This is what I hope to tell my children about love and dating:

When you're putting a puzzle together, each piece is made to fit into a specific location. To be partnered with another piece. Together, they make part of a whole picture.

You place pieces where they belong, and you pick them up and look for the place where they fit.

You hold one in your hand and try to find its match.

You can, right away, tell where this piece does not belong. If it has green foliage on it, it's not going to belong in the section where there's only blue sky. Or a brick wall. It's going to belong with the other foliage.

Sometimes it looks like it belongs somewhere, so you place the piece down, but when you see them side-by-side, you immediately realize that they are not cut out for each other.

Sometimes, a piece almost fits with another. You lay it down and it seems to slide into place well enough. But the more you look, the more you notice nuances that indicate what you already know to be true-- this is not the right match.

So you have to take the pieces apart. If they're matched closely enough to almost fit, you have to forcefully pull them apart. You might even damage one or both of the pieces in the process of pulling them apart.

But when it happens that you find the true match of the piece in your hand, it's blatantly obvious. "Of course," you think. "That's exactly where it goes. Why didn't I see it before?"

That perfect match piece was sitting there the whole time, quietly waiting for you to discover that you held its partner in your hand. The pieces fit together with such poetic perfection that it seems as if they've always been together.

And the picture as a whole is that much closer to being finished.

They Lived.

The film "Ever After" ends with the following line: "And while it's true that Cinderella and her prince did live happily ever after, the point, gentlemen, is that they lived."

Fairy tales don't chronicle real people. They may be based on some vestige of truth, but the stories are fake. Movies try a little harder sometimes to make love believable. They try to create characters that we recognize... people we can identify with. And then they use a series of lifelike situations to bring these people together and make them fall in love, fight it, get into a quarrel, and then realize that they can't live without each other.

Real life rarely happens that way.

But when it does, it's difficult to comprehend.

When love grabs you by the hair and drags you along for a ride, you don't always understand why.

When it hits you like a shotgun to the face (as my friend Jamin so eloquently puts it), you are left reeling.

A few months ago, I knew that I was falling in love. At the time, it felt odd and I attributed it to infatuation. A few weeks ago, I realized that I was, indeed, in love. Not just infatuated. Not just freshly enamored. Actually in love as never before.

But I didn't say anything, didn't do anything about it.

Until last Friday night. It was Christmas, and my K.i.S.A. was telling me how wonderful I was. At this point, I had been waiting to tell him that I loved him. Waiting for him to say it first, or for some sort of sign from heaven. But he kept saying these things about me, as if I were some sort of saint. I felt bad. I felt unjustified. So I had to clear the air. "I don't do these things for just anyone," I said, after several false starts. "I do them because I'm in love with you."

I think it scared him and he didn't really know what to say. I knew at the time that he wasn't ready to tell me that he loved me, nor did I expect him to. I just wanted him to know.

We said goodbye that night and didn't mention it again. I wasn't hurt, you should know. I knew that I had said what was on my heart and I was happy with my choice. I wasn't trying to manipulate him or push him into saying something he wasn't ready to say. I was just speaking the truth.

Tonight, I knew that he loved me. I knew it before he said it. Before the words escaped his lips, I knew. As we said goodbye, his face took on a pallor which worried me. I made him sit down. He looked sick, and confused, and scared, and dizzy. He said he'd never felt this way before.

I looked into his eyes and knew.

And then the words passed his lips, breaking on their way out. "I love you."

For a moment, I thought I was dreaming. Indeed, I had dreamed of that moment so many times that I couldn't believe it when it really happened. In fact the first word out of my mouth was "Really?" because I couldn't fathom it being true.

And then I started to cry.

Why did I start to cry? Why did tears and laughter mix in my throat and create a clinging, gasping breath? Why did I feel like the world was ending in that one moment?

With those three words, I felt free. Free to love and be loved.

These moments need to be chronicled for 2 main reasons: First, that someday I will have a son or daughter who asks me what it felt like to be freshly in love. I will have something to point them to... the remnants of a time when I felt what they feel then.

And second, because the day will come when I myself will forget how it was. The day will come when I will be angry, or tired, or frustrated, and I will wonder how I ever fell in love.

And then this will be here, to remind me. This will exist to tell me not to give up. To jog my memory and reawaken that first love.

So then these words, written early in the morning immediately after the event, are the most potent. These words are the truth, as raw as it comes.

We live.

Beautiful Women have it tough. But then again, they're beautiful...

I'm rather plain.

No, don't argue with me. I know it's the truth, and I'm okay with that. As far as what our culture defines beauty to be, I am not that. I've struggled with this, fought with God, and I'm fine now.

However, I am occasionally still very jealous of women who are really beautiful. You know the ones. The perfect face, the slender but curvy hips, the dainty feet, the well-formed breasts, the doe eyes, the pursed lips, the soft and luxuriant long hair. These women often come with a somewhat vacant look in their eyes, but no one notices, because they're so pretty.

Besides, brains are gravy. Icing. Really, most men want a woman who is beautiful first, then theologically sound, then well-trained domestically. If they happen upon a woman who is all these things and also can hold up a decent conversation, that's great. But not necessary for marital bliss. Brains are almost superfluous in a woman who has all these other qualities.

Brains are my greatest asset. I have a not-unpleasant face, mediocre knowledge of my faith, and am a decent cook, but I am-- dare I say it?-- brilliant. Really. I may be one of the smartest people you've met. I'm not bragging, and I'm certainly not arrogant about it, but a girl's got to acknowledge what she does have, and brains is it for me.

So, I've been jealous-- even bitter-- about beautiful women. Today, that changed for me a little.

