Blessed Dreamers and Their Dreams

I have not felt quite myself for about a month now. My sin nature has reared its head in numerous ugly ways. But this is the post I ought to have written right after the PHC graduation, when I first thought of it. It is about why I still appreciate Dr. Farris so much, despite the faults that many have been illuminating lately, and why I love PHC.

The United States of America are a blessed dream - one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This "America" is an ideal that does not exist. But it is not "just" an ideal. It is a group of sinful people unified for better or worse under that banner of hope. I love "America," the form of a free country. I would sacrifice for that ideal, despite its current imperfect incarnation.

The more I learn of American history, the more I see how imperfections were imbedded in it from the start. The movie The Patriot shows this well by the black man who fights for freedom - his country's and his own. At one point another character tells him something like, "We're forming a new country with a new vision. Perhaps we'll be able to change some other things as well." He means slavery. But as we know, our country divided in a bloody Civil War over that very issue in the 1860s. And many other things haven't gone as planned. Nevertheless, the original blessed dream is sound, and those of us who know it still struggle for it. America has never achieved it yet, but it would be nowhere without it.

PHC is also a blessed dream. It is an attempt to find the perfect balance between Pensacola and Harvard. This is our motto: "For Christ and for liberty." Respectively, if you will, special and general revelation. For us, our little motto is still alive. It means something.

We have now had our first civil war, of sorts. Was the South justified in seceding from the Union because the North was violating its rights? Maybe the North wanted to protect the Union from the perceived threat of slavery, which would cause ideological damage. Then again, perhaps a better way to preserve the Union would have been to let the perceived threat work its way out over time, since Americans were all supposed to be brothers. Who knows, really? The Civil War happened, and it can never be undone. So it is with PHC. All we can do is right ourselves and head doggedly forward again.

I love PHC for its blessed dream and for its audacity. I think it is always the way of things in this fallen world that significant change makes an ideal seem farther away than ever before. On the other hand, maybe the bright light of a precious new thought makes the goal seem closer at the start than it really is. At any rate, like America, we truck along. I would rather live in this country than anywhere else. I would rather attend PHC for undergraduate study than anywhere else.

I appreciate Dr. Farris because he saw the dream and has attempted to communicate it to so many others. I respect him for his vision. One way or another, I suspect I will be trying to help institute it for life. He was the right man for the right time; nobody else could have pulled it all together. Yes, he is a flawed human being. But you know what? I suspect that my own sin areas are very similar to his. No matter what happens, I will never forget what he has done for so many people.

This is why I hope for PHC and for America both. Their dreams are sound, even if the reality is not. Despite a post I made a few days ago, the thought of being at PHC this next year excites me. A lot is going to happen. I expect to learn, change, and grow along with the college. God help me and it. We both need it.  ¶ 11:30 AM (4) comments

 

De Amore

Love is a tricky topic for women these days, I think, because we ladies need it so much to be happy. It is a vulnerability, a weakness. This is a tough world, and so we women are taught to be tough. So even among ourselves we don't much talk about "love." We talk about "relationships" or "marriage," thus distancing ourselves a little bit.

I know I'm scared to talk about love. For various reasons, I've always had to be tough. I've grown up a sort of secondary mama in our house. Possibly for this reason, my sisters and I are very dissimilar. They had crushes right and left (to my disgust) from early teen-hood on. I had one very quiet and secret little crush on Han Solo (lol) at age 13, and then I didn't have any others until age 17. There was no use in it, and who needed boys anyway? Besides, I was quite sure I was hideous, so who would like me in return? It was much simpler not to have crushes at all.

For us women, it is essential to know that we are pretty. You men may look at a lovely woman and think that it is obvious she is gorgeous. But does she know it? Quite possibly not. We always need to be reminded from day to day. This is why we ladies are always complimenting each other. It gives us that little reassurance and makes us happy. When a woman thinks she is not beautiful, it is easier not to make an effort. If she makes an effort and is still not beautiful, that would render her completely vulnerable to hopelessness. If she doesn't try, perhaps she could be beautiful if she did. This is why loved women often become more beautiful. They have the security to try.

Anyway, I think that every woman needs to well and truly fall in love at least once. The reason is that the Bible writes a lot about love, but it is very difficult to understand it rationally. The best way to love God, I think, is to feel strong emotions for other human beings and to realize that you should feel that way for God as well. When people say that love makes the world go 'round, it is true. All of our lives are an exploration in how better to love God and man. It is impossible to love God truly without showing it to other humans, and any true human love has more than a smattering of the holy about it.

I don't know right now how deep human love can grow. I've had a funny feeling for a while that I will be 27 years old before I am married. To tell the truth, I don't know whether this impression pleases or saddens me. Love brings with it responsibilities of service and respect, and I sense my own immature, rebellious spirit. If I fell in love, I would want to do it properly. So I am trusting God to write my story for me. He has a far better imagination than I do, after all.

Honestly, what I want is to serve a man with all my heart. I have goals of my own, which I would be tempted to let overwhelm a husband's unless he was going somewhere concrete. There aren't many guys my age heading anywhere with purpose. I don't want to lead. I want to follow.

So I don't want so much out of life. I want to write a few things and I want to follow a man who is traveling somewhere interesting and who loves me. :D Ya, I think that 27 is a good age for marriage.  ¶ 6:58 AM (1) comments

  As a final post for the day, I want to say that God gives me what I need in awfully strange ways sometimes. When I wrote the complaining post, I thought I had a scholarship for the upcoming year to cover 80% of tuition. Now it seems I probably don't. Wow. That certainly puts things into perspective. Don't get me wrong. By hook or by crook, one way or another, I'm coming for my final year. But now I gotta earn it, like everyone else. :) :) I can only assume this is because of my bad attitude and because I asked God to put some interest into my summer. Believe me, now I'm interested!

Other ways he's answered prayer lately have been just as fascinating. I was finding it hard to get back into exercise, so I asked God to give me back my passion for fitness. Last evening I went to play pickup Frisbee and found I was the worst one there. Obviously so. I burned with humiliation for hours afterwards, but it was just what I needed. I have my fitness goal - to beat out that one really fast woman. *shark grin* And I found some perspective. Why was I so humiliated at being worst when it was only my second Frisbee game since I could hardly walk?? I was running!! I'd call that progress, wouldn't you?

Today, after the last post, I asked God to put my emotions back to normal. The very instant the last word left my mouth, I burst out crying for no reason at all. Then I laughed at the weirdness of it in the middle of crying. Then I cried some more. I certainly hope that is not my normal emotional state! heh

So as of now my bad mood has turned into a good mood. All it took was a little adversity. Fancy that!  ¶ 6:19 PM (1) comments

  Addendum to the previous: I am a bit shocked at myself for this rant. I think I am all up-and-down confused right now. I'm not myself, or at least I am rather puzzled as to who "myself" is and what her priorities should be in life. I know what it is! My emotions are numb. :) Anyway, take the previous post with a grain of salt.  ¶ 2:03 PM (0) comments

 

A Fifth Year

I'm not used to eight months without classes. Academically, this time of independent study has been to my soul like water to my body. I must admit that I had grown quite tired of taking a lot of classes I did not want, just because they were there. Looking back at my PHC career, I find it remarkable that I have earned an A or an A- in every class that I would have chosen voluntarily to take. Then there is a jump, and I have Bs or B-minuses in the rest. (Well no, I can't cop out this way. I can think of at least three or four classes that I wanted very much to take and learn and yet nevertheless ended up as Bs. And I still don't have that many Bs in proportion to the rest, so there aren't many leftover to which to apply this sweeping generalization.) It's not that I didn't work hard in the classes I didn't want. I did. It's just that my brain refuses to remember when it doesn't see the point of the information.

