....And that means it will be soon time for the bash at the Jordan's dwelling! I am still trying to determine which tunes to bring. No one will want my Bach or Mozart, so I will be bringing my favourite pop tunes that were formative in developing me. My old piano instructor would be laughing if he read that; but appreciating music is something quite apart from performing it. Songs by Cash, Jane's Addiction, the Minutemen and the Meat Puppets are all candidates to make my list....there are so many songs and so little time before the big bash. I have my ale and scotch ready to transport out to the boondocks.
Last night we went over to the Folster's for dinner with some regular friends in addition to some new folks, Rian and Naomi. It was a fun and lively time; Dave and Andrea put on such a fine spread, anyone who knows them, knows that that is regular for them. My thanks go out to Andrea and Dave for inviting Ramone and I over.
Let me take this moment to send out greetings and good cheer to all of my very few readers; no doubt you, the happy few that you are, will be able to spread my good cheer all about through your numerous friends and acquaintances!
Pictured is my new 1946 Leitz IIIc camera; the body is solid brass and functionally the camera has a jewel-like precision. When Ramone allows me to get a film scanner, I will post some of my successful snapshots.
2006-12-30
2006-12-21
Merry Christmas!
Christ is born! Glorify Him, the author of light, with joyful lights; lights that rejoice in His coming! Take delight over Christmastime, for Christ is the very fruit of God Who came to fulfill our hunger!
An excerpt from St. Ephraim third Hymn on the Nativity:>
Blessed be the Child who today delights Bethlehem.
Blessed be the Newborn who today made humanity young again.
Blessed be the Fruit who bowed himself down for our hunger.
Blessed be the Gracious One who suddenly enriched
all of our poverty and filled our need.
Blessed be He whose mercy inclined Him to heal our sickness…
His hands bound and fettered, His feet nailed and fastened,
by His own will He clothed Himself with a body for those who seized Him.
Blessed is He whom freedom crucified, when He permitted it.
Blessed is He whom also the wood bore, when He allowed it.
Blessed is He whom even the grave enclosed, when He set limits to Himself.
Blessed is He whose will brought Him
to the womb and to birth and to the bosom and to growth.
Blessed is He whose changes revived our humanity.
Blessed is He who engraved our soul and adorned and betrothed her to Himself.
Blessed is He who made our body a tabernacle for His hiddenness.
2006-11-25
Eva
2006-11-11
2006-10-04
41
So I will turn 41 on Friday if I make it to Friday. Why do I have this photo of my old roommate posted? Well I thought some of my younger readers might be interested in what I was up to 20 years ago when I was half my age. Well, 20 years ago EXPO 86 was going on and I was living in the Westend of Vancouver; and Vancouver was an entertainment Mecca. The local Vancouver music scene was full of cool young bands: Slow, No Means No, DOA, 54-40, and the Grapes of Wrath were among the finest up and coming bands anywhere. In January of 1986 I started rooming with a member of the Grapes of Wrath named Tom Hooper. Living with a guy in a successful rock band had its upside.
Can you say girls? Free concerts and girls, sunshine and suds, music and dancing girls; truly I tried to find meaning through pleasure! I worked hard at it; very hard. Tom Hooper and I lived together until September in 1986. Then Tom and I parted ways, and I have not had contact with him since; I went back to University to pursue truth, beauty and goodness, while he continued the high life. From that time on, I looked for more purposefulness in life than in only an unding series of unsatisfying, monotonous pleasures without any aim other than the pleasures themselves.
Can you say girls? Free concerts and girls, sunshine and suds, music and dancing girls; truly I tried to find meaning through pleasure! I worked hard at it; very hard. Tom Hooper and I lived together until September in 1986. Then Tom and I parted ways, and I have not had contact with him since; I went back to University to pursue truth, beauty and goodness, while he continued the high life. From that time on, I looked for more purposefulness in life than in only an unding series of unsatisfying, monotonous pleasures without any aim other than the pleasures themselves.
2006-09-30
autumn busy-ness
So I have been rather busy with school work lately. My classes this year look to be made up of decent secular heathen kids. Intellectually my classes seem more capable than in my previous years; this is primarily because my junior level grade 8 blocks are filled with kids from only French Immersion. French Immersion kids are generally more capable than regular stream kids in my school. As well, they tend to be more dedicated to achieving good grades. But on the whole my 5 blocks of senior English are absolutely fabulous and fun to teach; the downside is that, despite the recent CBA which stipulated class sizes of 30 and maximum special needs students of 2 per block, I do still have a few classes over 30 and one English 11 class with 4 autistic students jammed into it. I am enjoying going through All Quiet on the Western Front with my 12's this month. We will move on to The Taming of the Shrew around the third week of October; we will all be 'full-gorged' with the Bard by Christmas.
