Just a quick update...

If I were a string, and someone were to pluck me, I would resonsant at a frequency that only dogs can hear.

That is all.

Actually, that is not all. It has occurred to me that a taut string is not a good analogy for my life right now. You see, a string is only pulled in *two* directions.

THAT is all.

A word about profanity...

I am not, contray to what some may think, entirely opposed to cursing/swear words/ profanity/etc. This may be suprising to some because several people that I know quite well have probably never heard me swear. To me, these words are the last resort. They are words to be used only when no other word can express the urgency or volitility of a situation. They are the atomic weapons of verbal discourse. Therefore, if you ever hear me use a curse word, please know that something of significant import has happened, is happening, or will happen very soon.

This is also why I abide cursing in movie that I watch. Movie usually involve extreme circumstances; circumstances in which swaering is altogether appropriate. Movies also often include people punching, kicking, or shooting each other. Like swearing, these activities may be appropriate in the situation portrayed in a movie, but not in real life.

So the other day I'm standing in line with my 9-year-old at a family restaurant and the person ahead of us has a shirt on that contains a profane word. What's worse is that this man was holding a baby! Oh, pity the child. Sure enough, my son notices the shirt and whispers in my ear "That man is wearing a shirt that says the f-word." I didn't know what to say. I just said that "Some people are stupid." Perhaps not the best choice, but it was true enough. I came oh so close to tapping the man on the shoulder and saying very politely, "Excuse me, but my 9 year old son was wondering why your shirt has those words on it and I don't have an answer for him. Could you explain it to him?" I would have, too, if I were sure that this person had A) at least half of a functioning brain and B) a shred of human decency. But based on his choice of shirt, I could not be even reasonable certain of either of those things.

It's gonna be a hard night's day.

So I have come to the considered opinion that this world, in general, sucks. Sure, some of the people in this world are tolerable. Some are even pleasant to be around. But the world itself is lousy.

So, God, what ever it is you have planned, I'm ready for it. And, please not another flood. That wasn't a permenant solution last time anyway. I'm talking about smashing this place apart peice by piece and starting over. New Heaven, New Earth, and all that jazz.

Now I am not one to blindly repost others' work. However, this is so homurous that I cannot resist.

A note on the author... You may notice that for for quite a while I have had a link to James Lileks' web site on my links. This past week, there was a significant shakeup at the Star Tribune and Mr. Lileks, who for years has written an excellent column for that paper, found himself re-assigned. Now, in the past when I see a copy of the Star Tribune, I look for exactly 4 things, in this order; James Lileks' column (recent called the Quirk, but I prefer the former and longer Backfence format), Dilbert, Isaac Asimov's Super Quiz, and anything in the Sports section about the Vikings. Now I will only have 3 things to look for in the Strib.

While the Quirk has been fun, Mr. Lileks' blog, the Bleat, is better. There are very few blogs that I would consider paying money to read. So, check it out. I understand that it may not be everybody's cup of java, but I really enjoy him. Besides, his picture reminds me of Jeff Berletic. See now everyone will run off to Lileks' site just to see what I'm talking about :)

OK, so maybe that was more than a "note". I was going to copy the best part of the blog entry that inspired this, but, rather than waste precious electrons, I will just post a permalink to said blog. Please read the description of the Immigration Bill.

I aspire to write half as well as Lileks. It's odd. On one hand, I think people who write this well should be richly rewarded for their skill. On the other hand, content this good should be availabel to everyone.

So, our own Giving Tree has moved beyond given us leaves and twigs to giving us whole branches.

You see, when we moved into our house in Apple Valley, we found, whaddya know, an apple tree in the backyard. Rumor had it that all the houses in this development has an apple tree planted in the backyard. Could be true; All the street names are apple vareties. However, all was not well with Mr. Apple Tree. The tree was splitting down the middle into 4 parts, and there were large areas of dead branches in the tree.

The first summer we lived here, the tree gave us apples. Hundreds of little, gnarled apples, rotting all over the yard. The second summer, there were no apples. Only twigs all over the yard. Compared to the apples, the twigs were a blessing. However, this summer, our third in this house, it seems the tree is upping the ante. My dear wife noticed that one of the four sections seemed to have shifted. I walk over, grab a branch out near the end and pull it gently toward the house (away from the nice fence that it was suspended over). Not 3 steps into my stroll did we hear a loud crack and one of the four sections (the smallest of the four) snapped off.

Which meant that my son and I got to spend the next hour and a half breaking down the large branch into small, ready-for-the-fire-ring bits. Is it wrong to burn wood from a tree that is still standing, in sight of the tree? Perhaps it will be motivation to heal up; "See? This is what happens to trees that fall down in these parts."

As for the rest of the tree, it'll come down eventually. We may even get a chainsaw and go all Friday-the-13th on it, but that requires work. And a chainsaw. And possibly a tourniquet.

I do, however, what to take a chunk out of each remaining trunk when they do come down and whittle a little canoe for each of my three boys. Just a little reminder of their own little Giving Tree.

OK, time for Salvation Theology 201.