I despise college life for the same reason. It is nothing like real life. A bunch of people of approximately the same age cram into similar rooms, follow artificial community standards, and form terrible sleeping habits. There is no privacy or solitude available in one's erstwhile "home." Then there are tests. For some classes they serve a purpose by forcing one to sort disconnected data into rememberable categories. But in Lit classes, for example, they are beyond frustrating! Dr. H. has to test us now, and he doesn't even want to. He himself knows how hard and pointless it is to try to remember all the little details of a book.

(I am editing, but I will leave this part because it's true. The taming hurts, even if it has been incredibly wonderful for me in many ways.) My greatest pain at PHC is being continually reined in. I was passionate and intense about so many things before PHC. Yet everyone keeps wanting to tame me. I naturally incline to humorous, off-the-wall stories, but I was informed by upperclass Lit majors that they were not art. They would not publish humor in their literary journal. Somewhere along the line I lost a great deal of my imagination. I feel its loss, and it saddens me.
I was very competitive before PHC, and I had gotten quite good at TKD. When I came to PHC and started playing Frisbee, I found that guys wouldn't pass to me. In fact, they didn't seem to think I was allowed to compete. Slowly, through much frustration, I adopted a particular form of playing. If I quietly played a defensive game and pretended I didn't want the frisbee after all, I wouldn't be hurt when nobody threw to me. But this is wrong! I am trying to play Frisbee with the St. Louis league, and these passive habits keep cropping up. I have the fire inside, but I am afraid to let it out any more. This hurts! (And I'm pretty sure this part isn't good.)
I used to be passionate about literature. I love it; I feel it; it is to me a special sort of music. I understand it. But there is absolutely no incentive in PHC's lit classes to do all the reading and try to understand the works at hand. If you read deeply and see dozens of things, nobody else wants to talk about them in class. On any given day, only a third of the students will have done the reading in a lit class. All Dr. H. will see is that you are talking a lot and the others aren't. Fairly soon, he will make you stop. Then everyone else invents comments. Or even more likely, the entire class will be eager to bypass the unread reading altogether, and everyone will head off on a worldviews tangent. It is like having a student who desperately wants to learn violin, but there is only one teacher in her vicinity. This teacher continually gets distracted from actually teaching the violin in order to explain the beauties of music and where it comes from. Very nice, but does the student learn how to play? Probably not. (On the other hand, I have learned so many things that I would never have thought of on my own. I admire Dr. H. for a great many things.)

So then, what do I have for the Fall? Four classes: Economics for the Citizen, American Lit, Drama & Film, and History of Islam. Besides these, three last credits of Lit DRW and a three-credit directed study of some sort for History. I want to learn Economics because I know a bit about the Austrian school already from ISI and I want to know more. Since I took AP Economics in high school I feel somewhat prepared, even if it was Keynesian economics. Actually, I want to learn the subject matter of all my classes. But I confess that I am wary of the two Dr. H. classes. I expect that I will find them difficult for the reasons above, even if not for the subject matter. (Actually, I am anticipating them as a chance to learn more than mere scholastics. Why should I fear them because they will be difficult for me?) :)

I will be rooming randomly my fifth year. I would like to have a single-person room, but that probably won't happen.

I would like to detach from PHC life in general, but I have a feeling that I ought to get involved. I can't not be involved. I am deeply interested in the Honor Code, for example. It needs an enforcement mechanism that is simple and elegant. Also, the student gov't website needs improvement. Besides this, who knows how many unforeseen events will arise from a healing college? I need to get back into Student Senate.

I feel like I've moved on already to job, church, and personal studies. Now I'm going back into an artificial environment in 2.5 months. But if I have to, at least I will live there with friends.  ¶ 6:47 AM (2) comments

 

Death

Of all topics to pick, why death? I suppose I was just thinking about it. It's a gorgeous, hot summer day, and I'm staring at the sunny blue sky through the window. But somehow my thoughts tripped over to this most serious of topics.

It all began with the plate of spaghetti on the counter. That is to say, it had once been a plate of spaghetti. I can only surmise that someone was cleaning out the refrigerator and forgot to throw away a plate of remains. By the time I found it and scraped it at arm's length into the kitchen trash with face averted it had transformed into a pile of pungent goo. Decomposition. Death of healthy molecules.

I didn't think of the putrescent plate again until now, when for some reason I was thinking about hunting. I have never gone hunting or even fired a gun in my life, so I'm not completely sure why this topic rose to mind. Ever since a conversation I had with Will G. a while back, I've thought about it every now and then. Hunting creates a problem for my mind. The problem is this: Could I kill an animal?

I don't know. Death is sad. Decomposition is disgusting. The reason for this is that neither should exist in a perfect world. There is something fundamentally wrong about death and decomposition both. Nonetheless, animals must die. I eat the results of their death every day, and I have no qualms about doing so. So if they have to die, could I not kill them? Is it not hypocrisy to be too fastidious to kill an animal myself and yet to expect others to do it for me?

I think if I had to I could, but I would never take pleasure in death.

It seems to me that hunting is something different, however. Hunting nowadays is not just procuring food, but is proving to oneself that one could procure food if needed. In this case the kill is necessary because it is the proof. In hunting, if one takes pleasure in a kill, it is because one is pleasuring in one's own abilities. I don't think that is bloodthirsty, so long as one remembers what one is doing.

But I also think that it is part of the inherent seriousness of death that shows us our own value as human beings. We have the right to kill all other things except each other. Yet sometimes even that is necessary, to prevent other humans killing us or the ones we love.

I think that I could kill even another human being if necessary. I hope that it will never be.  ¶ 10:14 AM (1) comments

 

Sunburn

In retrospect, it probably wasn't the smartest idea to spend six hours at poolside in my swimsuit today. I always tell everyone that I don't sunburn. Normally, I don't. I almost have to try to do it. However, I guess that spending six hours in the sun on the first day the neighborhood pool opens qualifies as trying.

Sunburn is an interesting sensation. It feels like I am applying a heating pad to my entire back and shoulders. Now, that would be a rather stupid thing to do, so therefore this is one of very few times that I have experienced this unique feeling. When was the last time?

Oh, right. Last summer, the first day the pool opened. :P And on that note, I'm gonna go read a book.  ¶ 3:59 PM (1) comments

 

On Discipline

It may come as a surprise to some of you to hear that I lack discipline. I know that I was surprised to note this in myself yesterday when I tried to figure out how to spend my evening. I find myself in the same dilemma now. The problem is not that I don't want to do anything. The problem is that I want to do too many things. For example, various entertaining and/or useful ways I could spend my evening include:

- Reading Bible
- Exercising methodically and scientifically at the gym again (I went yesternight)
- Playing tennis with my mom
- Writing more of one of my stories
- Watching the second half of Mansfield Park
- Reading a Walt Morey book
- Playing tinwhistle
- Scanning a few of my photos from graduation and posting them to my blog
- Going for a walk
- Calling Christy
- Writing snail mail
- Replying to emails
- Going to the library to pick up books for lit project
- Investigating more to find a mentor for lit project
- Practicing my juggling

Right now I haven't the slightest idea what to do. A number of these should get done at some point for sure. The problem is that all the things I ought to do I don't want to do. This is where my lack of discipline surfaces. Usually I approach my summer by starting a new notebook and writing down goals. Usually, these include losing weight. The problem is that I know I'll be back at school in three months. Even if I get into great physical shape, my body will deteriorate at PHC unless I find some way to keep myself accountable. I've started every school year so far with great intentions and lost them all as the fall semester progressed and became busier. Similarly with writing letters and emails. I've fallen out of contact with people so many times that it almost seems doomed to failure.