This last week we had beautiful, clear and sunny afternoons and evenings. On Thursday our Gr.12s had a boat cruise dinner and dance around Vancouver's False Creek, English Bay, Stanley Park and Coal Harbour. It was joyful for me to see them take such delight in the dancing, the breath-taking views and in one another's company outside of the school. For myself it was tiring to start work at 7 am and work to 4:30 pm, and then boogie on the boat until 10 pm. I arrived home to my welcoming bed at 11:30ish; accordingly work yesterday was unusually yawny. It was cool to be in charge of the digital SLR; I went truly wild taking over 2 gigabytes of photos during the cruise.
In other news, Ramone's llama notebook bit the dust after only 9 months! Never buy a computer from Costco, as they only warranty computers for 6 months. Accordingly, so that Ramone can do her accounting work for the Church, I have graciously permitted her to purchase another notebook; this time it will be a MacBook as in the above image. Those of you that know how teeny and tiny my heart is, will perhaps note the great and far-reaching self-sacrifice of this gesture.
In still other news, I am thinking of buying a digital camera in the next few years. The model I am thinking of saving for is the Leica M8, a digital range finder camera. Here is a review of it. I am still continuing with my cycling 3 or 4 times per week; some have even noticed my reduced girth, so the girth-control measures seem to be making both an aesthetic and a healthy difference!
This last week we had beautiful, clear and sunny afternoons and evenings. On Thursday our Gr.12s had a boat cruise dinner and dance around Vancouver's False Creek, English Bay, Stanley Park and Coal Harbour. It was joyful for me to see them take such delight in the dancing, the breath-taking views and in one another's company outside of the school. For myself it was tiring to start work at 7 am and work to 4:30 pm, and then boogie on the boat until 10 pm. I arrived home to my welcoming bed at 11:30ish; accordingly work yesterday was unusually yawny. It was cool to be in charge of the digital SLR; I went truly wild taking over 2 gigabytes of photos during the cruise.
In other news, Ramone's llama notebook bit the dust after only 9 months! Never buy a computer from Costco, as they only warranty computers for 6 months. Accordingly, so that Ramone can do her accounting work for the Church, I have graciously permitted her to purchase another notebook; this time it will be a MacBook as in the above image. Those of you that know how teeny and tiny my heart is, will perhaps note the great and far-reaching self-sacrifice of this gesture.
In still other news, I am thinking of buying a digital camera in the next few years. The model I am thinking of saving for is the Leica M8, a digital range finder camera. Here is a review of it. I am still continuing with my cycling 3 or 4 times per week; some have even noticed my reduced girth, so the girth-control measures seem to be making both an aesthetic and a healthy difference!
2006-09-08
Beauty's objective demands
Von Balthasar, a fine Roman theologian, wrote somewhere that beauty makes demands, and suggested that this is a natural analogy to the attitude of faith, which is like an aesthetic response to the form of Christ.
Beauty makes demands. If I hear the central movement of Beethoven's Appassionata or Bach's Cello Suite in G Major or any of a dozen other pieces of music, I can't do anything else. I've got to listen. Try not breathing deeply when you catch a whiff of hyacinth or lavender. Try not looking at a beautiful landscape, a beautiful building, a beautiful woman. It's possible not to look, rather it takes an act of resistance, a rebellion of sorts.
We can appeal to this to establish the objectivity of beauty. If beauty were purely subjective, could it command attention, could it fascinate, could it surprise?
2006-09-02
What is the beverage of manly men?
Scotch, wine, ale or water? Something else like tea or coffee? Is it situational? Identify the manly beverage in your life accordingly.
Water is life-giving. I drink volumes of my Wa2! filtered water daily. Wine is a delight to consume with friends or when I sit and relax with my wife. Coffee is a morning experience, whereas tea is a soothing evening beverage.
In other news, the Scrivener pointed out this very interesting article, composed by Fr. Thomas Hopko. The intent is to outline certain changes that would be needful for a reunion to happen between the Roman Apostolic See and the Orthodox.
I recommend a glass of merlot while you read it.