I've been considering a certain family that I know marginally who have several daughters, all in the late teens to early adulthood stage. All the daughters are unmarried, and all of them are drop-dead, pee-your-pants, drool-on-the-floor pretty. Additionally, they all play instruments, they have pleasant singing voices, come from a good Christian family, and make fantastic cookies. Not only that, but they're also very kindhearted, attentive, patient, demure, gentle, great with kids, and full of compassion.

They are everything a man could want. As far as I can tell, they're even fairly smart. Wow! Who could ask for more?

Naturally, as a "normal" girl, not one of these dreamboat femmes, I have been a bit resentful of this family. It just wasn't fair, I thought. They got it all. The talent, the looks, the brains, the upbringing. I got shafted! And of course, men throw themselves at these girls. Men hang around them for weeks trying desperately to scare up the courage to start a conversation with them. The girls of this family have it made. They can have any man they want.

Which is why, today, when I observed a few members of this family, I, for the first time in my life, felt sorry for them and for all beautiful women, especially those of the Christian persuasion.

It's a bit ludicrous, really. It's like if a homeless veteran felt sorry for Bill Gates, because that's just too much money to know what to do with. But really, I have a good reason for feeling sorry for them.

See, if you are a Christian, then you probably believe that you will marry just one person and stay with that person forever. So, in the process of dating, you look at different people and investigate if any of them would make a good marital companion for you. You whittle it down to one, and then you marry that person and hopefully live happily ever after.

But what would you do if you had dozens of options? What would you do if, just because of the way you looked, any man would do anything necessary to be with you?

And, of course, since we know that looks alone are not good basis for relationship, all these men would also be trying to convince you that it wasn't, in fact, just your looks that they liked about you.

How would you sift through all the puddles of drool to find a man who truly valued you for who you are as a person? How would you find your soulmate among the hordes who wanted to be just that? And how could you justify turning away so many men who were equally enamored with you, thrusting them upon the rest of us as your discards?

-----------

I have to stop for a moment and mention that I am not being sarcastic. I know that the above might sound very cynical indeed, and quite facetious at best, but that is not my intent.

I am truly trying to place myself in the plight of the beautiful woman. I really do feel sorry for her, for having to do this. For having to break hearts. For having to tell men (though not in these exact words), "Sorry, you're just not good enough for me."

As a culture we value beauty so highly because men are, as the experts tell us, primarily visual creatures. They see what we look like first, and then notice the rest of our assets. If a girl is not strikingly beautiful, it will take even a good, godly man quite a while to notice her for who she is over how she looks.

So I am not trying to make a point by arguing ad absurdum. I am truly pitiful of the woman who is remarkably beautiful, because finding true love must be ever so much more difficult for her than for those of us whose best suit is Brains.

----------

Really, I mean, if all the men around you are willing to give life and limb for you because you're beautiful (Remember Helen of Troy? Yeah, those men fought each other for ten years over her beauty, not over her honor), how do you know which one really is The One for you? If you're getting offers all the time, how do you know a good one when you see one?

Over the past eight or nine years, I have gotten one real pursuer about every other year. I usually come to my senses a few months later, but then I don't have any pursuit for another year and a half or so.

During this time, I had my eye on one man, who I considered to be the gold standard. I compared everyone else to him, and if they didn't hold up, I eventually let them go. Now I'm in a relationship with that man, and everyone else pales in comparison. It really is as wonderful as I had dreamed.

I can't imagine a life where every man around me wants to pursue me. I wouldn't know what to do with that. I could never be friends with men because their end of the friendship would be one long double meaning. I enjoy my male friends and I can't imagine not having them in my life. But if I was beautiful, I couldn't have them. I would have to draw a very clear line between myself and my friends, and them. Because all that friendship would have ulterior motives.

So, if only for the sake of having great male friends, I'm glad not to be beautiful.

But then again, I return to that moment in "Notting Hill" after Julia Roberts' character tries to convince everyone that she's pathetic.

"Nah!!! Nice try, gorgeous -- but you don't fool anyone."

Quote from Steelehouse Podcast 70

"At the heart of true, long-term love, like a marriage, there is a core of sadness that plays underneath. And what I mean by that is the longer you love someone, the more, there is regret. Regret that you said some of the things that you said or did some of the things that you did. Or that your true love sees you completely for everything that you are, the good and the bad. And there are those moments where you go 'I wish we could start this all over,' but if you could start it all over, it wouldn't be true love, because true love takes into account all the damage and all the negative, and loves still, even through it...Another prevalent sadness of love, of as you get more accustomed to one another, it's harder to believe the love that the other person has for you, harder to believe that you are lovely, and desirable, and the object of someone's affection, but true love pushes through all that."

Favorite Albums of the 2000s, part 2

Continuing the list...

2004: Mr. A-Z- Jason Mraz

And here we are, with what may be the best sophomore album ever made. Jason Mraz hits us again with his fabulous ability to meld insightful lyrics with fun tunes and some cute innuendo, contrasted occasionally with deep words and melancholy chords. "Bella Luna" made me wish to be poetic, "Please Don't Tell Her" is as honest as it is self-deceiving, and "Wordplay" is true to form with its quick witticisms. "Geek in the Pink" is fun, but my favorite song is "Mr. Curiosity", which is a follow-up to "Did You Get My Message?"

2005: Lifesong- Casting Crowns

The year 2005 was either a really bad year for music, or I just don't have any taste. However, Casting Crowns did a great job with this album, and they have a strong set of songs that stands up well to their self-titled debut. They have great social criticism alongside standard praise songs, and some very honest lyrics.

