Sleeves

Why when you pick a nice warm sweater on a brisk day do you end up pushing up the sleeves? Why when you wear 3/4 sleeves do they seem to annoy you by bunching right where your arm bends (just like capris at your knees)? Why when you wear short sleeves do your arms a) glare their untanned whiteness, b) feel cold, c) look hairy? Oh, and the sleeves tend to look unfashionable!

Have you ever found yourself changing the position of your sleeves every 30 seconds, shoving them up out of your way, then back down because you're cold, then back up as a nervous habit? I've seen people roll the sleeves of their dress shirts. They roll it under, I think. Some blouses have little tabs that button up rolled sleeves. How did Eowyn do it?

To God be all glory.

Destinations?

What places in the world (including the US) do you want to visit? Why?

I don't like answering "favorite" questions. "What's your favorite Bible verse?" Um, I have to pick? "What is your favorite color?" Today? So I like lists. Long ones. When you answer the above question, you can leave a list as long as you want.

After I've gotten three responses, I'll post my answer.

To God be all glory.

Sense and Sensibility Sketches

Fanny Austen-Knight (1793-1882)

My appetite being now thoroughly whetted for a long trip to England or at the very least a viewing of Pride and Prejudice (the five hour Jennifer Ehle version), I thought I'd share some Sense and Sensibility character sketches from my journal this spring:

Colonel Brandon fell instantly in love with Marianne. But he was not going to pursue her because he thought it would be better for her to marry someone nearer her age. So he sought to be only a blessing to her. He had been a bachelor settled and content, so practiced at supressing his heart that he hardly cares. Only the deepest (most selfless) love will induce him to matrimony.

Elinor is a steady girl, aware of reality yet unable to fully reconcile herself to it. She is a woman of her word ever self-less. However, she is not so strong as to be able to bear sorrow cheerfully.

Marianne cares only for the dramatic and romantic, embracing both ecstasy and despair equally. She says what she thinks, and behaves as she feels. It does not bother her that a man should take liberties with her without commitment. The amazing thing about her is her recovery. She settles into a love that is calmer but runs deeper, and so it brings her deep joy.

Edward is a man of mistakes and self-deception. His love is self-giving, but certainly not self-controlled. He is also a man of duty, though it torment him, he could still, I believe, have been happy marrying his first love. He is conflicted much of the time: between keeping his vow to Lucy and his regard for Elinor, between obligation to his family's expectations and his dreams.

Mr. Willoughby is a tragic, horribly appealing villain. He does have great self-control, but that leaves him without excuse for his conduct. He is always selfish, and irreverent. He enjoys romance as Marianne does, but he does not live (and die) for it. He is uniquely able to give away his heart completely separate from his intentions and choices. That this causes him pain - anguish - is his sacrifice to the ideals of romance.

"Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, or bends with the remover to remove.
O, no! It is an ever-fixed mark, that looks on tempests and is never shaken." - Sonnet 116 by William Shakespeare

To God be all glory.

Click Here - I mean it!

For any of you who are Jane Austen fans, or if you just love pictures of the verdant British isles, you should check out Mrs. Chancey's blog of their trip to England. The architecture is beautiful, and the stories of little cultural details. I am so excited she got to wear her Austen-era dresses in England!

To God be all glory.

Thoughts on Failure

"If you are not failing, you are not trying to succeed."

This can be an encouraging thought: when you have recently experienced failure.

This can be a discourging thought: when you are about to embark on an attempt to succeed.

This can be a challenging thought: when you aren't doing anything.

This can be a false thought: when success finally happens.

To God be all glory.

Miss

Not fifty years ago there were three ways to respectfully address women: Mrs. for married or widowed women, Miss for unmarried women, and Ms. for the feminists. I don't mind the existence of Ms. anymore than I mind the existence of feminists (and I wish they would all convert to a freeing, fulfilling, biblical view of women's roles). Nevermind the abbreviation is not short for any word. Never mind the other two titles cover everyone.

Not twenty years ago, there were three ways to respectfully address women. Ms. was more common as it became harder to tell whether a woman was married or not. The issue of divorce was becoming more and more sensitive. One didn't want to accidentally call a divorced woman "Mrs." How horrible! Besides, the marital status was a private matter, not for common knowledge to the strangers who deliver the mail.

Today, there are two ways to address women, and we can count respect out. Mrs. is for the old fashioned type, those who actually got married, especially those wives who are also mothers. Ms. is for everyone, especially everyone else. Except, excuse me, me, over here! I'm not a Ms. I am a Miss, and I don't see the benefit in keeping that fact a secret. Nor do I want to be associated with the undefined, confused class of women who go by Ms. However, in many cases, I don't have a choice.