In yet other news, I rode my cycle to work today. Truly it was a minor, though important, achievement for me. I am thankful to Christ for the strength I have been given. I have had to do a lot of cooperating with Him to gain any slight edge. With fortitude I hope to get the synergy raging full-on! Perhaps someday I will climb up to the summit of Mnt. Baker to see further glory:)
2006-08-31
The latest priestly tool?
James from St. Peter the Aleut Parish in Calgary introduced me to the latest marvel in evoking a repentant heart during Lent. The self-described 'Talk-to-me' hammer would be especially helpful in softening up tougher, grinchy hearts during a confession. One can almost chuckle at some of the potential conversations under the stoll! "Make a complete confession of that, boy, or else you will be talking to the 'Talk-to-me'..." Indeed such confessional dialogue is not for the faint of heart, but do consider that if a sinner doesn't make a good repentance now, the 'I-don't-know-you' hammer in the afterworld is way, way worse to consider! Let us consider the cost of not having one of these priestly confessional tools.
Fr. Lawrence, my priest, would make good use of this implement. Perhaps a gold and jewel encrusted whacker would be just the ticket for getting those lukewarm repenters to come around to serious metanoia?! Oh be merciful; let us just pray that our parish council finds the funds for one of these 'Talk-to-me' hammers.
Fr. Lawrence, my priest, would make good use of this implement. Perhaps a gold and jewel encrusted whacker would be just the ticket for getting those lukewarm repenters to come around to serious metanoia?! Oh be merciful; let us just pray that our parish council finds the funds for one of these 'Talk-to-me' hammers.
2006-08-29
Theotokos and Dylan
St. Ignatius wrote to the Church of Jerusalem: "...I intend to come to you in order to see the faithful gathered in Jerusalem, and especially the Mother of Jesus: they say of her that she is honorable, affable, and arouses wonder in all, and all wish to see her. But who would not wish to see the Virgin and to converse with her who bore the true God? ...With us she is glorified as the Mother of God and the Virgin full of grace and virtue. They say of her that she is joyful in troubles and persecutions, does not grieve in poverty and want, and not only does not get angry with those who offend her but does good to them still more... All who see her are delighted."
To reiterate, 'all who see her are delighted;' and why? Because 'she is glorified'. She is glorified 'as the Mother of God and the Virgin full of grace.' Since it is logical that we should glorify what God honours, Mary has been glorified as being holy -- that is, separated for God -- from the infancy of the Church. Also this sense of her holiness helps us to understand why Joseph left Mary as a virgin. What manner of man would touch that which God has separated for Himself? One who wishes to face His wrath. To the ancient Hebrew mind, the answer was self-evident, especially given certain precedents. Though most see in this a sense of Mary's purity, I see in this situation a manifestation of Joseph's manly personality. As manliness is mostly made manifest through self-control, we can see in Joseph a supremely manly example of a man abstaining out of a desire to honour 'what had been separated' or 'made holy by God's Presence'. One would be not far from the truth to see in Joseph a certain type of monastic. Without a doubt Joseph's role as a protector of Mary and Jesus is the one we generally think of. In my heart I believe that Our Lord was joyful to meet with His human father when He ascended, so 'well pleased' was He with him and his manliness.
In a complete change of topic, I will discuss my favourite Bob Dylan albums. I will limit my list to only five albums. Any serious Dylan fan will likely be able to accurately guess 3 of the 5 on my list; for in the period 1964-1966 Dylan produced three works which could be viewed as being among the greatest artistic achievements of the 20th Century. Highway 61 Revisited, Bringing It All Back Home and Blonde On Blonde are 'must listen to albums' if you are interested in Bob Dylan. There are single hits on these albums, but I think they play best as cohesive units and should be best enjoyed as albums. Bob married in late 1965 and had a child in 1966; this combined with a motorcycle crash caused Dylan to slow his creative production a bit. The John Wesley Harding album from 1967 is a fine album, but even with "All Around the Watchtower" on it, the album does not make my top five Dylan albums. But his Nashville Skyline album from 1969 does; with his duet on "North Country Girl" with Johnny Cash, onto "Country Pie" and "Lay Lady Lay" the album is a truly magnificent unit. The depth and power of Dylan's lyrics on Nashville Skyline lies in their simplicity, as most of the songs narrate ordinary life experiences. Boring, perhaps to some, but timeless to those who know life's joys and woes. After Bob Dylan's accident, his lyrics became more and more concerned with religious themes. This is the case with his work through the 70s and 80s. Of this body of work, two albums stand out. Oh Mercy from 1989 and Infidels from 1983 are both fine albums. But for my fifth album I will go with Oh Mercy. The chiming, apocalyptic-sounding guitar work on the dobro by Daniel Lanois is evident throughout the album, but nowhere as effectively as on the track "Man in the Long Black Coat". Dylan and Lanois create a windy, end-of-time atsmosphere with a melody that haunts a listener well after the track has played.
