Love of Place

Usually when I write these things I stand on one side or the other of a particular given issue. This time, though, I’m stuck in the thinking process and I’m not sure about my feelings.

As families sometimes do, we’ve been toying with the idea of moving - specifically to a warmer climate - and I find myself truly torn.

On the one hand, I like the idea. Even though I love the change in seasons, and actually don’t mind winter, there are limits. Every year around February it starts to get old. Yet every year winter lasts through February, through March, and sometimes into April. Seasonal Affective Disorder (which has the appropriate acronym of SAD) kicks in with an intensity that varies from year to year, and not just for me.

On the other hand, I genuinely love New England and have a very difficult time imagining leaving. I feel like I would be literally lost and out of place.

That last phrase, out of place, is the strongest fear. Most of my life I’ve felt that I didn’t belong. I always felt different from everyone around me and never felt like I was in the right place. 

I’m finally at a point in my life that I feel comfortable in my own skin. I seem to fit in with people I care about and my home finally feels like my home, rather than just the place I sleep and keep my stuff.

On the one hand, there’s a part of me that would love to have sun more often, and I suspect it would have a beneficial effect on my temperament. Also, my wife feels pretty strongly about wanting to be warmer and the fact of the matter is, she’s never been one to ask for a lot. We’ve lived in New England for more than 50 years. Maybe it’s time to warm up.

On the other hand, my passion for family history makes me want to stay. It goes back again to a feeling of belonging. My family have been in Massachusetts and New Hampshire for more than 375 years. We settled in New Hampshire before it WAS New Hampshire! For 13 generations we’ve been here and I guess I don’t want to be the one to leave. Maybe that’s silly, I don’t know.

The other day I was listening to John Denver, who had some wonderful songs about heritage and love of place (which was the inspiration for the title of this post). It got me thinking about all the songs by various artists about this subject and I realized that the feeling is somewhat universal.

Anyone who knows me well knows that music affects me in profoundly emotional ways. 

Just a short list of this type of songs includes: “Small Town” by John Mellencamp; “Where I Come From” by Montgomery Gentry; even, in a sense, “Calypso” by John Denver.

“Sunshine On My Shoulders”, while not specifically about a place, brings back memories of times and places when sunshine really did make me high - an experience and feeling made all the more powerful by living in a region where sunshine is at a premium.

Of course there’s “Massachusetts” by the Bee Gees, sung with such emotion, that has special meaning to someone from there. “Sweet Home Alabama” by Lynard Skynard and “New York State of Mind” by Billy Joel both make clear how much those places mean to them.

Then we have the cream of the crop of “love of place” songs. These songs are unequaled in their ability to provoke emotional attachment to a place: Ray Charles makes me want to live in Georgia when I hear “Georgia On My Mind”, and “Take Me Home, Country Roads”, by the genius John Denver, makes me want to move to West Virginia. Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention “Rocky Mountain High”.

I guess the top of the heap would have to be “Back Home Again” by, once again, John Denver. This song is so poignant partly because, in addition to a very specific place (“this old farm”), it’s really more a song about family and love, and makes the point that that’s what makes a home a home.

So, with this last in mind, I’m no closer to resolving my dilemma . . .

On Being Well Informed

Someone recently commented to me that he can’t understand how people could still be so ill informed with all the available information outlets there are today. I replied that I don’t understand how anybody can be well informed for the same reason.

We truly live in a wondrous age. With the advent and phenomenal growth of the internet almost every bit of information is seemingly at our fingertips at the touch of a button. But it’s not the quantity of information that I question, but the quality. 

For example, in politics we can find opinion pieces and “news” pieces (which are more and more becoming the same thing) in abundant supply for both sides of any issue. Some people will say that Ronald Reagan was the best president of our time, while others will just as fervently contend that Barak Obama is. And both sides will have no trouble coming up with evidence on which they base their opinions. Politics clearly comes down to philosophical ideals, and facts really don’t enter into it on either side - so why we even try to use facts to convince others is beyond me. It simply will never work unless you’re able to change their philosophical ideals.

In nutrition, it’s a similar story, but more insidious because one should be able to reasonably expect that science and facts would carry the day. Not so. Science tells us that eggs are good for you. Five years later, science tells us they’re bad for you. Eight years of further study turns it back again and it never ends. 

Likewise, medicine should be all about science and facts. Still, we have people who embrace what has become the conventional western model of medicine (basically drugs and surgery), while others eschew this in favor of a more holistic “natural” approach to health. Both sides can come up with copious citations to back up their preferred position. What makes it worse is the unceasing feuding that goes on between the two. The conventionalists claiming that the holistic group has no valid scientific studies to support it, and the holistics claiming conspiracy and cover-ups on the part of their adversaries, all the while touting how anything natural is good for you and drugs are always bad. On the one hand, poison ivy is natural, but I’ll pass, thank you. On the other hand, the FDA recalls hundreds of drugs every year. It needs to be borne in mind that 100% of these recalled drugs were once sold as safe. (And why it’s legal for a pharmaceutical company to market directly to an uneducated consumer is beyond me).

