that of my children. They will be the ones seeing exponential growth in every since of the word from their current age to when they leave the house. I may not know everything, but I do know more than them.

Would you tell a person with car trouble to buy a Mercedes?

In the past I have had problems with my Windows PC and I post about it on facebook. Invariably, one or two people suggest that I buy a Mac. It doesn’t bother me so much that they mention Macs, but it is the way they do it. They bring it up in a smug manner, suggesting that it is the obvious solution and I’m a fool if I don’t follow it.

Now, I truly believe the Mac is better. As I’ve worked more in Linux at my job I have learned a little bit more about how Mac, which shares some commonalities with Linux, has some advantages to Windows. I would say that even based on the little I know about Mac, it is superior to Windows for several reasons I won’t go into here.

But here’s the thing; Macs are simply more expensive. Although a Mac at $1200 is probably better than a PC at $1200 (I haven’t done a direct comparison, but I would choose a Mac at that price), the point is, I can get a PC for $400; I cannot with a Mac. So if you are a Mac owner, I’m not saying you can’t talk about how great your Mac is or even suggest one if someone is looking for a new computer. Just keep in mind that the person you are talking to may not have $1200 to spend at the moment before you imply that someone is an idiot for not buying one.

Until I choose to spend money on a Mac, Linux is probably the next best thing.

Should I do something more meaningful with my life?

Last year, in President Obama’s speech to the public schools, he said the following

Of course, each of you has the right to take your diploma and seek the quickest path to the biggest paycheck or the highest title possible. But remember: You can choose to broaden your concerns to include your fellow citizens and country instead. By tying your ambitions to America’s, you’ll hitch your wagon to a cause larger than yourself. You can choose a career in public service or the nonprofit sector, or teach in an underserved school. If you have medical training, you can work in an understaffed clinic. Love science? You can discover new sources of clean energy or launch a business that makes the most efficient and affordable solar panels or wind turbines.

Now, the gist of his message has a ring of truth to it.  We shouldn’t set out to become as rich or successful as possible; we should have ambitions higher than ourselves.

While I don’t want to read too much into this message, I fear at the core of his message is the idea that I have experienced in my own life, specifically, that unless we have a job that is specifically designated to solve the world’s problems, that we are not contributing to mankind.

When I was a young child, I wanted to be a preacher.  As I got older this dream eventually faded.  During my second year in college, I wanted to be an engineer of some sort.  This realization brought on two specific crises of conscious.  The first one was more of a spiritual nature.  How could I contribute to the kingdom of God working as an engineer.  As I talked to my dorm RA, who incidentally aspired to and now is a preacher, he assured me that I could still serve and glorify God even as an engineer as I interact with others.  He assured me that I could reach some people in some ways he, as a preacher, could not.

The second crisis was more of a secular nature.  I thought I wanted to be an engineer, but I had also considered being a math professor.   I had a university professor (who bragged that he never received a paycheck from anyone other than a state government) who thought I should really go toward the latter, as it seemed more noble. Part of me agreed with him.  After all, being a math teacher of some sort seemed to put me in a position to make more of a difference in people’s lives, even if it was discussing power series or separation of variables.  Ultimately, however, it didn’t seem to be the right path.  There was a bigger part of me that craved problem solving, that wanted to go out into industry and simply work (not that math professors don’t solve problems, I just wanted a different type of environment).

So, ultimately, I followed my passion.  I wasn’t going to be a preacher or serve in a position that supposedly bettered mankind, but I felt like I had to go with my heart.  But maybe that’s okay.  Jonathan Acuff of the funny and thought-provoking site Stuff Christians Like touches on this.

When I sometimes imagine “doing the work of the Lord,” I imagine sweat and tears and hard work and being obedient and disciplined and self controlled. Turns out, in my head, I serve a God who makes me build benches.
But what if I’m wrong?
What if you’re wrong?
What if we’ve all been wrong?
What if God doesn’t want more benches?
What if God wants you to build signs for Disc Golf because he knows you love that game?
What if God wants you to write books because he knows you love that?
What if God wants to unearth all those things you’ve hidden because you thought you weren’t talented enough? What if he wants you to roll around in the joys you thought were too silly or stupid or not spiritual enough?

For me, my passion is problem solving. I love sitting at a desk 8ish to 5ish banging around on a computer.  My job may not have an immediate impact on mankind, but it allows me to feed my family, and that’s good enough for me.

The fallacy is believing that we must have a certain job title in order to serve God or “better mankind”, that if we do have a job as an engineer or a broker on Wall Street, that is inherently inferior to serving in the peace corp or working in a non-profit, or if we are not on paid staff at a church, what we do has no eternal impact.   The people who do such jobs are to be commended, but not everyone has the ability or passion for those things.  The truth is, no matter what job we have, we should serve God in that, such as the quality of work that I perform and my interactions with others.   So the question I must ask myself is, am I doing that?

Types of people that annoy me

In blogging, I run across different types of people.  It has been enlightening meeting different types of people with different ideas.  Typically, people who have different opinions don’t annoy me too much, but certain characteristics I see.  Today, I’m going to focus on my “own people” if you will.

The Republican homer. The term “homer” is borrowed from sports fandom, in which someone believes their sports team can do no wrong.  These people will take to task the Democrats for out-of-control spending and running up the national debt.  However, when someone brings up the Republicans, they will talk about how that was different, or how it wasn’t as bad, etc…   While sometimes nuances are important, they will find everything they can about why it was “different” when Bush was in office.

Why does this bother me?  For one, someone debating ideas wastes a lot of valuable time simply defending their team.  If they talked more about their ideas and less about their party, they would be so much more effective.  Also, any idea or belief is less effective if you do not apply it consistently.  If you hate big spending, don’t be afraid to mention that Bush spent too much.  I’m not saying that someone has to say something bad their own party every time they talk about the other one, but if someone brings your own party to task for the same things you are talking about, don’t be afraid to agree with them.  The goal is ideas, not defending your team.

For the second type of person…  In an episode of the Simpsons, Marge is trying to get into this exclusive women’s club.  Her initiation is almost at hand when she has to take her family to dinner.   Before the dinner she’s telling her family basically not to do this or that to embarrass her, such as asking Lisa not to talk politics with anyone.

The apologist apologizer (apologist is someone in apologetics)is what reminds me of Marge in this episode.  The apologizer is someone who is mostly conservative or at least leans to the right, but has a lot of liberal followers.  This person is always apologizing to his or her liberal friends for the conservative ones.  They feel that they always have to pipe in, in the event that a conservative says something to harsh.  The good thing is that they are always trying to build bridges with their liberal friends, but at the same time, it is as if they reluctantly bring their conservative friends to the dinner party, and they are always afraid of what the conservative is going to say to ruffle the feathers of the liberal ones.   I don’t enjoy going to this type of blog any longer.