I think I am scared to risk setting goals for fear of not achieving them. That is ridiculous! *slaps self in head* So what if it hurts more to exercise right now and I can hardly do anything? So what if I haven't written fiction for weeks? Good grief, I'm 22 years old! Lots of life ahead.

So I'm going to set some summer goals publicly. Some of these will mean nothing to many of you. At some you will smile. That's all right. You may.

(1) I will reread at least the New Testament and Isaiah and Jeremiah.
(2) I will be able to run at least a mile again and to do at least 35 pushups at one time.
(3) I will finish my summer practicum in a timely fashion.
(4) I will write at least four nice, long personal emails or letters each week.
(5) I will complete at least 100 catches with my 5-ball cascade, will learn how to do a lefthand shower with three balls, and will learn how to juggle four clubs.
(6) I will do something fun with my little siblings every week.
(7) I will practice tinwhistle at least one evening a week.
(8) I will lose ten pounds of fat.

I feel better now. That should get me going. Thank you for putting up with me.  ¶ 3:48 PM (1) comments

 

Worry beads

I have nervous fingers. They are always fidgeting - scratching at something, or damaging my cuticles beyond repair. So my mother has bought me a string of black worry beads. I like them. I like them a lot. They make my hands happy. Eight heavy black beads hang on a sturdy chain, interspersed with thirteen round metallic beads. The top of the chain is anchored to a small dog tag that bears the inscription "MINOS IMPORTED FOODS." However, my worry beads are not a food, which makes me wonder. I guess that Minos, whoever he is, branches out into side areas as well. I wonder if he sells daggers? I wouldn't mind a little dagger to store in the bottom of my purse and forget until I go through airport security, at which point I am reminded by the man at the screen over the conveyor belt whose eyes widen as he notices the distinct outline of a sharp object discreetly hidden below the checkbooks, Kleenex, and gum packets. Then, as I am hauled away and frisked, I can shout, "It's all Minos's fault!"

But seriously, I like my worry beads. My sister, Mercy, also has a set. Hers are blue. She also possesses nervous fingers, although she does not destroy her cuticles. Rather, she shreds paper towels. Our Mercy must always sit near a trash can, or a small pile of paper pieces collects, as though a hamster has been about.

I think the moral of this post is this: ... ...

Yes. You read correctly. There is no moral, only simple pleasure. I think that is enough.  ¶ 12:07 PM (0) comments

 

Reply from Dr. C. re: my post on general & special revelation

Before I paste in Dr. C.'s reply, let me take this opportunity to say that I emailed both Dr. F. and the professors a week ago that I was talking about them on my blog. I didn't wish to say anything that I would not tell them to their faces. However, I had not spoken to Drs. C. or N. about their article in the Source before I posted. They were annoyed at me at first, but they don't seem to be any more... At any rate, here is the reply Dr. C. sent me. I do wish to continue debating with certain points of it, but I will not. I admit my ignorance and that I was ambiguously writing without definition about Schaffer's "true truth," or the essentials from which all else may be derived. For a single example, take Dr. C.'s "If you shoot yourself in the head you will die." General revelation gives the observational cause and effect, but special revelation gives the meaning behind the event. What are "you?" What is "death?" A Christian and a Hindu will see two very different meanings. But here I have descended into a fascinating philosophical discussion rather than any sort of ideological disagreement - which is exactly where an intellectual handling of the article would have ended up.

"You should understand that what Dr. Noe and I wrote was, in large part, little more than a paraphrase and expansion upon Calvin, Bk II, Ch. 2, especially Sections 14-16. In addition, since the article was published we have consulted numerous systematic theologies, monographs, etc. on the subject of general revelation in an honest search to discrern if anything we said was out of line with orthodox Christian theology in general, and Reformed theology in particular. If I can suggest one article for your studies, it would be Cornelius Van Til's article, "Nature and Scripture," in The Infallible Word, ed. N. B. Stonehouse and Paul Woolley, in which Van Til argues that the terms applied by the Westminster divines to Scripture -- necessity, authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity -- can and should be applied to general revelation. Furthermore, both of our respective sessions have read the article and found nothing troublesome, and the article has been referred to both our presbyteries. All of which is to say that, while we might phrase a few things differently today, our arguments are sound and biblical, well within the larger Christian tradition, the small sub-set of Protestantism, and the even small sub-set of Reformed writers. Perhaps if we had had 4 or 5 times longer in order to qualify and subqualify every statement we would not have been misunderstood, but I doubt it.

We wrote as Christians to Christians. We did not feel the need to defend our views of Scripture since our topic was general revelation itself, not special revelation. And given our public subscription to school’s Statement of Faith and Biblical Worldview, and our public subscription to the Westminster Standards, a much more rigorous standard, it never entered into our minds that anyone would question our fidelity to Scripture.

My intention, speaking for myself, was to put on paper what I had been mulling over for the last three years as a result my interactions with on-campus and DL students. If our words sounded unnecessarily combative, it was a result of trying, as academics, to provoke dialogue and discussion, not controversy or censure. As far as the “line in the sand” goes, I did not think of our article in that way, except insofar as that I believe that a good understanding of general revelation in necessary for the Christian liberal arts enterprise. Without a sophisticated understanding of general revelation, it will be hard for a Christian liberal arts college not to be reduced to merely a Bible college because all knowledge outside the Bible is viewed with suspicion. In short, if PHC truly adheres to the notion that the Bible is the source of all truth, then it will be a place that is hostile to the liberal arts and a place I have no interest in.

A fine article on the subject of how one should think about general and special revelation in relation to education is R. C. Sproul’s “Does Christian Education Compromise Excellence?”: http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086%7CCHID560462%7CCIID2066498,00.html

Sproul’s categories – syncretism, antithesis, and synthesis – are excellent. While Noe and I have been falsely accused of syncretism, our real argument is that antithesis is too narrow for true education and synthesis is the correct position for the Christian scholar.

The point we were trying to make is that the average evangelical lives a schizophrenic life, acting upon what he learns from general revelation but often saying that special revelation alone has any authority. How do you know that water, ice, and steam are three forms of the same substance? From Scripture? Our point was that much of what goes on in academia is informed by general revelation rather than by special revelation, and sometimes by both.

In order to illustrate these points, I will comment on some entries from Sarah’s blog for the 14th:

"General revelation alone, however, gives nothing that special revelation does not provide."

So, did you learn organic chemistry from the Bible? Is the Bible now a textbook for Calculus? Did you learn how to cook from the Bible? Well, of course not.

Throughout your post you do not differential moral and philosophical truth from any other truths. In addition, you muddle general revelation and natural theology (they are not the same thing).

One last example:

"To prove Obj. 1 [Political philosophy is not in the Bible. The Bible does not address the question of the best regime.], a person must be able to show that political philosophy demonstrates truths that are outside of the Bible. He cannot, because we determine if something is true by seeing if it agrees with the Bible."

Again, according to your reasoning, are you saying that only that which the Bible says is true? So since the Bible does not say "if you shoot yourself in the head you will die," are you agnostic on this point? Since the Bible doesn't say, "if you enrich plutonium in a certain way you have the materials to make an atomic bomb," do you doubt that it is true? Surely these statements do not "agree with the Bible," so are they false?

The point Dr. Noe and I were trying to make was that all truth is God's truth because he is the creator and sustainer of all. So whether we learn something as mundane as the properties of chemical fertilizers through general revelation or something as sublime as substitutionary atonement from Scripture, God is the source of all truth. Let me emphasize again: God, not the Bible, is the source of all truth. To be sure, both general and special revelation, properly understood, convey the same message when they overlap. So we see no need to say something as silly as the aphorism: "special revelation trumps general revelation." No doubt, in those areas of overlap, special revelation is clearer than general revelation, but they are never, when truly understood, opposed to one another, since both come from the hand of God.