In the non-science arena we have religion. And this topic, perhaps more than any other besides politics (with which it seems irrevocably linked), demonstrates just how polarized all this information accessibility has made us.

Moderate Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace. Some in the Christian and Jewish communities disagree. In fact, they claim that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim - one either follows the Quran or not. Firstly, I question how many Muslims these Christians and Jews actually know personally. If they don’t know any, then how can they possibly hope to support their claims? They would likely tell you that all you have to do is read the Quran and it will prove their point. Maybe, maybe not. Admittedly, I have not read it. MY point is that the same can be said of nearly every religion. There are a lot of Orthodox Jews who believe differently than other sects of Judaism. Yet they all have the same Tanakh. There are over 200 different denominations within Christianity and you’d be hard pressed to find universal agreement on many topics. Yet they all have the same Bible. I know Catholics who believe in a woman’s right to have an abortion, despite the clear teaching of the Catholic church to the contrary.

What I’m trying to say is, regardless of the semantics involved with “moderate Muslim vs you believe in the Quran or you don’t”, the fact of the matter is, just like with every other faith, there are probably many Muslims who live their life in a very peaceful way regardless of what some claim the Quran teaches. 

The distinction is, do we judge a religion on its teachings alone, or do we accept people or not based on their actions. If you go with the former, then it would be correct (in my opinion) to say that anyone who believes in the right to abort is simply not Catholic - because they don’t follow the Catholic teaching, regardless of how they were raised. Likewise, if the Quran teaches hatred, intolerance, and violence, as some claim, then anybody who doesn’t follow these teachings is not Muslim. So what are we fighting about? They may, and probably do, identify themselves as Muslim for the same reason the questionable Catholic, or Methodist, or Baptist identifies themselves those ways - because it’s the tradition they understand. 

All of this “information” and opinion is widely disseminated everywhere we look. How are we to truly be well informed? It would be a full time job to wade through all the stuff. The fact of the matter is that most of us make our choices and base our opinions on our preset belief systems, world view, and prejudices. That’s not really being well informed.    

The Reason(s) for the Season

Around this time of year there’s invariably a verbal back and forth that occurs regarding “Happy Holidays” vs “Merry Christmas”.

My own perception is that most people, while they may claim to come down on one side or the other, don’t actually get too worked up about it. The exceptions would be (and this is my take on the cause and effect - others will disagree) Christians who get militant about Jesus being the reason for the season, and reactionary types who get militant on the other side, mostly because they view the situation as Christians getting in their face and they don’t like that.

Obviously, being a Christian myself, I sympathize wholeheartedly with the view that Jesus is the reason for the season - I just wish we could be less persecution-complex-y about it.

That all said, I’d like to submit some food for thought about the season to my Christian friends. And I know you all know this, I just think that sometimes we don’t think of it in these terms.

When we think of Jesus’ birth we tend to think in terms of glory. In that context Jesus truly is the reason for the season. We should bear in mind, however, that it was our need that prompted him to obediently submit to the Father’s plan and leave his comfort and glorious reign in Heaven to come down as an unblemished sacrificial lamb for our redemption.

So, in that sense, we are the reason for the season. If it weren’t for us, he would never have had to go through what he did.

“Long lay the world in sin and error pining

Till he appeared and the soul felt its worth.

A thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices

For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn!”

Together

The other day I was listening to the Ray Charles song “Come Rain or Come Shine”. There was a line in it that went, “Happy together. Unhappy together.”  That got me thinking.

In any relationship, but particularly marriage, the most important thing isn’t that we’re happy. The important thing is that we’re together. As long as we’re together, we can enjoy happiness or survive unhappiness. Too few people rely on and appreciate God’s gift to us - each other.  

Our culture is one of selfishness. We demand to be happy. We are SO selfish that we don’t even recognize it as selfishness. We say things like, “I only want to be happy. Is that too much too ask?”  Maybe it is. Are we with the other person only for our own happiness?

Happiness is not a right. Even here in America we are supposed to believe that we have the right to pursue happiness. Nothing is promised about finding it.

So, if happiness isn’t a right, what is it? I would submit that it’s a responsibility. If you’re married, your wedding vows probably included something like, “...in good times and in bad...forsaking all others...”  They probably did NOT include, “...for as long as s/he makes me happy...”

I’m not coldly saying that if you’re unhappy, suck it up. Rather, if you’re unhappy, your spouse is most likely not ecstatic either. Maybe instead of focusing on your own discontent, which will only worsen it, you should be more selfless and see what you can do to make your spouse happier - or at least let him or her know that s/he’s important to you. Redirecting your attention away from yourself makes you less self-absorbed and will, eventually, be reciprocated.

So, next time we feel unappreciated, rather then dwelling on it and getting resentful, maybe we should take a minute and examine the ways in which we are not meeting the needs of the one we claim to love above all others. Focus on them for a change and be thankful we are together.

On Marriage

There’s been a lot of talk recently about marriage - how it should be defined, and who should be allowed to marry. Religious people have stated that it’s a religious commitment between a man, a woman, and God and the state should not be allowed to redefine it. Others insist that if two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry and the religious people should mind their own business. 