2006: Stadium Arcadium- The Red Hot Chili Peppers

Ironically, the Red Hot Chili Peppers released a "greatest hits" album in 2003, and then went on to produce their best album of all time, "Stadium Arcadium". In fact, this is one of the greatest rock and roll albums ever made. The two-disc set, titled "Jupiter" and "Mars" respectively, never slows down, never has any skip-worthy songs. It's fun to listen to, and definitely deserving of its seven Grammy nominations. "Dani California" and "Hey Oh" are great songs, but the title track is fabulous as well. It's a great road trip album as well.

2007: Dan in Real Life- Sondre Lerche

Okay, so I lied. Two soundtracks made my list. This one, an indie film with music all by Norwegian powerhouse lyricist Sondre Lerche, is sweet, folksy, and romantic. Songs like "To Be Surprised" and "I'll Be Okay" are well-written, but my favorite, Track 5, wins out with "My hands are shaking from carrying this torch for you". He also has some great duets, including "Human Hands", a wonderfully real song about romance, and "Hell No," with Regina Spektor, who is one of the greatest female singers of our time. Also, Lerche's cover of "Let My Love Open the Door"might be better than Peter Townshend's original arrangement.

2007: Life in Cartoon Motion- Mika

I love Queen. It's a great musical group, and they've made some of the best songs of the 20th century. So, it's no surprise that their influences would be widespread. Along comes Mika in 2007 with this:
"Do I attract you?

Do I repulse you with my queasy smile?
Am I too dirty? Am I too flirty?
Do I like what you like?"
Mika admittedly channels Freddie Mercury, Queen's erstwhile lead singer and songwriter. He sounds just like him, and somehow manages to, all by himself, sound like the entire band. His lyrics are sometimes fun, sometimes goofy, sometimes eerily accurate, and it's great dancing music, especially songs like "Lollipop" and "Big Girls". "Happy Ending" is my favorite song, but well worth waiting for is the hidden track "Over My Shoulder", about being left alone, drunk, and passed out in the cold.

2007: The Altar and the Door- Casting Crowns

This album may be the best of the decade. Casting Crowns continually puts out great music, which is why they are on the list twice. "The Altar and the Door" is the single most convicting album I have ever heard, with the title song so poignant and reflective that I can't listen to it at all without tearing up. Connected songs refer back to each other, bringing unity to the artistry. "All Because of Jesus" is one of the best, but "White Dove", the hidden track at the end, is wonderful. Lead singer Mark Hall sounds suspiciously like Josh Groban, and pulls off classical singing surprisingly well in this melancholy plea for peace.

2008: Rebel- Lecrae
The only rap album to make the list. It's amazing in its beats, lyrics, and truth. Lecrae knows how to say what he believes so much more concisely than I could, and he rhymes in the process. "Indwelling Sin" is the best song on the lineup, but they are all great and well-written.

2009: Big Whiskey and the Groo Grux King- Dave Matthews Band

Honestly, I had to look hard for a good album in 2009, but Dave Matthews Band did it again, creating a really fun and memorable piece of musical art. Though no particular song is very memorable from this album, it's very fun to listen to, with a great mix of musical styles and beats. I never got bored listening to "Big Whiskey".

So that's it... my favorite albums from the 2000s. Tune in 10 years for the next list!

For a complete listing of the songs and artists that didn't make the final cut, see the note I am leaving on Facebook.

Favorite Albums of the 2000s, part 1

My K.i.S.A. got me hooked on the Steelehouse Podcast, and I've been listening to their 2-part list of best albums of the '00s. These two guys are pop culture experts, and I can't possibly claim to argue with them.

So, I've put together a list, not of what I think are the best albums made in this decade, but the ones that are my favorites. I did have a few rules:

1- I tried to stay away from "best-of" compilations, soundtracks, and Various Artists albums. I do break this rule a few times, but it's well worth it.

2- Each band can only be mentioned once in the final list. This rule gets broken twice.

3- I must have at least one entry from each year. This is the rule that, in part, made me break Rule 1, simply because a few years just didn't have many good albums to choose from.

4- And this is the biggest thing... I chose ONLY albums where I have listened to the whole album. If I didn't listen to the whole album, it didn't make the list. This may be the reason for the somewhat limited set I had to choose from.

Also, I didn't make this into a Top-Ten list. So don't expect ten entries, and here's the list:

2000: A Day Without Rain- Enya
Nostalgic memories accompany this choice. Remember 2000? It was my junior/senior year of high school and I was taking Physics. Since my Phys teacher loved giving us stuff to do in class instead of just talking at us, we had a lot of working time when he would play music in the classroom. This my my introduction to Enya. Her musical style is unique and she's arguably one of the most talented performers around. She does all her own backup vocals and plays all the instruments on the album (including some odd ones like the harpsichord and the lute).

2001: Amelie- Yann Tiersen

I wasn't introduced to this until several years after it came out. This is a soundtrack, from the movie of the same name, "Amelie", a French film about a young woman who falls in love with a man she's never met when she finds his album of strips from the discards of photo booths. The music is whimsical and classic, with some very Euro edges, and the occasional phonograph-type recording accompanied by sounds of music boxes and children's toys. This album was given to me in a time of deep depression by my French roommate in Kenya, who said, "When I feel sad, I listen to this and it helps me." She was right, and now I love this music.

2001: Josh Groban- Josh Groban

In contrast to the above, I was introduced to Josh Groban almost as soon as he debuted. He was an instant smash hit, and for good reason. With his classical/pop style and his pitch-perfect, almost operatic voice, he deserves all the fame he gets. His lyrics are great and the performances strong. "You're Still You" is my favorite song from this album, with its powerful phrases and keen wording.