So my top 5 Bob Dylan Albums would be these, with due honour to Bob's first album "Bob Dylan" being noted:
1. Highway 61 Revisisted
2. Bringing It All Back Home
3. Blonde on Blonde
4. Nashville Skyline
5. Oh Mercy
2006-08-27
compounding of charity and hatred
It is not how much we do, but how much love we put in the doing. It is not how much we give, but how much love we put in the giving. ---Mother Teresa---
When I first read C.S. Lewis' argument about the practice of charity, the notion of loving my neighbour became clearer for me. His basic view was that one need not worry whether one feels love for another person, rather it matters only that one acts as if he loved the other person. This acting, if consistent, will become habitual and gradually become the real deal. Said another way, by practising the virtue of charity, you will gradually become more charitable quite in spite of how you feel. This was a keen insight for me, as I used to think I had to feel charitable to be charitable; that feelings and reality were intermingled and almost identifiable. But the truth is that the worldly man treats others kindly because he feels 'like' for them; whereas the Christian, trying to treat all men kindly out of practising charity, finds himself liking more and more people -- including people he could never have imagined liking. This is the spiritual dynamic of charity; that more you act out of charity, the more you will derive; as you love a person, the more your love will grow.
Sadly this same spiritual dynamic works similarly in the opposite direction. Evil acts rot more and more the evil doer. Take the practice of hatred, the opposite of charity. As the hater of Jews acts on his hatred by acting cruelly, as did the Nazis, the Jews end up being hated even more by the haters because they had acted cruelly. Thus the more cruel one is, the more one will hate; and the more one hates, the more cruel one will become. A horrific cycle.
Hence both virtue and vice will accrue at compound interest. Accordingly it is true that all the little things we do be done out of charity; as St. Teresa of Calcutta advises in the quotation, it is the why we do what we do that matters.
2006-08-23
Like minds
I saw this flick yesterday, and thought it was clever; the plot was well thought out. The representation of the history of the Cathars and the statement attributed to the Bishop of Rome are a little inaccurate; the Pope did not say it, it was another Bishop who did; and the Cathars are not portrayed as the matter-hating Gnostic heretics that they were. But these two things are minor quibbles, not affecting the plot. Toni Collette delivered a strong performance as did others in the cast.
I am usually quite successful in figuring out how the characters will develop in a mystery and what will happen with the denouement, but this plot fooled me a little. Not a great flick but worth seeing if you enjoy untwisting murder mysteries.
In other news, I am getting mentally prepared to return to work. My friend Danike and I are going to go on a hike (and flyfish at high altitude) this coming Monday; after that trip my summer will be over.
Soon the daily grind will be my reality. However, this year I will cycle part way to work roughly three days per week; not only will this keep me slim and übersecki, but also I hope it will be a fine way to commune with God and pray. "O God keep the cars off me."
I am usually quite successful in figuring out how the characters will develop in a mystery and what will happen with the denouement, but this plot fooled me a little. Not a great flick but worth seeing if you enjoy untwisting murder mysteries.
In other news, I am getting mentally prepared to return to work. My friend Danike and I are going to go on a hike (and flyfish at high altitude) this coming Monday; after that trip my summer will be over.
Soon the daily grind will be my reality. However, this year I will cycle part way to work roughly three days per week; not only will this keep me slim and übersecki, but also I hope it will be a fine way to commune with God and pray. "O God keep the cars off me."
2006-08-22
pasivirta.baby: wherefore art thou?
Has the Pasivirta.baby paled? Has he withered away back to the dust from which he was made? Is he blowing in the wind? How many roads must the pasivirta.baby cycle down before you call him a manly man? How many trout on the fly must he catch before he is counted among the manly? Is the answer blowing in the digital breeze of his blog? Is he trapped inside a series of Bob Dylan allusions? O say it isn't so!
I was searching for the singing Finnish youth leader online to answer these very questions, but to no avail. It appears he has dropped from the blog world. Was he chased away for fear of giving another offense? Was he bored or tired of it?