Even though I’m a Christian, I tend toward the latter, and this is my attempt to explain why.

From what I’ve seen, the primary evidence in favor of marriage being a holy, God designed institution is Genesis 2:24, but I, personally, never took the same meaning from that verse that others did. For one thing, it clearly does not explicitly say that God created marriage. Any understanding to that effect is strictly implicit. 

Secondly, the language of verse 24 just doesn’t seem to flow naturally from the previous verses. It has a peculiar “added in” feeling to it. The text goes from verses 21 and 22, with God creating the woman and presenting her to the Adam, to verse 23, with Adam saying he’ll call her woman because she was taken out of man, to go suddenly to verse 24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. ”  Huh? Where did that come from? It just seems like a jump to me.

Add to that the fact that the word translated “wife” here is actually a word that basically means woman, or female person, and interestingly (at this point in Genesis) a mortal female person. “Cleave” means to abide, or live with, but has the connotation of (the woman) having been pursued and caught.

Another reason it doesn’t seem to logically follow (at least to me) is that why does it even suggest what happened to Adam as the reason for “...a man shall leave his father and his mother...”? Adam had neither a father (other than God) nor a mother. 

At this point, I’ll admit that all my dissension with the prevailing thought on this passage was challenged, for a while, by chapter 19 of Matthew where Jesus himself quotes this passage. After a while, I realized that Jesus quoted this for a very specific reason. He was responding to the Pharisees’ question about divorce - why did he (Jesus) teach against it when Moses allowed it. Jesus used a passage of scripture that they were very familiar with in order to make his point.

That sort of got me off the hook, but I admit that it’s not entirely satisfactory. However, I still cannot reconcile Genesis 2 with the assertion that God created marriage. God created one man and one woman. What would anyone reasonably expect to happen?

I struggled with this view (disagreeing with most other Christians) for a long time. Then, as I was researching my family history I found some solace.

My immigrant ancestors were Puritans of Massachusetts. Well, as I was researching them, I learned that the Puritan view of marriage was that it was an entirely civil affair, and not at all a religious one. I think it’s an understatement to say the Puritans were not known as a particularly secular crowd. Everything was known and experienced through the filter of their religion - and yet, THEY thought marriage was a civil thing.

As with all other things related to the Puritans, it wasn’t as simple as that. Like I said, everything in their lives was affected by their religious views, and this was no different. For example, they were not allowed to marry outside the church (but that had civil and cultural meaning {homogeneity} more than religious), and once married, they were not allowed to divorce (because they considered the family as the foundation of society). So it was a little complicated, but the marriage itself was civil in nature.

One more slightly tangential thought before I conclude. I often hear marriage referred to as a covenant. I’m not sure where this started, but if we accept that idea, it’s has some very intriguing implications. 

A covenant is, in essence, a promise or oath on steroids. Adam and Eve made no oath of marriage - they didn’t need to. Eve was formed from a part of Adam. They were literally one flesh. That’s not the case with us, which is why we need to take an oath (or make a covenant) of marriage. 

When we do take the oath of marriage, we usually say something to the effect of “forsaking all others”. In the case of Adam and Eve, there were no others. Unless you use the extreme argument that Adam could have refused Eve and lived alone (but maybe not - she was part of him), then you must conclude that Adam really had no choice. We do. And that’s where the covenant is supposed to come in. But all things being equal (and civil/secular), I see no reason that couples seen as unconventional can’t take a similar oath.  

Panda Poop Produces Primo Paper

I just found out that panda poop is being recycled into paper. Apparently, being bamboo fed, their excrement is rich in fiber, which in turn produces good paper.

My first thought was: “Aren’t pandas an endangered species? How much poop can we be talking about that would make this necessary?”

 As it turns out, the Chengdu Giant Panda Breeding Base in Sichuan province, where the idea for this has been implemented, has forty pandas that produce two tons of waste per day. Two tons - per day! That’s a lot of doo-doo.

The processing of this natural resource involves a daylong process of cleaning the feces, boiling it in a soda solution, bleaching it with chlorine and drying it under the sun. They claim it is sanitary, but I still hope they don’t make rolling paper from it - or take out boxes.

Truth versus Fact

Most people seem to think that truth and fact are synonymous, or at least that you can’t have one without the other. Nothing could be further from the truth - and that’s a fact.

In an earlier post I suggested that nobody except God knows the entire truth. Any person seeking truth can only go by the information available to him. When different information is available to someone else, we make the mistake of thinking that truth is subjective. It’s not. Truth is truth, but knowledge is limited.

In addition to this, facts can be manipulated and presented in a way that points away from the truth without actually lying. Corporate statisticians, pollsters, and lawyers are all quite adept at this.

Conversely, allegories, parables, and even fairy tales can contain no actual fact, but lead the way to a deep truth. Aesop, the Grimms, and Jesus were good examples of this.

So don’t be fooled into thinking that facts always reveal the truth, or that a story contains no truth without facts.

“What is truth?”

~Pontius Pilate - John 18:38

My thanks to Professor Hannah B. Harvey of East Tennessee State University for the spark that inspired this post.