When I recently contacted my senator via the Internet, the "title" section was mandatory, and "Miss" was not an option. Oh, they had Dr., Mr., Mrs. ... Not Miss. In my address to the senator I added my dissatisfaction with the lack of options. When I got a return note, it was addressed Ms. I gathered two conclusions: the letter was automatically generated and sent based on the selected category, and the senator did not read my letter. He probably didn't care.

That's understandable. Senators are secular, and they're the epitome of "politically correct." However, I am on Campus Crusade's mailing list, and they keep addressing me as Ms. Campus Crusade! What do I do? How do I object? Is there any hope for returning the feminine and unashamed title of Miss?

All my little girls in Awana, and most of my friends, get little notes addressed Miss. It isn't a statement of age. To call them Miss is a statement of expectation: I expect them to be ladies and proud of it! Little changes. Little protests.

To God be all glory.

Concluding

Titles like "concluding" or "good-bye" or "signing off" on a blog always strike fear into my heart that the blogger is ceasing. No one has really done that to me yet, though. I think that to start blogging, you have to be a writer at heart, and no matter how busy you get, you cannot altogether abandon the art.

No, I'm talking about concluding and finishing, in general. You may have noticed if you read my last post that I'm not very good at wrapping up my writing. In a grammar book today I read that you should avoid phrases like "in conclusion," or ending letters with "I can't think of anything else to say, so I'll close." How horrible! Of course they don't suggest creative ways to close. They just forbid the obvious.

Ending things makes me sad. Maybe that's why I have so little practice. Yes, this morning our youth pastor's wife was sharing about her grandmother. The old woman was a starter. She started dozens of quilts and projects before she died which she never finished. The youth pastor's wife's mother took it upon herself, as a finisher, to complete every project. I am more like the grandmother. You may have gathered that from my post about reading books.

For example, I have four serious stories half-written right now. One is novel-length, waiting to be typed and edited before I attempt to have it published. Yet there is this concept and story in my head that is just dying to try itself out on paper. So the debate is whether to buckle down and finish at least one of the others, or to begin yet another narrative in hopes that someday my descendants will publish "the collected unfinished works of Lisa." One can dream.

To God be all glory.

Conservative Talk Radio

My news comes from two sources: the Internet and talk radio. For Christian news like the latest Vision Forum conference, book release, or any articles published about education or biblical womanhood, the net (especially blogs) are a consistent and reliable resource. For the political and national security type news, talk radio keeps me up to date. I catch snippets here and there just as I fall asleep (mesmerizing voices) or as I drive (not so mesmerizing, you hope). Between the different moments I get to catch the news, my spectrum of programming exposure is pretty wide.

I keep mentioning different shows on which I heard a comment or a view. So I decided to provide you with the names of the hosts to which I listen (or don't) and what my opinion of them each is. They are different, with different perspectives, degrees of accurate theology, a spectrum of priorities, and simply different styles.

Laura Ingram is a tough woman. She gave up practicing law to make fun of political and entertainment figures. She is so outspoken that her listeners are either praised for agreeing with her or derided for disagreeing. It's immature sometimes, but upbeat. She has a true heart for soldiers. In my opinion her crew is unbeatable. They can pull out the shortest or most entertaining sound clip at a moment's notice.

Dennis Prager is a converted Democrat who failed to leave behind all the liberal tenets of being one. He is selfish and encourages selfishness in others, especially through his Happiness Hour once a week. Philosophy and interviews are his big thing. He likes abstracts like evil, but not the Devil. Clarity is the object of his show. He adores his doting audience. Each show is a search for knowledge and answers. At the least he is a good listener.

Sean Hannity is like a big brother to his audience. He works to know what he knows and to form well-reasoned opinions. He laughs and teaches, but he also corrects. God is a real part of his life and worldview. Patriotism is high on his list of priorities. He is a conservative for truth and justice, not just a Republican for victory.

Hugh Hewitt is a stuck up lawyer. Though claiming Christianity, he is a hypocrite. Rather than hold out for principle, he advocates taking the best visible choice. A high point of his show is the upper-level education in subjects ranging from precedents to history and literature.

Mark Davis is a relatively mellow man with good opinions, but I don't know what he's like because the time at which he is programmed on my local station is 10 PM-12 AM, at which times I am usually otherwise engaged.

Michael Reagan has been in the business so long that he is very comfortable with his audience. But, being the son of a public figure, he is skilled at keeping his distance. His show is about common sense from economics to politics to defense to education.

Michael Medved can be loud-mouthed and close-midned. He has a generous view of the U.S. and a useful understanding of Judaism and Israel. Watching so many movies, he has become good at recognizing political insinuations, but the moral and philosophical messages do not get filtered. He has, therefore, become a crtiic, seeing all things from too professional a standpoint.

Mark Taylor fills in for almost everyone else. He is a Christian, unafraid to argue (and repeat) until his point is driven home. He is humble and listens. His tone is sincere. However, he is a staunch Republican, and would rather help a "Republican" (even in name only) win than to vote according to conscience.