2002: Songs About Jane- Maroon 5

When Maroon 5 first showed up on the scene in '02, they hit it big right away with songs like "Harder to Breathe" and "This Love". They continued to pump out the singles from this album with "She Will Be Loved" and "Sunday Morning". However, these are not my favorite songs from the album. As my K.i.S.A. so aptly put it, these are "Songs about sex with Jane". It's true. This is the first album where I remember listening and being actually shocked by the graphic innuendo (sometimes it's not even implied, either). However, it's musically strong and lyrically sound, with poignant phrases that still stick with me. My favorite songs from "Jane" are "Shiver", "Not Coming Home" "Through With You" and the very vulgar "Sweetest Goodbye".

2002: Waiting for My Rocket to Come- Jason Mraz

Mraz arrived on the music scene with his hit "The Remedy" and later somewhat lamented his success in his second album (see "Mr. A-Z" below). While it's a strong song and very fun to learn and sing along with, it's not the best on the album. Mraz is one of the best lyricists out there and has, over the past 7 years, caused me to question my thoughts about beauty and love.

2002: Last One Picked- Superchic[k]

Sophomore albums are tough. Superchic[k], the Christian band which debuted at an Audio Adrenaline concert, does a good job, however, and their second release is even better than their first, "Karaoke Superstars". Every song on this album made it onto my favorites list immediately, and I listened to it over and over without getting tired of it. I love their rock/pop/punk/rap/R&B mixtures. Their production is great, and their lyrics brilliant, like these from "Na Na":
"Oops, I did it again, I see
The person I'm talking about is me
Assuming you're the enemy
In the crosshairs of my verbal Uzi"

2003: The Essential Electric Light Orchestra- ELO

Meet the one "Best-of" album that made it onto my list. If you're not a child of the '70s, you've probably never heard of Electric Light Orchestra, which is a darn shame. Really. They're a symphonic rock band whose goal was to create modern rock and pop songs with classical overtones, and in my opinion they are the best at it. In any one of their songs you might hear synthesizer rhythms alongside violins and cellos. In addition, they hold the record for having the most top 40 hit songs, without ever going #1. Every song on this album is great, with some of the highlights being "Evil Woman", "Do Ya", "Telephone Line", "Strange Magic" and "Don't Bring Me Down". I still maintain that "Mr. Blue Sky" is one of the best songs ever written.

2003: Dierks Bentley- Dierks Bentley

From a list of several country albums from the 00s, the only holdout which made the final cut was this album by a Phoenix native who decided he was Country when he heard Alan Jackson's song "Man to Man". Both this album and the follow-up "Modern Day Drifter" (which almost made my list) went platinum because of the singer's deep voice, rumbling tunes, and fun, thoughtful, and melancholy lyrics. "What Was I Thinkin'?" was the big hit from this album, a song about a guy who fools around with a girl whose dad is well-armed. Better songs, though, include "In Anybody Loving You These Days", "How Am I Doin'", and the blissfully romantic "My Last Name" which makes me want to cry just thinking about it... The best song on this album, though, is "Distant Shore", no contest.

2003: Twentysomething- Jamie Cullum

Jazz is a tough genre. This album and Michael Buble's self-titled debut were vying for the top spot here, but Jamie Cullum won. "Twentysomething" is his third album, with a mix of jazz standards, contemporary tunes, and ballads. His cover of "I Get a Kick Out of You" is better than Sinatra's original version. "What a Difference a Day Made" is melancholy and pensive, and "Everlasting Love" is so good that I could listen to it any time, any day and still love it. Cullum's single from this album, "All At Sea" is a wonderful lament on the value of alone time. However, the best song, by far, is the title track, "Twentysomething". Cullum's lyrics are so true to the plight of his age-group that I can't figure out a better way to express what being in your twenties means, than by quoting him.

"After years of expensive education

A car full of books and anticipation
I'm an expert on Shakespeare and that's a hell of a lot
But the world don't need scholars as much as I thought"

2003: Beautiful Lumps of Coal- Plumb

Plumb is new to me, but it was love at first... er... listen. She's messy. She's real. She's gifted. The song "Real" brought me to tears, simply because it expresses my desire to be found beautiful so well, so perfectly.

"Aren't I lovely

And do you want me cause
I am hungry for something that will make me real
Can you see me and
Do you love me cause
I am desperately searching for something real"

Not to mention, the great song "Boys Don't Cry" is a brilliant lament of our culture's confusion about what masculinity means, and how men can't seem to understand the difference between vulnerability and wussiness.

"You sit there on the couch
Sipping your scotch and ice
You turn the TV on

And tune me out again

So what would you say to me

If you could talk to me
You could ask anything
I wouldn't lie
But you're okay with this
Damaging awkwardness
So I'll just play it safe
And keep it inside
'Cause boys don't cry"

Poetry, Part II

On Monday, July 30, 2007, I wrote the following:

"I've been thinking about women and poetry and romance. Some women just exude poetry. You see them and things start to rhyme.

"How do you become one of those women? No one will ever think of me as poetry; no one will ever write a song about me.

"I am not that gorgeous, I don't have a graceful or romantic air, and I don't move with the wind, dance with the breeze. I'm not very poetic. I'm not even prose. I'm the blurb on the back of a novel. I'm a movie summary. I'm the brown paper around a Starbucks cup.

"Why can't I be graceful, smooth, beautiful, mysterious, and demure?"

Now, it's important to note that only four months earlier, on March 04 of the same year, I had written a short blurb which was essentially the formal confession that I was giving up on a man with whom I was hopelessly in love. I knew then that he could never love the woman I was. In fact, I wrote this:

"My counselor asked me to think about the kind of person I'd want to see opposite me in a marriage.

"Tonight I met that person. Most girls end up marrying a man much like their father- not me. My dad is the polar opposite of what's attractive to me, personality-wise.

"I've known this guy for a while now. Tonight it was made obvious to me- THIS is the type of person I want to spend the rest of my life with.