On this subject, I suggest you read St. Augustine, On the Teacher. In his ending statement Adeodatus affirms to Augustine:

"I have learned that it is He alone who teaches us whether what is said is true -- and, when He spoke externally, He reminded us that he was dwelling within. With His help, I shall love Him the more ardently the more I advance in learning."

Peace be with you,

Dr. Culberson  ¶ 8:15 AM (1) comments

 

Taking Stock

Summer is upon us, and I find it almost impossible to be anything else but happy. The next few years look to be a blast! Admittedly, I know very little of the true shape of them. All I catch are glimmers, but they are enough to enchant me with their opportunities. I live a blessed life.

Summer ho! I have six credits of Lit practicum - four of short stories and two of a critical paper. I don't really want to write a 20-page lit paper, which is why I'm doing it. I know; that logic doesn't quite work. But I'm doing it because I ought to, not because I love the idea. I shouldn't do all my Lit practicum as fiction just because it comes more easily to me.

My sister asked me earnestly, "Don't you get a rest?" I told her, "This is a rest. I'm earning college credit for writing stories!" That's how I feel. I've written quite a few pages of stories already, after all, and I have several more in progress. That part should hardly be painful. For my critical paper I am doing something with a few authors from America's "Lost Generation" that blossomed post-WWI. I am purposefully anchoring the paper into a historical theme, the same way I consciously implemented literary analysis techniques throughout my history thesis. I am not just a History major and a Literature major, after all, but a History-Literature major.

Besides these, I want to learn so many other things. I want to drink in the world! I can't remember the last time I felt like this - before junior year, perhaps? What a change the last five months have made! I arrived home for Christmas passive, drained, and depressed. I had no desires. But God brought me through.

So I am taking stock. By the time I finished my history thesis I was in survival mode only and had lost all my good habits. Now it is time to reinstitute them.

I think Tae Kwon Do will have to wait for a later age. As painful as it is to separate from a childhood love, my dojang is too sport- and youth-oriented. I want to learn martial arts to defend myself and to control my body, not to participate in tournaments. Besides, it costs $75/month, and a class eats up my entire evening.

My only scheduled activities will therefore be summer Frisbee league on Monday evenings and juggling club on Wednesdays. This will give me flexibility in my schedule to swim and do weights.

I also want to spend at least two hours a day in God time - praying, reading Bible, studying devotional books, etc. While I am single I have the incredible blessing of being able to devote myself to God. Why not take advantage of it?

I'll still be working 9-5, so that should about finish my schedule right there. I would like to do so many things, but I have dragged myself down many times by planning to do too much and then feeling like a failure because I accomplished only half of it.

It almost scares me how fast this summer will fly by. And then I am very optimistic for PHC in the fall. I can't wait, in fact. I haven't been this excited since freshman year. Probably it is because I have very little to lose at this point, and because it will be a grand adventure. I'll be rooming with random roommates in a random wing. The college itself will be different, and I think it will be exciting to be part of its healing process.

I think I most anticipate being at PHC as me. What am I? I am a writer! I like excellent science fiction, and sometimes I write odd stories. Most often I consciously write in allegory, crafting two or more layers at once. In personality, I am sometimes silly and fun-loving but more often serious. I live with a purpose - to please God and to serve others. I am never bored enough to play merely to amuse myself. I want to see how my life affects the world for good, even if I am the only one who ever notices.

I want to be an excellent writer. I want this more than anything else because there is so much to say. Lord, give me the words!  ¶ 3:44 PM (0) comments

  My brothers and I just drove in at home. I had to do paperwork at PHC on Monday morning, so we didn't start west until 11am. We were planning to stay over the night, but we didn't find anywhere that looked promising between Lexington and Louisville. In Louisville it was more expensive. Then we just decided to keep going. We arrived here around 2am. It was a great weekend and a lovely graduation ceremony, and I have three or four posts that I intend to write. But meanwhile I should go to bed.  ¶ 1:15 AM (0) comments

  Speaking of watching graduation, in a few minutes I will be driving East with two of my younger brothers. They are viewing PHC as a potential college prospect. Here's hoping and praying that Thing, my '87 Pontiac Grand Am, makes the round trip yet again...  ¶ 4:28 AM (0) comments

  Unshed Tears

What to do when flesh and blood struggle, and
Principalities and powers mock?
We are disjointed,
Frag
mented,
Broken
Individuals who join and tear apart at once.
We have life in our souls, but
Death in our bones.  ¶ 2:58 PM (0) comments

  Well, I finally have earned my first 4.0 semester. Admittedly, it was only nine credits, and it consisted entirely of writing. But I still think it counts. :D  ¶ 5:40 PM (3) comments

  Chesterton on small communities and the family:

"The common defence of the family is that, amid the stress and fickleness of life, it is peaceful, pleasant, and at one. But there is another defence of the family which is possible, and to me evident; this defence is that the family is not peaceful and not pleasant and not at one.
It is not fashionable to say much nowadays of the advantages of the small community. We are told that we must go in for large empires and large ideas. There is one advantage, however, in the small state, the city, or the village, which only the wilfully blind can overlook. The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world. He knows much more of the fierce varieties and uncompromising divergences of men. The reason is obvious. In a large community we can choose our companions. In a small community our companions are chosen for us. Thus in all extensive and highly civilized societies groups come into existence founded upon what is called sympathy, and shut out the real world more sharply than the gates of a monastery. There is nothing really narrow about the clan; the thing which is really narrow is the clique. The men of the clan live together because they all wear the same tartan or are all descended from the same sacred cow [or are all Christians]; but in their souls, by the divine luck of things, there will always be more colours than in any tartan. But the men of the clique live together because they have the same kind of soul, and their narrowness is the narrowness of spiritual coherence and contentment, like that which exists in hell. A big society exists in order to form cliques. A big society is a society for the promotion of narrowness. It is a machinery for the purpose of guarding the solitary and sensitive individual from all experience of the bitter and bracing human compromises. It is, in the most literal sense of the words, a society for the prevention of Christian knowledge."  ¶ 11:40 AM (1) comments

  Thanks to the recent email from Dr. Farris to the student body, I now feel at liberty to discuss some facts that I knew already but had been asked not to communicate.

Fact: A parent raised a legitimate question about the "lifeboat example" that Dr. R. used in class.

Fact: When a parent raises a legitimate question, it is the job of the President of the college to find out if it is true.

Fact: Dr. R. apparently took umbrage at even being asked, leaked the fact that he was being questioned (witness: the "save Dr. Root" campaign), and did not answer the accusations.

Other facts that I have gleaned through knowledge of people and through questioning --

Fact: Some professors have felt for some time that their academic freedom was in peril.

Fact: I myself have felt for the last four years that Dr. F. does not understand the liberal arts side of the college as much as he does the government side.

This is a touchy combination of personalities and events, to say the least. When I talked to Dr. F. on the phone during the first week of April, I told him that I thought he was the only one who could fix things. He sighed and said, "If you figure out how, please tell me! I have asked counsel at every point, and I don't see where I've gone wrong." I believe he was sincere. I advised him later via email that it seemed to me that the professors were scared of him, and that if he really wanted to fix matters, he should go to each one individually, by himself, and volunteer just to listen as they spoke. He replied, and I quote, "Thank you for your comments." In the phone conversation, he told me that he was scheduled to speak with each man who was resigning in the company of each one's pastor. Still, it seemed to me that nobody had talked directly to each other first, which is supposed to be the first step of reconciliation.