First a refresher from Salvation Theology 101: God calls us to Holiness. His covenent requires that we abide by His laws. Failure to abide by His laws results in death and eternal seperation from His presence. However, "all have sinned and fallen away from God". Therefore, we are all subject to the consequences of sin; Eternal seperation from the God (i.e. Hell). God is holy, and God is good, and God is just. Therefore, He cannot just waive the requirements on us in this convenant, but He can, and has, provided a substitute. Jesus came to us, lived a sinless life (and in doing so, did not incur the blood debt that each of us owe from our sin), and yet, still paid the price that the convenant demands of us. Jesus paid a debt He did not owe for me, who had a debt that I could not pay.

But here are my questions... How is it possible for one man to pay the debt of billions? It's relativily easy to see how Jesus paid for *my* sins, but how could one life pay for all sins for all people? Wouldn't the sacrificial calculus be one sinless life in exchange for one life marred by sin?

Secondly, how does the resurrection figure into this? I have heard others say that the resurrection is proof that Jesus has broken the power of sin over us. But that doesn't fit into the sacrificial nature of the exchange. If a death and resurrection is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the convenant, would not *my* death, followed by a resurrection, be sufficient for my sinful life?

Now, I know, based on my faith, that Jesus' death has enough for all, and that my death apart from Jesus, even with a resurrection is not sufficient. But these are the "I wonder how that works" questions that occur to me. I am perfectly willing to accept that these questions are unknowable to us, but known to God. But if there are answers to these questions that God has given to us, or that the Spirit will enable us to work out, I for one would like to explore them.

Any ideas out there?

Gotta post about this while it's fresh. Simple, commonplace event that reflects a larger truth.

OK, 11:30 PM, Friday night. I'm at the grocery store getting Ben and Jerry's for me and the wife. (I wish I could say it was all Seren's fault, but she only mentioned B&J, I then pushed her into it.) (Also, I should note that when I was 15, my sweet tooth was knocked out in a bicycle accident... Unfortunately, it was replaced with a bionic sweet tooth.)

Anyway, I walk in. It's late and there is only one checkout person. Fair enough. I note that the person currently being rung up only has a few items, but the woman next in line has a *full* cart. UGH. Now, I'm not shy about asking if I can jump ahead of a person with a very large number of items if I only have 2 or 3. However, I knew that I would not be able to run back to the frozen section, make my selection, and be back before that woman's items started to be rung up. C'est la vie. So, I proceed to collect my 2 cartons of "the good stuff" and return to the check-out aisle. Sure enough, that LCW (large-cart-woman) is in the early stages of ringing up. Meanwhile, a woman with 3-4 items is standing behind her. Let us refer to her as 3IG (3 item girl, although to be fair, she was probably as old as I am). So, I'm behind LCW and 3IG in line. While LCW is being rung up, 2 more people with no more than 6 items get in line behind me. Then LCW2 arrives. This woman is the subject of our post today. She also had a *full* cart of food. Well, with the vertible calvacade of customers, the checkout woman does what any sensible person would do; She called for help. A scant few minutes later, Ed arrives and opens the checkout lane 3 lanes down. As soon as I hone in on which aisle he is opening, I suggest to 3IG that she move over to it. It would probably have been reasonable to take the pole positon myself, but that wouldn't be fair. Anyway, I knew the checkout woman in the aisle that I was in. She is about as professional a checkout person as you are like to find working late shift in a suburban grocery store, and I was confident that she would wrap up the order quickly.

Anyway, 3IG makes her way over to the newly opened aisle, but LCW2 is quicker. She lurches afore mentioned large cart, cuts off 3IG, and is waiting in front of "Ed" the instance he flips on the light for Checkout Lane 7. The person directly behind me mutters, "Unbeleivable". Whcih suprised me. Only because all three people behind me in line were asian, and I was under the impression that they were all somehow related. This did not turn out to be the case.

Luckily for 3IG, LCW2 seems to be married to a man who is accustomed to living in a civilized society and points out that 3IG, and her 3-4 items should probably go first. This invitation did not extend, however, to the 3 other people who stood there, small number of items in hand. As I said before, C'est la vie.

So, that bigger truth I mentioned before. This did not spring, I think, from a Me First mentality. I think this was simply Me Only. Perhaps it's the optimist in me, but I don't think LCW2 wanted to exclude or jump ahead of anyone. She just wanted to get her things done as quickly as possible. But the source of this attitude is the same; "The world isn't go to look out for me, so it's up to me to do it". The world... actually, it's more appropriate to say the people in the world... teaches each and every one of us that we need to take care of outselves, and concern for others is far too rarely rewarded. This isn't right, but I don't have an answer. Well, other than God. But He's such an easy answer that it feels like cheating to always say "Well... God." But for this, that's all I have.

So it's been a while. As I was telling Seren the other day, I feel shallow, but I think it has more to do with the water level being low than any change to the ocean floor.

However, I saw something today that I needed to comment on. It was a poster at the middle school. It's a case of accidental profundity. The poster said in big bold letters "Everyday is a gift".

Now I assume that the writer meant to communicate that every day is a gift. But I realized, as I thought about it, that the missing space does change the meaning, but the unintended meaning is still true. Everyday is a gift. The commonplace, the expected, the simple, the relied-upon-but-rarely-appreciated is a gift. Every day brings hope, a chance for a new beginning, an oppurtunity to do it right, whatever 'it' might be. Everyday, on the other hand, is the food on the table, the roof overhead, the love and support of family and friends. And it's the everyday that allows every day to have so many possibilities.