"The problem is that he won't see me. I'll be a friend at best, and acquaintance more likely. But no matter my zeal for God or my sense of humor or my openness to conversation or my tendency to be REAL, I know the type of girl he'll go for.

"Sweet, more quiet. Not quite as versed in the Scriptures or in apologetics as he is, but devoted to God and with a blind faith that supercedes all intellect. And quietly pretty.

"I'm brusque, opinionated, educated, and probably someone who could challenge him in the deepest way. But banter is good when you don't have to live with the person. I can't change my personality so that this type of guy will see me. I'd be lying to him and, worse, to myself."

I ended that blog by lamenting that no one but God could love me. I didn't even like myself. And certainly no one else could love me.

But I'm with someone now (the same someone I gave up on back in March 2007) who makes me realize what bliss is. I never think of how he could be better to me. I never doubt that he has my best interest at heart. I never need to draw boundaries with him, because he seems to care enough never to get near the line.

He's not perfect. And neither am I. But he makes me laugh-- we laugh together so often that I imagine we'll be doing so for a long while.

I went through a phase after my last breakup where I didn't believe in fairy tales. I didn't believe in them because I thought they were a myth. I thought no one could ever love the way people in the stories do.

But as God healed my heart, I believed more than ever. I can have my Happy Ever After, and I will.

My K.i.S.A. makes me feel like a fairy tale princess. The way he looks at me. The poetry that escapes his lips. His occasional awe. I by no means feel that I deserve this kind of treatment, but now that I have experienced it, I can never go back.

I lamented in March of 2008 that I was feeling unappreciated... or at least that I didn't feel the fireworks that I thought I should at the beginning of a new relationship. Now, there are fireworks. That jittery feeling in my stomach that I didn't have before is there now. And while there has been no writing across the sky, there may as well have been.

And my K.i.S.A. even said back in March 2008 that he wants always to be a romantic idealist. I never thought that I would be the object of that very idealism.

I'm just a regular girl living out the life God set before me.

But he makes me feel like poetry.

Holy Night

One thing is for certain-- that night in Bethlehem was anything but silent. Crowded streets, inns full, families laying down mats wherever they could find room. The city was so packed that people started renting out barn space. Mary and Joseph, the newlywed couple on what may be the strangest honeymoon in history, found themselves living in a cave, crammed in between cows and donkeys.

It was the opposite of silent.

This was the night that goes down in history as tranquil, still, calm. This was the night that God, in the form of a squalling infant, came to live with us. He came to a barn, to be tended by the night-watch shepherds, the lowest guys on the career totem pole. The equivalent of those people that work the night shift at Jack in the Box. The Highest condescended to the Lowest place. Backwater Bethlehem, in forgotten Judah. Four hundred years after the last prophet came, heralding the arrival of the Chosen One who would deliver the people, He came. Quietly, without trumpet-sound. Without royal announcements. Without great celebration.

Except.

Except for the entire assembly of angels burning up the night sky. Except for the giant supernova-like star brighter than the moonlight casting shadows. Except for the boisterous shepherds running down the streets shouting the news that the Messiah was here.

How could anyone have slept through all this? All of Bethlehem must have been up wondering what the ruckus was about. They must have thought the world had gone crazy. And it had.

At that moment, something new began. A new era started. New life was possible.

And still is.

From the movie "Never Been Kissed"

JOSIE
When I finally get kissed, I'll
know.

Anita and Cynthia trade looks.

ANITA
Okay. If you've never kissed a
guy, we got bigger problems than
the underwear.

JOSIE
I've kissed guys. I've just never
kissed a guy. Felt that thing--

CYNTHIA
"That thing"? Is that what you
kids are calling it these days?

JOSIE
That thing. That moment. You kiss
someone and it's like the world
around you gets all hazy and the
only thing in focus is you and
this other person and you know
that one person is the person you're
meant to be kissing for the rest
of your life. And for that one
moment you've been given this
amazing gift and you want to laugh
and cry at the same time because
you're so lucky you found it, and
so scared that it will all go away.

Anita and Cynthia take this in.

CYNTHIA
Damn, girl. You are a writer.

Training Up Children in the Way They Should Go

So the school where I work recently expelled a student for some rather inappropriate behavior. They'd been working with him for months, but he was belligerent, and so he had to go. I'm pretty sad about it-- he was one of the more respectful kids in his grade.

When announcing the occurrence to the student body, the Headmaster took the opportunity to encourage the students to have a devotional time with God every day. He made it a matter of pride, saying that people who do not spend time with God on a daily basis are essentially saying that God matters to them only some of the time, that they only need God occasionally.

My generation seems to be abnormally hyperactive and absent-minded. In fact, I don't think I know anybody in my age group who can say that they actually do a “devotional” time every single day of the week.

And the thing is, most of us were never taught how to do that. We were always told that we had to do it, but never shown HOW. Which makes things difficult. We hear people talking about how God tells them things, how they grow closer to God through that time, how He reveals things in the Bible...

...but that doesn't always happen to us. Some of us go away from reading and praying feeling drier than ever. Like we just spent half an hour talking to a wall.

But now I'm wondering: can you teach your kids how to do a devotional time? Can you train them in it like you train them to clean their room or use the bathroom?

Can you say, “You can go outside after you've made your bed and read your Bible”?

Can you make it a chore? Should you?

At what age should kids start having their own devo time apart from the family time? Should parents help them out, or make sure they're “doing it right” as if it were multiplication tables?

I've never heard of anyone doing this with their kids. Are some people just more attuned to the spiritual disciplines than others? Are some of us doomed never to experience God on that level?

And then, what do we teach our kids?

How do we guide them in the right way? Should we have our individual devo time in their presence? Teach them that this time is sacred?

And HOW do we do this? How can we be good, godly parents?

There really should be a manual on this...