This is how I interpret events:

(A) Professors feel repressed, and they feel for whatever reason that Dr. F. just cannot understand their position. I must admit that I have felt this way before with Dr. F. He has very good intentions, but he likes to argue like a lawyer, dodging through loopholes. I think loopholes are cheating, if they only "win" an argument without arriving at truth. :)

(B) Professors make an agreement to be an the lookout for academic repression in the future. Dr. F. does not suspect this in the slightest.

(C) Parent complains about Dr. R., and Dr. F. passes on the concerns, as is his job. Dr. R. publishes an article about Augustine that says among other things (or so I heard from Dr. F.) that marriage is a "political union." Dr. F. adds some of these concerns to the still-unanswered list.

(D) Vigilant professors instantly see this as an occurrence of the very repression they feared. Dr. F. still doesn't know that they think it is anything larger than what it is. He is confused and angered when they respond as if he is a tyrant when he is just (in this instance at least) doing his job.

(E) All tempers flare. Two profs publish an article about general and special revelation that they must have known would be controversial. Administration responds just as expected, warily unsure what is happening, but no longer expecting professors to respond professionally.

(F) Both sides are right, so far as they go. Dr. F. does not recognize the existence of any wrong opinions he has held in the past, because nobody has told him that they relate to the current situation. Professors see the current situation only as further proof of perceived abuse.

The reason I understand this is that I find it strikingly similar to the disagreement between history majors and Dr. Sa. last year. We all were feeling exceedingly misused, and it felt like it was impossible to explain anything to her. So Beth Branscome started a petition, which we sent above Dr. Sa.'s head to Dr. B. and Dr. F. Imagine my embarrassment in our eventual meeting with Dr. B. and Dr. Sa. when Dr. B. asked us who had actually talked to Dr. Sa. first and only Beth and I raised our hands! I knew then for sure that we had done Dr. Sa. wrong as a group by not talking to her first. And let me add that I have had some wonderful discussions with Dr. Sa. since, and I utterly respect and like her as a teacher and a school authority.

This all is what I meant about a month ago when I posted that the whole mess was a deeply rooted misunderstanding. Anyone who is still reading this has no idea how uncomfortable it is to know information from either direction that one is not allowed to tell the other party. Keep praying, my friends.  ¶ 9:17 AM (12) comments

  This post is entitled

How Special Revelation Is the Completion of General Revelation, and Why We Should Care

. It is the argument in support of premise (2) from below, as rephrased: All God's truth is determined from the Bible and some of God's truth is also discernible through general revelation. I will describe the argument in my own words, continue with my evidence from outside authorities, and wrap up with a summary of why this matters to the PHC conflict. This is lengthy.

First is my own argument, beginning with an illustration. Painters of the early Middle Ages used egg tempera paint, which is very thin, so they needed to apply it in several quick-drying layers. When they painted people, they used green for the skin tones in the first layer, in order to counter the pink they would apply in successive layers. In this first coat, therefore, they already had at least the outline of the entire picture, but it was distorted. General revelation is our first layer of understanding of the world. Special revelation is the completed picture. The latter provides a clear framework for all understanding, since it contains layers of faith as well as rationality. Underlying special revelation is general revelation, the work of reason, which can only bring humanity partway. Special revelation would not be the same without general revelation, which is why the Master Painter gave us both. General revelation alone, however, gives nothing that special revelation does not provide.

On my long walk yesterday, I tried to locate a counterexample that would break this analogy. I found only proof. Reason alone can reach only to general principles. Take arguments for the existence of God – the “Prime Mover” or “First Cause” argument, for example. This goes something as follows: “All things in the material universe have a cause outside themselves. The material universe as a whole is in the material universe. The material universe as a whole must have a Cause outside itself,” which by definition would be God. Simple and easy… but it doesn’t tell us anything about this God. One cannot derive from this that He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-good, that He is made up of three Persons in one, or that He is a He instead of a She or an It! Another example is my reply in the comments section of the previous post to Randy’s statement that everyone knows murder is wrong. Yes, but definitions of “murder” vary wildly.

I wrote my original premise very carefully, though I undercut myself with the sloppy final conclusion in italics. I didn’t want to say that all God’s truth is “in” the Bible. I wanted to say that the Bible is the authority that determines truth. Therefore, all truth is “determined from” the Bible, via informed reason operating in governance to faith.

Obj. 1 (David): “Political philosophy is not in the Bible. The Bible does not address the question of the best regime.”
Reply to Obj. 1: The one basic truth of political philosophy is that different regimes work better in different situations. We know this is true simply because the Bible “does not address the question.” If it said clearly, “The best regime is x, y, or z,” would we not be obligated as Christians to implement x, y, or z? As it is, if someone asserts that all people everywhere must implement regime x, he is wrong. Some will benefit more from y or z. To prove Obj. 1, a person must be able to show that political philosophy demonstrates truths that are outside of the Bible. He cannot, because we determine if something is true by seeing if it agrees with the Bible.

Obj. 2 (David and Randy): “Plato discovers truth (‘God's truth’) that we didn't already know or ‘have.’ God knew it; we didn't.”
Reply to Obj. 2: When Plato wrote The Republic, special revelation was not yet complete. He accomplished incredible things with general revelation. As a sidenote, from what I’ve studied of the truly ancient Greek philosophers before Plato, it seems quite likely that the strand of Greek thought stretches all the way back to teachings from Noah and his family. But now, even though I learned many things from Plato, I found nothing true that did not merely expand my knowledge of my faith. I will never forget the Cave or the Line analogies. I will always remember forms, the tripartite division of the soul, and the different types of governmental systems with their good and bad counterparts. Nevertheless, none of these things communicate a truth that the Bible does not address.

My authorities for these arguments rise from many sources, most of which I was taught by the professors themselves. For today, I will stick with Aquinas and the Bible.

First, a brief Aquinas refresher. He discusses four types of law: eternal, natural, human, and divine. Eternal law is God’s complete plan for all creation, which is known fully only to Him. Natural law is the window God has opened for all mankind into His eternal law – the things that everyone ought to be able to know. Human law is a subset of natural law – those rules derived from natural law for the purpose of particular situations, binding only insofar as they do not disagree with the starting propositions of natural law. Divine law, lastly, is the complete authority of natural law through the Scriptures.

Evidence that supports this post lies all through Aquinas’s explanation of law. I will reproduce two quotations here in particular:
(In answer to “Did Human Beings Need a Divine Law?”) “Second, because of the uncertainty of human judgment, especially regarding contingent and particular matters, different persons may judge differently about various human actions, and so even different and contrary laws result. Therefore, in order that human beings can know beyond any doubt what they should do or should not do, a divinely revealed law, regarding which error is impossible, was needed to direct human beings in their actions” (ST I-II, Q. 91, A. 4). Because our reason, the source of general revelation, is fallen, God gave us the Bible to settle matters beyond a doubt.
(In answer to “Is the Natural Law the Same for All Human Beings?”) “Obj. 1. The Decretum says that ‘the natural law is contained in the [Old] Law and the Gospel.’ But what is contained in the Law and the Gospel is not in the common possession of all, since Rom. 10:16 says: ‘Some do not heed the Gospel.’ Therefore, the natural law is not the same for all human beings. . . . Reply Obj. 1. We should not understand the cited statement to mean that all the matters included in the Law and the Gospel belong to the natural law, since the Law and the Gospel transmit to us many things above nature. Rather, we should understand the statement to mean that the Law and the Gospel completely transmit to us the things that belong to the natural law” (ST I-II, Q. 94, A. 4). I think this says it all.