This is something I know all too well. Nevertheless my questions remain.
Perhaps the pasivirta.baby is riding the rides at playland, doing some youth group research? Then, again, he may be riding the waves off the coast of Seaside, Oregon?
O pasivirta.baby wherefore art thou?
I was searching for the singing Finnish youth leader online to answer these very questions, but to no avail. It appears he has dropped from the blog world. Was he chased away for fear of giving another offense? Was he bored or tired of it?
This is something I know all too well. Nevertheless my questions remain.
Perhaps the pasivirta.baby is riding the rides at playland, doing some youth group research? Then, again, he may be riding the waves off the coast of Seaside, Oregon?
O pasivirta.baby wherefore art thou?
2006-08-14
note regarding humour
This point needs to be added to my last post; I can't believe I forgot to state it originally. For humour is essential to my spiritual walk.
As God laughs at the foolishness of men (Ps. 2:4); so, too, I think it is healthy for us to laugh at ourselves. Consider that Satan fell in part because of his “gravity” (i.e. he took himself too seriously). We need to be able to recognize our shortcomings, bad habits and our sins by calling them by name. We need to laugh at them in order to be able to move past them. A good sense of self-depreciating humour can help to develop humility. As Our Lord stated, "be of good cheer," through all things. Note the allusion to St. John Chrysostom.
2006-08-01
life basics for my children
Over the course of my first forty years the Lord has taught me these following things:>
1. Love is what makes life worth struggling through.
2. Unless you are a mystic, God's love will be shown to you mostly through nature, the Church, in friendships and family.
3. He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has departed from wisdom.
4. When faced with a big decision in life, and all the options are morally equivalent or traditionally inoffensive, choose the most challenging for yourself.
5. Fighting against your demons will last until you leave; and you must consistently "rage against the darkness until it bleeds light."
6. Be loyal to the Truth above all; then to your friends and family.
7. If one can't be sure of an answer to an important question, then tradition is the best basis for the practical life.
8. Always hold your arms outstretched in love toward the further shore.
9. Rather be killed than break your word.
10. Honour those around you; even treat your enemy as if someday he will be your friend.
2006-07-27
The One Book: Vic's Questionnaire
The One Book
1. One book that changed your life:
Bible; Brothers Karamazov; C.S. Lewis' work
2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Brothers Karamazov; LOTR Trilogy
3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
Bible
4. One book that made you laugh:
Bible; The Hobbit; C.S. Lewis on Music and the Psalms
5. One book that made you cry:
Bible and Victor Hugo's Les Miserable
6. One book that you wish had been written:
How to Say 'No!': A Handbook for lovey-dovey leaders and other perplexed minds
7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Koran
8. One book you’re currently reading:
Bible; Fr. Alexander Schmemann's Journals; The Bible and the Liturgy by J. Danielou
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Leithart's survey of the Old Testament
2006-07-19
Against pussy footers
*I am reposting this entry from my web site because of a request*
It is not good for you to be kicking against the goads (cf. Act 26:14).
Don't be a pussy footer, O man of God; manly men don't like them. God doesn't like pussy footers either. Pussy footers are men only in disguise, living as if they had something to die for. Only other pussy footers like other pussy footers. Worse, pussy footers are pales, llamas and whiners. Pussy footers step aside from battling the demons; this is the most deadly criticism of pussy footers. Christ claims we are either with or against Him; there is no pussy footing half-way to Our Lord. Yet, since God commands that we love our enemies, we are duty-bound to pray for the pussy footers; the good news is that there is no requirement you must like the pussy footers you come across. Accordingly pray that the pussy footer in your life toughens up and faces his demons like a manly man. Be sure to do your part to help toughen up any pussy footer! Get him to read some Patristics, all of Dostoevsky and Shakespeare; better yet, have him try to learn some calculus or basic Latin and Greek; take him mountain biking, hiking, fly fishing or rock climbing. But I advise each manly man out there to seek out a specific pussy footer to tutor in the ways of the manly; this personal connection will mean a lot to the pussy footer and may help to rectify his llama and pale-ways more swiftly.
2006-07-17
π and 1 Kings 7:23
My friend Gavin brought to my attention what looks like an error in 1 Kings 7:23. It concerns a circumference calculation. For the calculation the number 3 seems to be used for the usual 3.14 of pi( π ). So what gives?
Bear in mind any number can be rounded to any level of precision desired; one can round π to the nearest ten and get zero. Rounding it to the nearest unit, giving 3, makes perfectly good sense if that is what you want to do.