A letter from me.

Dear every Christian I've ever known,

I suppose the only way I can start this letter is with an apology. I have not been a good person.

I imagine that this is really a very silly thing to say, since no one is good, except God. But as Christians, we really ought to try... and I haven't always been trying. Which is quite ridiculous, really, since I've been a Christian for over 20 years. It does get tired, though, always trying to be something that you can never be. Not on your own, that is. And not without considerable maturity, which is where I find myself sincerely lacking.

See, the thing is, most of the time I don't like you very much. In fact, I've downright sneered at you sometimes. And I'm sorry.

We're such fickle beings, aren't we? So hard to please. God welcomes us into His family, and then we start complaining about our brothers and sisters. We start bickering, competing, arguing. So many times I've seen the different denominations argue for so long that they lose all their points and just revert to a spiritual equivalent of sticking your finger in someone's face and chanting, “I'm not touching you!”

Sometimes you walk past me, and I roll my eyes behind your back. Sometimes you say something to me, and I would rather walk away than make conversation. I'm an elitist snob. And I don't love you the way Jesus tells me I should.

Really, I should be overjoyed that you are in the club with me. That you are one of the chosen. And even though we might have very little in common, we are joined by the strongest bond in the universe: the bond of our salvation.

And sure, God's working on you, too. He's certainly working on me. So why do I expect you to be perfect? Why do I hold you accountable for all the things I can't even achieve myself? Why do I judge you so harshly?

I wish I knew how to make it up to you. I wish I could undo all those times when I have had the wrong attitude about you. But I can't.

So for now, please accept my apology. I will try to do better in the future. I am sure that I will fail, and I'm sure that sometimes I'll drive you as crazy as you drive me. But the answer is not simply to stay away from each other. Because if I love God, then I will also love the things that He loves. And God not only loves, but gave Himself up for the Church.

So, how much more should I do the same?

You and I, dear Christian, will not always get along. We will have our spats, our debates, our complaints. But I rejoice to think of seeing you in Heaven, when we are both in our perfected form. I can't wait to spend eternity getting to know you, and learning to love you as God does.

Because, after all, He loves me too.

Until then,

Kate

Bread and Truth

In light of the great dressing-down I got just this morning (i.e. comments my K.i.S.A. left on my last blog post), I've been wondering about something.

See, I love philosophy. I wish I understood it as well as he does, or at least just a little better. I was going to major in philosophy in college, but ended up majoring in a hard science. And maybe that's where I should stay. Maybe I should avoid the esoteric, the metaphysical, and just stick to what I know. I know cells. I know the laws of nature. I know nutrition. Maybe I should leave the outside-the-box thinking to the liberal arts majors.

The box, after all, is not so bad. It's a nice box, and comfortable. There's plenty in the box to study, and lots that we don't understand.

But here's the thing: the more we study the box, the more we learn about it, the more we realize that everything inside it can be explained only by gazing outside.

I am a star-gazer. I am a dreamer. I love to wonder about things. And it frightens me to think that everything might have a rational explanation. I want some things to be inexplicable. It helps me maintain my sense of wonder. When this world becomes a series of equations and logical streams, it loses some of its luster for me.

Over the millenia, philosophers have been opining about the "big" questions. Where do we come from? Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? What happens after we die? Of course these questions have specific answers. Depending on your worldview (i.e. religion), the answers might vary, but when it comes down to it, only one system of thought can be right.

But today we have all these different ideologies which can be applied in different ways. People can use different worldviews with different logical trains to arrive at the same destination. One person's path to God may be paved with drugs, jail, and forgiveness. Another's can be fraught with philosophical debate, agnosticism, and assurance. Yet someone else may come to God via love, mercy, and kindness. But everyone who will come to God eventually does, regardless of the path they take.

As I try to find my own way in my life, as I take steps of faith lit only by a small lamp, I wonder if it's necessary for me to ascribe to any particular philosophy.

Do I have to choose to be a modernist or a post-modernist? Must I select an ethical system? Must I ascribe to a certain denomination's interpretation of Biblical truth?

Or, can I look at the world and say, "This is what seems to be true"? If it aligns with a certain system already in place, that's great. But do I really have to investigate the systems set forth? Or can I find what I believe for myself?

I can go to the grocery store and look at all the different types of bread. I can investigate the ingredients, compare prices, figure out which one is the best deal. I can even choose one at random, and take it home to try it.

Or, I can go home and make my own bread, from scratch. And that bread which I make will probably be very similar to one or two loaves that I saw in the store. It will be unique, but it will still be bread of a particular type. And I will be the more proud of it, because I have made it myself. And it will taste better to me, because it's homemade.

I realize that you can't do this with Truth. That is absolute. But can you do it with worldviews? Must I choose one that has already been set in place? Must I select a pre-fabricated label to put on my shirt stating "This is who I am"?

Or can I be unique? Can I be homemade?

Or should I stay away from bread and just stick to making cookies?

You're a Post-Modernist.

I know it's pretty unpopular to be post-modern in the Church today. In fact, C.S. Lewis was vehemently anti-post-modern. He liked modernism just fine, thanks. I agree with Lewis on most of his statements. But there's a huge gap between what post-modernism actually is, and what most people think of.

You're probably thinking of existentialism, if you know your philosophy, and of catch-phrases like "moral relativism" and "no absolute truth" and "creating your own reality". But this is not the post-modernism that Kierkegaard so painfully birthed. This is not the existentialism that he fathered.

So, here's the transcript of a chat I had with my mother back in May. It started with her asking me to help with a sermon she was writing on the validity of Scripture in today's world. "Nashorn777" is my mom.

nashorn777: this is what I have so far: The Relevancy of Scripture in our day

Is the Bible still relevant in the 21st century?