I found it interesting when I was rereading Aquinas this afternoon that he also constantly cited Romans 1-3, the Bible chapters that are my other authority. Pertinent verses here follow:

“So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. . . . Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen” (Rom. 1.15-25, KJV).
“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. . . . Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness. An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law” (Rom. 2.14-20, KJV). I can’t resist pointing out Plato’s Cave analogy here.
“What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3.9-11, KJV).

These verses reveal two key truths: (1) All people know the law enough by general revelation so that they are condemned for not following it; they are “without excuse”; (2) Those who possess the Scriptures, special revelation, have “the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.”

Last of all, the conflict between this point of view and Drs. C.’s and N.’s is readily evident in this quotation from their article in The Source: “There are many ways to explain this distinction between what we know from the Scriptures in a certain and salvific sense, and what we know from our study of the world around us. Perhaps the most common set of descriptive terms is general and special revelation. The term special here is not used in the sense of higher or exalted, but in the sense of a distinction between genus and species. The subset of knowledge that we know from the scriptures is specific, thus special. It is knowledge unto salvation.”

I would answer that this distinction is reversed. In all our lives, everything we do, we are “working out our salvation with fear and trembling.” Although we are already perfect in God’s sight because of justification, sanctification is the ongoing process of salvation in this temporal world. If this were not true, we would only need the first chapters of Genesis and the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In actuality, we have the example of the Israelites in the Old Testament, and we have the apostles’ application of the gospels to daily life.

I’m sorry this is so long, but I think it is all necessary. It greatly influences the way we Christians approach everything we do. In the statement “all truth is God’s truth,” do we begin with our perception of truth and try to make God agree with it (like Mormons), or do we begin with what God says and shape our perception of truth to that? I would argue the latter.  ¶ 6:47 PM (0) comments

  Let me first say that I fully intended to respond to everyone last night or this morning. I was informed at about 9pm that I needed to wake up at 4am this Saturday morning in order to drive my little sisters to an all-day Civil Air Patrol SAREX (search-and-rescue exercise) three hours away from home. Needless to say, I was delighted and eager to help out my family, as I always am. So I popped into bed, where my brain whirred away like a frightened chipmunk until about midnight. As soon as I woke up, it whirred away some more. (you know, with that noise your laptop makes when it wants to let you know it is working really, really hard?)

The trip was a blessing in disguise. I had nothing to do but think, all day long. I found that the town with my sister's SAREX was situated on a very long trail that runs east/west through the middle of Missouri. I spent three and a half hours walking on it. The first hour and fifteen minutes, I was just trying to get away from people so I could think. After I contracted my first blister and realized I was four miles away from my car, I had plenty of time to muse and pray during the many rest stops on the return trip. By the time I was done, my brain had stopped whirring. I had found the words I need. The three-hour return car ride, followed by an hour and a half of reading Bible in the bathtub, clarified things even more. (For the humor impaired, to quote Dave Barry, yes, I know it is odd that I mentioned the bathtub part of it. It is supposed to be amusing.)

I am prepared to make a preliminary concession. I believe my original argument is sound as it stands, but it is incomplete. (2) should read: "All God's truth is determined from the Bible and some of God's truth is also discernable through general revelation." I am not prepared to write out the full argument tonight, since I am exhausted. I will most likely get to it late tomorrow, since I want to locate a particular Chesterton quotation and make sure that my memory of Aquinas is still accurate. Also, I have a ten-page faith & reason integration essay to write by Monday (I will assume "the end of" Monday, as interpreted via Central time, not Eastern) after work and my Frisbee league game (if I can move); we'll see how that goes. Meanwhile, may I recommend a close study of Romans 1-3 for all interested parties? I'm not saying right now that those chapters demonstrate any particular point (though I will tomorrow), only that they are directly relevant to the matter at hand. I know you have finals Monday. So I will lay out my post tomorrow as if y'all haven't had time to refresh your memory of those sections.

Thank you all; you are wonderful. You know you like me, even if you have hidden it very deep down because you find me annoying as heck. ;) Sometimes I find you annoying too, no doubt, but I like you anyway.  ¶ 7:40 PM (0) comments

  I am not changing the words below because people have been responding to them as they stand. I think my own post was careless, however. I used harsher words concerning the arguments of Drs. N. and C. than I would wish that I had. This only outlines my own foolishness. I don't think these professors were careless in their writing, and I want to make sure that nobody thinks that I think that their beliefs contradict Scripture. Still, as we all know from our own papers, unintended objections can often be drawn from our words as written. I am commenting on the possibilities of misunderstanding that arise from words, not on inherent flaws in people.

Just so y'all know, I have based the conclusions that follow on a phone conversation and emails with Dr. F., lengthy exchanges of emails with a student who strongly upheld the side of the professors, emails with a few of the involved professors themselves, and discussions with other professors during my L-Ball visit to PHC.

The Chronicle of Higher Education has recently posted an article about PHC's recent troubles. It paints Dr. F. in an unforgiving light and almost completely exonerates the professors of wrongdoing. When I read the article at first, I felt my heart harden against Dr. F., because the facts in the article entirely back up everything I had discovered in my own fact-finding expeditions. Then I read Dr. C.'s and Dr. N.'s article from The Source, which I had not read before, since I didn't know it was available online. I was puzzled at some of the items in that article because they do seem to imply things that I would conjecture (from having sat in some of their classes) that the professors involved would not wish to imply. I showed the article to my mother, and she instantly reacted far more violently than I would have expected as well. Apparently, some of those phrases and concepts were hot issues for the previous generation.

- "All truth is God's truth." Of course, that is so. But unless one defines "truth," the statement leads far afield, usually by the following argument: "This seems true to me. Therefore, it is God's truth." Recall theologians' compromise with evolution, beginning at the start of the twentieth century. One must continue the syllogism:
(1) All truth is God's truth.
(2) God's truth is determined from the Bible.
(C3) All truth is determined from the Bible.
This is what Dr. Farris concludes. I myself think that our professors erred by not including this key point, since without it statement (1) can be carried far astray. But I believe that the full argument for studying the liberal arts continues as follows (pardon me for turning it into a hypothetical syllogism):
(4) If one ought to determine anything at all, one must exercise and hone the skill of discernment.

(5) If all truth is God's truth and God wants us to worship Him the best we can, He wants us to determine truth.
(6) God wants us to worship Him the best we can.
(C7) God wants us to determine truth.

(8) If God wants us to determine truth, we ought to determine it.
(C9) We ought to determine truth.

(C10) We must exercise and hone the skill of discernment.
And then, putting both halves of the argument together:
All truth is in the Bible, but we need everything else we have in the world to help us understand that Bible.

Think about it. Yes, we can find truth in Plato. But the reason we can recognize it as truth is because we already know what is true! We know that because we are Christians. Plato doesn't give us a new truth, but an illustration of and enlightenment in the truth we already have.

- "Knowledge is the highest good" because it comes before everything else. Yes. But again, that was a careless statement, since it does not reference the source of that knowledge. Taken as it stands, one could easily conclude, "I 'know' that my homosexual relationship is good for me. Therefore it is." We have to link knowledge into a higher authority. Knowledge of God is the highest good. How can I assert this? Without Christianity, there is no reason to suppose that one actually knows anything. One cannot rationally argue that the world outside ourselves is real. If we are fair to ourselves, we turn into skeptics like Descartes, reduced to "I think, therefore I am." Or we go crazy, like Nietzsche.