Janet Parshall is the grandmotherly type (or at least the grandmother stage of the hard-hitting conservative communicator). She's been married for a long time, and she loves, respects and submits to her husband, who is usually involved in her show. Her concern is for the children and families as well as the serious and political topics. Sometimes she runs creative segments such as interviews with Larry from Veggie Tales.

To God be all glory.

Ezra, Persia, and Temples

For my devotions this week I have been reading through Ezra. The account is of a priest, Ezra, who was commissioned by King Cyrus of Persia to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple. He took a thousands of Jews with him to help, as well as letters from the king requisitioning supplies. King Cyrus returned the vessels and utensils which Nebuchadnezzar had plundered.

Some of the local population requested that they be allowed to help build the Temple, since they claimed to worship the same God. In Exodus and Leviticus, God had been very specific about the people who could be associated with the Temple or Tabernacle. Children even of converts were not allowed in the Temple for something like ten generations. These people in Ezra's day were those who became known as Samaritans. After the deportation of Jews from Judah, Nebuchadnezzar relocated some other conquered population, which intermarried with the pathetic remnant of Hebrews and apparently adopted some of the Jewish worship, mixing it with their own paganism. Such were the superstitious Samaritans of Jesus' day. At the rebuilding of the Temple in Ezra, this man of the line of Aaron refused to allow them to help.

The bitterness all started at that exclusion. And their opposition to the "Jewish way of doing things" began immediately. They sent a letter of complaint to the new king of Persia, Artaxerxes. For 16 years, their letter succeeded in postponing work on the Temple. The Samaritans appealed to King Artaxerxes' paranoia and desire to protect his power. "When the Jews have a wall around this city of theirs, and a Temple, they get rebellious. Look at history," they warned.

King Artaxerxes went for their argument. Kings of this empire tended to be gullible, or easily manipulated. I don't know why. When I studied Persian history, I also noticed one other prominent fact: no man stayed in power long. Brothers, cousins, sons, friends, and strangers were all willing to murder each other in order to gain the throne. Soon after Ezra the empire's influence succumbed completely to the succeeding power. I think it was Greece. So Artaxerxes was desperately protecting the unstable authority structure. My imagination presents the picture of him sticking a finger in every leak of his dam, until he ran out of fingers.

On the radio this week someone commented that the North Koreans are so dangerous for the same reason. Their regime is weak. Any regime would be weak that had little money and whose people were starved and tortured. Public approval rates are probably pretty low. Discontent breeds, well, revolution. The leadership of this extreme government desperately needs a show of power to prove themselves. Since the display they threaten is a nuclear attack on the US or their neighbors, they cannot be allowed to succeed. That and the fact that their government is evil and oppressive.

Eventually King Darius became ruler of the Persian empire, and he reinstated work on the Temple. This point encouraged me in my life right now. My latest batch of eBay attempts produced discouraging results. I still need wisdom in how to proceed. Other plans for my feeble start-up business have been halted by government restrictions, requirements, and licenses. But if Ezra can endure setbacks for a cause to which God called him, then so can I. To keep in mind that cause is important.

God is so faithful to provide reminders that He is active. He puts up signposts reminiscent of those yellow and black arrows posted on a sharp curve in the middle of nowhere on a highway. A succession of events, articles, verses, and conversations point me toward those things He wants me to heed right now. For example, last Sunday part of the Sunday school lesson was on the preparation of the Temple for the people to meet with God. So I began reading Ezra, which had this connection with North Korea. And I also read the Copper Scroll (Joel Rosenberg's new book) which happened to be about the eschatological building of the Temple. So those different points fit. I'm not sure of the overarching theme/lesson, but the little applications have been nice.

To God be all glory.

The Flutter of One Wing

An etymology website reminded me the other day to try to cut out "ing" and "it", the latter especially to start a clause. In Old English, the author of the site said, "It is raining" was impossible. One had to say, "The rain falls," or "The rain floods." Wouldn't that make language more alive?

One of my passions is how little decisions affect your life. Little changes affect revolution. One vote changes the course of the history. This article, from Kingdom Building Ministries, talks about that very thing. I recommend it.

The Butterfly Effect, as a principle, is also a fascinating concept related to my passion for time and time travel. What happens if you go into the future and change something? What if you go into the past? Does that sufficiently change the future which was your present so that you're no longer in the past - or maybe even your present? Irrelevant, I know, since I don't actually believe (theologically, not scientifically) that time travel is possible. Perhaps I love time travel because that concept demonstrates the butterfly effect with the most impact.

Speaking of impact, Kingdom Building is dedicated to maximizing the impact of Christian service through their speaking ministry and through their "institutes." If you're interested in a semester mission experience/education, check out the rest of their website.

To God be all glory.