All scripture is God-breathed
We need it to feed our souls, to grow, to learn about God
He commands us to study it
It speaks to the human soul, which hasn’t changed at all
It is living, active, a two-edged sword
It is historically relevant, archaelologically sound
Final authority for all matters of faith and practice
God doesn’t change, neither does His word
It is a moral compass in a post-modern amoral world
me: I think the premise needs work
also, what's wrong with being post-modern?
post-modernism is not the opposite of moral absolutism.
nashorn777: lol
I know. it's the anything goes if it feels right to you thing
me: that is not post-modernism
nashorn777: this was just off the cuff
?
me: that is misapplication of existential teachings
which were fathered by Kierkegaard, who was a Christian, if you remember.
nashorn777: okay, enlighten me , oh wise one
me: existentialism is a wonderful philosophy. It says that I am allowed to have an opinion. that "my" say matters
me: but it also allows "me" to be wrong
me: the problem is the leap in logic.
in the pre-existentialist era, only the statements of the elect (the educated, the church, etc.) mattered. And even then, they were rarely single persons expressing opinions, but rather formalized statements of beliefs to guide the people
existentialism states, however, that the layperson's opinion matters equally as much as the consensus.
That a single individual CAN change common thought
however, post-modernism does NOT preclude that all ideas/opinions are equally valid
the consensus can be correct, and the individual wrong,
or the individual right and the people wrong
or both can be equally right or wrong
This is the idea that most things can not be "either/or" but must needs be "both/and"
nashorn777: must needs be?
me: however the misapplication of this is the leap of logic that if two ideas can be equally close to being right, that there is no definite right at all
sorry
got a little ahead of myself
nashorn777: this excites you, eh?
me: see, but existentialism holds that there IS an absolute right and wrong, and that certain ideas get closer to one, etc.
how'd you know?
nashorn777: you're gushing
me: I am just tired of the parental generation knocking post-modernism when it is the ideology that gave people equal rights
and all that
nashorn777: okay, down girl, down.
me: It's like what Lewis says-- you cannot reason away God, because God gave you that reason to begin with
sorry
nashorn777: but people don't have equal rights
me: aye, there's the rub.
because poor post-modern thought got polluted on the way to the voting booth
nashorn777: okay. but how does it relate to the relevancy of Scripture
me: without post-modern thought, we would never be able to say "This is what this passage means to me"
nor would we be able to apply it to our daily lives unless we encountered the actual occurences of the commands given
there would be no application of concepts, only concrete statements
which is what gets people into trouble
can I go a little bit further in history?
nashorn777: so you're saying that post-modern thought allowed the scriptures to be applied to our daily lives? God couldn't do that?
me: Don't you think God uses philosophies?
the thing is that post-modern is really a misnomer.
nashorn777: yes, but don't you think God wanted to apply His word to believers' lives before post-modern thought came around?
me: ah!
that's why we need a history lesson
nashorn777: okay, hit me
me: It was 'modern' thought that actually killed application to Scripture
If you read the writings of some of the early church fathers, you find a great deal of personal application to their lives. Augustine, especially, does this a lot. The onset of the Renaissance, however, was the death of personal application
The Renaissance ("Enlightement"-- a horrible term for this period of spiritual darkness) got people thinking in the following manner:
"This stuff was written by men hundreds of years ago. I don't deal with these issues. This can't possibly have anything to do with me"
Remember that the Enlightenment was also the beginning of philosophers disproving the existence of God.
or rather, disproving his relevance to the world today. It was the age of Deism-- the divine watchmaker
nashorn777: ah. yes I remember. Enlightened to be ignorant
me: right
This also gave the church a great deal of power, and this is where we start seeing real church oppression
the middle ages was nothing
because now the CHURCH directs common thought, not the Bible
So when we reasoned God away, we lost application
nashorn777: so the church wanted to reason God away?
me: well out of the way, anyway
I don't think they did it on purpose
well, the People didn't
Someone else did
Then comes Kierkegaard along and says "Wait a minute, I can think on my own!"
and if I can have my own thoughts and I believe in God and God's word, then I can take those things which are stated in Scripture and they become relevant to me today
So really, it was Modern thought that even raised the question of Scripture's relevance
and it is Modern thought which causes us to "reason" away our spirituality
have I done an OK job here?
I think post-modernism, properly applied, can be a great tool for revival.
nashorn777: okay, so post-modernism allows us to throw modern thought out the window.
me: well, yes
sort of
nashorn777: it is not, as assumed by many, the extreme extension of modern thought, but its correction?
me: the beauty of post-modernism is that we get to pick and choose
precisely
So valuable things that we got from modernism (like the scientific method) can be kept, but other things can be discarded as irrelevant
however, we never want to discard anything entirely, because it can be relevant in some instances (we're back to "both/and"
)
nashorn777: I get the jist
okay, then rephrase my premise
me: it's not your premise
YOUR premise, that is
it's the fact that we have to ask the question at all
that is a modernist question
All scripture is from God
We need it to feed our souls, to grow, to learn about God
It speaks to the human soul, which is in a constant state of depravity
It is living and active
It is historically relevant and archaelologically sound
It should be our final authority for all matters of faith and practice
God doesn’t change, neither does His word
It is a moral compass in a fallen world
nashorn777: sanks
me: it's all about the doctrine of the two ages
we live in "this world" and the Bible teaches us how to live beyond this world in the "world to come"

nashorn777: now yousa talking my language

Baudelaire's Paradox

When two Romantics enter into a form of courtship, a healthy balance can be achieved in their relationship. Since they both ascribe to the Romantic ideas of love, honor, dignity, chastity, and respect, they find that some specific boundaries are not even necessary, since they each realize that with these ideals they can follow more general guidelines and not fall into the traps that legalism can set for them.