- The "lifeboat" example. This is another hot topic from the previous generation, which is probably why that other parent, my mom, and Dr. F. all reacted the same way. Even if it is used only as a hypothetical example of a state of nature that will never exist, it needs to be handled with extreme caution. This was one of the spearhead examples of situational ethics, and it is used in many state-run classrooms to purposefully shake up a student's moral foundation in preparation for injecting new values. I'm not saying that Dr. R. presented it wrongfully, only that he may not understand himself (since he is youngish) just how hot a button he pushed.

I think, in short, that some of our professors have possibly been guilty of wrongthinking in their writing. I also think that Dr. F. has possibly been guilty of wrongdoing. Our professors have lived and taught the truth of the Bible, even if they did not express it completely in this article and in other sources. If they wrote something that was a little "off," this should have been an opportunity for intellectual discussion and enlightenment on students' part. Instead, the reaction was heavy-handed. The reason for his reaction, however, was that he knows the danger that has come to other formerly Christian institutions because of this and other similar episodes of wrongthinking.

I hope that this will ease some of y'all's frustrations. I'm still not sure what the next year will bring, but I am also quite certain that it will be somewhat short of perfection and somewhat brighter than the black picture some of y'all will be tempted to imagine. :) I welcome comments.  ¶ 12:13 PM (10) comments

  My soul is feeling much better. :) I've been reading Sense and Sensibility most of today. Jane Austen puts life into perspective beautifully, and she is a wonderful distraction. Then I attended a percussion concert this evening, performed at UMSL by a bunch of Juilliard students and others. Highly enjoyable!

Actually, I think it was typing everything out in the previous post that helped. I think my soul was restless because God always makes me feel miserable when I'm not deciding something I need to decide. I think it is right to go straight to grad school. Taking a year off is the easy option. Maybe I'll feel differently later. Maybe I'll still take the year off. But right now, I'm going to apply to grad schools as if I'm attending one of them the year after I graduate PHC.  ¶ 9:29 PM (0) comments

  My soul is bleeding. Why should this be? Everything is going beautifully. I have a few weeks to rest up before I start working on summer projects. I am getting to know people better at church. Tonight I get to attend a percussion concert with some girls who might become friends.

Two evenings ago, my mother had been doing some research on Asian Studies programs for my younger sister's undergraduate education. When she happened upon the University of Hawaii at Manoa, she called me over. I am quite excited about the possibility of attending this university for graduate studies. Its history program has just what I need -- everything. Hawaii, after all, stands at the crossroads between two parts of the world that I am quite sure were joined by maritime traffic at various periods in history.

It occurs to me that I might never have mentioned here my particular fascination with history! This strikes me as unusual. I suppose it is because I scarcely ever talk about those things I hold dearest. Perhaps it is because I understand them via intuition and don't yet have evidence to back them up.

At any rate, the ancient and medieval Americas are my fascination. Did all inhabitants of the Americas come over the Bering Strait? I think not. They couldn't have! In South America in particular, several civilizations "arrived" civilized, creating huge cities by methods we can't even duplicate now. They didn't develop in South America. When they manifested themselves, they already knew what to do. The Mayas are the most prominent example. There was also a civilization like this on the Mississippi River near where St. Louis is now. So how did they get here? If they couldn't walk over at the time, obviously they sailed. And obviously, they are of Asian blood. One DNA study, which Gavin Menzies cited in his book about the Chinese discovering America, concludes that the Native Americans of all sorts most likely spread out from Central America, not from North to South.

My intuition is that the Americas have always been a melting pot of the rest of the world. But when did the different peoples get here? Who were they?

The University of Hawaii at Manoa offers a cross-section of everything I need - early American history and ancient history of all sorts, with especial focus on the Asian countries. My sister and I could live together as she works on her undergraduate program and I on my graduate studies.

I think what is bothering me is this: I was always tentative about committing myself to a plan that necessarily included grad school because I had not yet found an institution that could teach me what I wanted to know. Now I have. I think it is right that I should go. If I don't, it will be one of those things that I always regret. But it adds more unsettled time into my life. And Hawaii is so far away from... everyone.

Now I actually have a post-graduation goal, it seems unnecessary for me to take a year off between undergraduate and graduate school. I could earn my Master's in a year or a year and a half. Then - get this - I could "specialize" in World History for a Ph.D.! That's just what I want to know - everything. But it doesn't seem right to plan that far at this time. I wouldn't necessarily have to earn my Ph.D. at the University of Hawaii. The ISI people say it is often better to earn a Master's and Ph.D. at different institutions. I'm not sure why that is, but they probably know what they're talking about.

Anyway, you can't beat Hawaii for its geography, or so I'm told. I've never been there, but I think I could adapt fairly quickly to not having much of a winter. ;) Let's face it - I would much rather go to grad school in an alive place like Hawaii than in Europe.

So why does this make my soul bleed? It sounds pretty wonderful, doesn't it? My soul bleeds because it is female, and it also holds dreams of marriage and kids. These two sets of dreams are not compatible at the exact same time. I suppose it is therefore a good thing that no guy has professed interest in me up 'til now (well, except that dude when I was 18, but we got rid of him pretty quickly).

So far God has worked everything out pretty well, even concurrent with all the bleeding my soul has done over the last several months. Right now I'm not sure why I have another year at PHC, but I have no doubt that God will show me.  ¶ 8:26 AM (1) comments

  I haven't been talking much over the last week. I've been spending a lot of time inside myself, taking in the world, enjoying the beauty of spring. I am not scheduled for anything right now except for writing a personal philosophy essay about the study of history as it relates to faith and reason. That's due in a week, and so I think I'll begin it tonight. Thursday after this one I will be driving to VA with two of my brothers to attend the PHC graduation.

Meanwhile, I've been pondering life, the world, and people. These are heavy things. In the past few weeks I have added a few more faces to the realm of my unforgettable memory. This bittersweet gallery holds pictures of people with sad or blank eyes. They include:

- Shannon, the beautiful teen daughter of a single mom, whom I witnessed turn from a happy, sparkly 13-year-old into a confused, embittered 16-year-old. She liked our loud, rambunctious family, and at the same time she tested us. Once she made me listen to a foul song to see my reaction. She asked my younger brother what he thought about girls. One time we saw her tenderly helping her grandmother through Wal-Mart, though she didn't see us. There is something so wistful about her... I have no idea where she is now. She haunts me, and I pray for her often.

- Heather, the friend who said she was a Christian but who didn't read her Bible. She always tried to get me to "loosen up." Once when I had just turned 18, she and some of her other friends (not mine) made me buy them a pack of cigarettes. After that, I never let them make me do something again. Some of the last words I heard from Heather, about her newfound lesbian relationship with a girl she had recently met: "God would never make me stop something this good!" Oh Heather, I think I failed you. May your memory keep me from failing anyone else.

- Jane, the terrified Catholic lady who grabbed my hand in a death grip and couldn't let go for the whole turbulent plane ride between enormous thunderheads one day when I was 17. I talked to her about God. The stern old man in the window seat reading his Hebrew book grunted disapprovingly at the foolish females, "There is no God." "There is," I said, "and He will make this turbulence decrease." It was a weak statement; I felt it. I could have said He would make the turbulence stop, but I didn't want to risk it. The turbulence did decrease, though, and we arrived safely. I'm glad the old man wasn't the only one next to Jane.

- Sarah, the Catholic girl I met on my three-week trip to Cambridge when we were both 17. She and I spent our time together because we were much more conservative than the rest. She became very homesick. She put henna streaks in her hair, and she pierced her ears a second time. Then she cried for the last several days of the trip and wouldn't talk to me. What should I have done?