However, when Romantics make mistakes, or cross lines previously undefined, they can err on the side of pragmatism. They attempt to set lines everywhere, and remain safely therein. But this, also, is legalism. It makes the Romantic uncomfortable. It challenges his ideas of right and wrong. The Romantic is free in his acknowledgment that some Biblically unaddressed issues are gray areas to be defined by culture. However, if culture tends toward unbiblical mores, the Romantic must forge his own path, especially since cultural norms are being redefined by ever-more-progressive thought.

So, the Romantic must investigate the Scriptural principles to which he has pledged his allegiance, and forthwith make his own judgments about where lines are to be set. Or reset. Or moved altogether.

And the beauty of the Romantic is in that he realizes that the lines are not standardized. Nor must they stay once they are set. They are mobile, fluid. For although there are definite “do not enter” regions, the areas surrounding those are gray indeed. What is acceptable for one might be sin to another. And inversely, what is verboten in one context is allowable and even encouraged in others.

But the Romantic is also attuned to the voice of God, and is frequently aware of the level of acceptability in his actions-- perhaps not in the moment, but definitely later when the Spirit convicts him of his sin and sets him again on the straight way. Therefore, being always cautious to bend to God's will, the Romantic becomes more free in his actions than those bound by specific rules. And since he can move the lines when he judges is right, acceptable, or necessary, he also is not more cautious than he must be.

However, with two Romantics in a relationship, things can become more complicated. Both agree that certain aspects of their relationship should be allowed to develop naturally and not be forced. But this idealism can sometimes cause them to shy away from taking action, since they are waiting for the perfect moment. And they both have imagined already what that perfect moment will be. So they wait, and wait, and wait, ever seeking that ideal time.

The Romantic can often feel disappointed that this world does not live up to its potential. This world is not the world of their dreams. It is not the realm of ideal forms. So sometimes, action must be taken. The perfect moment must be made, not discovered. Is it less romantic, then, for the moment sought to be contrived? Or is it more romantic, knowing that one party labored to create that small span of time in which they can live out, if only for brief seconds, their dreams?

Lyrics and Music

Every once in a while, I pull out my songbook and play through some of the chords I've printed out over the years. I love playing the guitar, and I'm glad that I took the time to take a class and really learn. I'm not great, but I can play passably. Enough to lead worship on occasion.

This last time, about a week ago, I ran across a song I wrote a few years back. It's a breakup song, written when I was really angry with Andrew for the way he treated me. I played it then, sounding a little like The Cure. It was an angry punk rock kind of a song. An "I'm glad I'm rid of you" song.

But I never wrote down any chords for it, so every time I play it, it sounds different. This time, I played it in a minor key, and it was sad. An "I'm sorry you felt that you had to lie" song. It lamented the lack of honesty I felt in that relationship. And being a recovering liar myself, I have to keep controlling the lies I tell.

Now that I'm in a relationship that is going on a good path, I turn back to this song and think, I'm really thankful for what I learned there, but I've moved on. And thank God that I have, because that was a huge mess. So here it is, my versatile song. Imagine it sung however you please

Precious Lies

You've told me that you love me

I've heard it all before

But this time it seems empty

And now I need something more.

You say that I'm your everything

You know that's just not true

It's more than words of poetry

That brought me here to you.

Don't you know that I can see right through you?

Your honesty, it cuts me like a knife.

Cause I know there's no genuineness in you

So this won't be the end of my life.

Your hardest tries

Have no disguise

You compromise

With all your precious lies.

Even though you mean it now

That will change all too soon

Your lies are all you can cling to

When I won't give in to you.

No matter how you say it

It comes as no suprise

I won't be just a victim

To all your precious lies

Don't you know that I can see right through you?

Your honesty, it cuts me like a knife.

Cause I know there's no genuineness in you

So this won't be the end of my life.

Your hardest tries

Have no disguise

You compromise

With all your precious lies.

Not as bad as I seem.

It's 3:00 A.M. (I must be lonely)

I dumped my things on the floor, changed into the t-shirt, sweats, and thermal socks that serve as my pajamas until I can afford real ones. I wiped the dark makeup off my eyes, washed my face, brushed my teeth, and climbed into bed (the right side), with the nightstand light on. I'm sitting here, laptop on my... er... lap, while I wait for my body to wind down enough to let me sleep.

Driving up to LA tonight, we three girls got to talking about what girls always seem to end up talking about-- boys. A few things were said that stuck with me, and that I'm going to toss around in my head to see what my opinions are.

On the way home, I realized that this Cranberries concert was the first secular concert I've attended (with the exceptions of Herman's Hermits and Maroon V, both at the SD County Fair). When that thought came to mind, I realized with blinding clarity that, as worldly as I seem to be ("worldly" meaning "exposed to the outside world and not socially awkward"), I really have very little real life experience.

Never been to a concert. Never been "clubbing". Only ever kissed one person (that brief episode in high school really shouldn't count) seriously. Never made out. Never gotten "caught" doing something I shouldn't have.

All these things that people in the world normally do, I have never done. And I'm okay with that.

I have plenty of other experiences. And I learn from my mistakes. I rarely make the same mistake twice. I learn from others' mistakes, too. Saves me the trouble of having to make them all myself.

So, kissing for instance. Some of my friends insist on kissing in a relationship, because skill in that area is important to them. That's cool. I, however, have little to no experience in the field. If I only ever kiss one person for the rest of my life, I'm fine with that. And honestly, I won't know the difference since I have no comparison sample.

But I, like Henry Wotton, pretend to be more worldly than I am. I talk about love and life and sex and marriage and politics as if I know something. As if I have some deep wisdom or insight to impart.

But really, I have about as much insight as a blind man describing a sunset.