- The lady in the National Cathedral whom I talked to one D.C. afternoon when we were both watching a "Sacred Circles" exhibit. Black-clothed women walked pensively around and through a circular maze printed on the ground. When they reached the middle, they sat crosslegged and stared upwards, in search of a rapturous experience. After a while, they stood up and walked out again, still looking lost. It made me so sad, and I knew God wanted me to do something. I talked to this middle-aged woman about Jesus. "We don't need to walk through a maze to find God," I said. "All we have to do is read the Bible and pray." I hope she listened. I don't know. I was just so glad that I had listened and for once had escaped the fear of unusual conversation.

- Sonya, the lady I met at the bloodmobile during the PHC blood drive. She was so sad. I told her I would pray for her, and she said, "Oh no, that's the worst thing you could do!" "No, it is the best thing," I replied. I met her again last weekend, because PHC was having another blood drive. She seemed much happier. I'm still praying.

This last weekend on the way to PHC, I sat in front of three young, 20-something businesspeople on the plane. They were talking superficially, and I was reading a book. Then the young woman pulled out some conversation-starter cards and began asking questions to the two men. At one point they caught my attention:
Man 1: Gala... Galapa...
Woman: Galapagos.
Man 1: Yes, those. You know, where that scientist discovered all those thousands of bird species.
(What? They don't know who Darwin was? And they weren't "thousands" of species. I'm all primed to turn around and jump into a discussion of macro vs. microevolution, but they continue on.)
Man 2: Which scientist was that anyway? Newton?
Woman: No, I don't think so. Newton was gravity. I'm sure he didn't go to the Galapagos Islands.
a little later...
Woman (reading from card): "If the cashier at the grocery store gave you an extra $10 in change by mistake and you noticed as you were walking out of the store, what would you do?"
Man 2 (laughing): I'd keep it!
Woman and Man 1: Oooh, that's cold!
Man 2: Seriously, I'd keep it and spend it. They probably don't need it anyway.
Woman and Man 1: *say nothing*
a little later...
Woman (reading): "What is your favorite book?"
Man 1: I don't read books.
Woman: Oh, c'mon. What is a book you liked when you were younger?
Man 1: *silence*
Woman: Have you ever read a book?
Man 1: *obviously fumbling* Well, I think I liked that book 1982.
Woman: 1984?
Man 1: Yeah, that one.
Woman: OK.
(That's the only title you could think of, isn't it? I'll bet neither of you have read that book!)
a little later...
Woman (reading): "If you know you only had one day to live, how would you use it?"
Man 2: I'd spend all my money and throw a tremendous party.
Woman: Aww, c'mon. You'd have to visit your family and friends!
I know I have to speak up. My internal pressure is building. I'll feel like a loser if I don't. Lord, give me the words! I poke my head over the back of my chair.
Me: Let's make it even deeper. What happens next?
Man 2 is unshaven and overweight. His eyes meet mine for a second and then slide away.
Man 2: What do you mean?
Me: What happens after your last day? What do you believe?
Man 2: *short laugh* I'll be gone. There's nothing.
(Well, that's definitely consistent with everything I've heard in this conversation.)
Me: Really? Sounds uncomfortable.
I turn back around and sit down again.
Man 1 (quietly): I don't know; there's got to be a tunnel and a light or something.
It is ten minutes until we land, and they say scarcely anything the rest of the way down. I look like I am reading my book, but really I am praying. Those three young people managed to escape school and enter the business world without knowing hardly anything! How are they to be reached? I know I said what I was supposed to say for this point in time, but they make me sad.

So many people...  ¶ 10:11 AM (1) comments

  I have entered Project Recovery Mode, meaning that my brain is still whirring away in my skull like a frightened chipmunk all day long, but the rest of me is tired. I slept about ten hours each of the last two nights, and now I feel mostly normal. The most startlingly wonderful part of this is that now I have Free Time again. I edited in all the changes Dr. Snyder gave me on my project and annotated bibliography, but that only took me about two and a half hours altogether. On Tuesday I went to a movie, and I took my little sisters to the same movie yesterday. On Wednesday I went clothes shopping for the first time in months. Each of the past three days, I spent an hour or more playing tennis (that is, laughing hysterically as I *whammed* the little yellow ball over the surrounding 12'-high chain-link enclosure yet again). I have signed up for the summer Frisbee league in the STL area. Which brings me to the most marvelous point of all...

...My knee is behaving! I don't really trust it yet, but it hasn't been clicking since I returned from VA. Now people, this is truly amazing. My knee started tracking improperly with no warning just before I needed to concentrate on my project. As soon as I'm done... it's better! And with just about as much warning. For most of the time in the middle, my knee was pretty debilitating -- I couldn't do anything quickly, and I couldn't stand up from sitting without discomfort. But I think I understand the reason for this. It truly was a blessing. God was purposefully limiting me so that I could focus on my project. Otherwise, I would have tried to exercise every evening and write my project. Knowing me, that is exactly what I would have tried to do. I wouldn't have had the time, and I would have stressed myself intolerably. As it was, every element fit together perfectly to allow me to finish my project. God was taking care of me. I hope I remember this in the future when an even tougher situation arrives.

You know, I've changed in some ways over the last several months. I think my understanding has grasped a little more of the world. I understand a little better why Ecclesiastes is my favorite book of the Bible. Where is happiness in this life? It arises from enjoying the duties that are within my power to accomplish and from giving all my other worries about the world to God. With wisdom, these things deepen, but they do not change.  ¶ 8:25 AM (0) comments

  I saw a good movie last night - Akeelah and the Bee. It is a very intelligent movie, very... aware. It is about a little 11-year-old black girl who manages to go to the Scripps-Howard National Spelling Bee. I think I will need to see it again, because I found myself in the unusual situation of having nothing in the movie to which I object. Nothing. The screenwriter, Doug Atchison, must be a Christian, because nobody but a Christian could write something so true. At one point, Akeelah reads this quote from Marianne Williamson out loud:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We are born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us, it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

God's name, mentioned with respectful awe in a movie? When's the last time you saw that?

Actors include Laurence Fishburne, who was Morpheus in The Matrix. He did a stupendous job in his erudite, multifaceted part as Dr. Larraby, Akeelah's spelling coach. Akeelah herself was acted by Keke Palmer, whose talent never wavered. She was Akeelah. Normally as I watch movies, I am doing a two-part mental analysis of actor and part. When I forget to study the "actor" half, I know the person is doing a wonderful job.

Unfortunately, I was the only person in the theater at 7:30pm last night, although the movie only opened this past weekend. I checked on imdb.com, and it only grossed $6.1 million. Too bad; it is one of the best movies all-around that I have seen in a long time. Not flashy. Not a lot of special effects. But a true movie, on so many different levels. I think all Christians should support it, if they can.  ¶ 9:39 AM (2) comments

  I should add, congrats to the new student body Prez and VP! :)  ¶ 8:56 PM (0) comments

  My soul is peaceful, rested, and happy. My weekend at PHC was lovely. I am just... expanded internally. This must be what it means to be an extrovert. I am like a recharged battery after spending a weekend of wonderful conversations with people I enjoy. I was actually asked to Liberty Ball (thanks Ben!), and it was the most fun L-Ball has ever been for me. I was very short on sleep every evening, but it didn't matter. Being post-project was just as good as I had imagined.

Of course, I'm not really done quite yet. I need to edit. But when Dr. S. sent my project back to me with an A (!!!!!!!!), he did not give me many things to fix. It should take only one evening to implement every change. I also need to write a Faith & Reason Integration essay for my history major at some point, but that should be fun. At any rate, I cannot bring myself to worry about it.

I have various thoughts I may or may not turn into blog posts later, as the Muse hits. Tonight I am writing a story.  ¶ 3:53 PM (1) comments