The real question is, what is lost if one rounds π down to 3? We are reducing its value by .14/3.14 = 4.5%, and so any calculations we make will have that much error; but for many purposes that would be perfectly acceptable.
Whenever we work with π we are rounding it to some number of digits, so all such calculations are inaccurate. The only issue is how much accuracy we need for a particular application.
The Bible at 1 Kings 7:23 does not state that π = 3.0. It states that a particular object (the circular basin in front of the Jerusalem Temple) had a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. So the correct question is not, "Is it proper to round pi to 3.0?" but "Is it proper to round the circumference of this circle to 30 cubits?" Or better, "Are a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits consistent within reasonable measurement error?"
We do not know the precision of the measuring instruments used to measure the diameter and circumference of this circle. But here is what would naturally be understood if one saw this figure in a scientific journal: in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit - that is, plus or minus 0.5 cubit.
So let's suppose that the diameter was measured, or specified in the design, to be 10 cubits plus or minus 0.5 cubit. Then the actual circumference would be 29.8 to 32.98 cubits --- based on a diameter in the range from 9.5 to 10.5 cubits. If we make the same assumption about the precision of the circumference measurement, we get a range of 29.5 to 30.5 cubits. Notice that the two ranges have considerable overlap.
There is therefore no inconsistency between the diameter and the circumference as reported in the Bible at 1 Kings 7:23 .
So, it would appear God permits a reasonable range in such calculations:)
Bear in mind any number can be rounded to any level of precision desired; one can round π to the nearest ten and get zero. Rounding it to the nearest unit, giving 3, makes perfectly good sense if that is what you want to do.
The real question is, what is lost if one rounds π down to 3? We are reducing its value by .14/3.14 = 4.5%, and so any calculations we make will have that much error; but for many purposes that would be perfectly acceptable.
Whenever we work with π we are rounding it to some number of digits, so all such calculations are inaccurate. The only issue is how much accuracy we need for a particular application.
The Bible at 1 Kings 7:23 does not state that π = 3.0. It states that a particular object (the circular basin in front of the Jerusalem Temple) had a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. So the correct question is not, "Is it proper to round pi to 3.0?" but "Is it proper to round the circumference of this circle to 30 cubits?" Or better, "Are a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits consistent within reasonable measurement error?"
We do not know the precision of the measuring instruments used to measure the diameter and circumference of this circle. But here is what would naturally be understood if one saw this figure in a scientific journal: in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit - that is, plus or minus 0.5 cubit.
So let's suppose that the diameter was measured, or specified in the design, to be 10 cubits plus or minus 0.5 cubit. Then the actual circumference would be 29.8 to 32.98 cubits --- based on a diameter in the range from 9.5 to 10.5 cubits. If we make the same assumption about the precision of the circumference measurement, we get a range of 29.5 to 30.5 cubits. Notice that the two ranges have considerable overlap.
There is therefore no inconsistency between the diameter and the circumference as reported in the Bible at 1 Kings 7:23 .
So, it would appear God permits a reasonable range in such calculations:)
Use google to make web pages
If you have a gmail account, you can create web pages easily through firefox or safari. I made this one as a lark. You can upload files and do all the other useful things a web site normally does. It is free of cost as long as you have a gmail account. Another feature I find useful is to keep my daily calendar online; google provides this free of cost as well. You can choose to make any or none of these features public. Anyone who has a gmail account usually has one or two or more invites that they would be willing to send you.
Yes, I am an enthusiastic fan of Google's initiatives.
Yes, I am an enthusiastic fan of Google's initiatives.
2006-07-16
Hannah and Luke to Oliver; Manasseh and Liturgical Memories
My priest once taught me that the name "Manasseh" is derived from a causative form of the verb "to forget". Hence, 'to cause to forget.' Manasseh causes Judah to forget by liturgical change - rebuilding high places, erecting altars and Asherahs, and so on. Memory is nourished by the repetition and familiarity of a liturgy; forgetfulness by liturgical perversion and frequent alteration.
This merits further thought. But another time.
In other news, my son and daughter have gone to sunny Oliver for the next 10 days. I will miss them. Sadly the truth is that they seemed quite pleased to be leaving! I guess I will never be a 'buddy' to my kids or someone they look forward to seeing. Nevertheless, I hope they have a fun and joyful time around the pool! Ramone and I will drive to Oliver in 10 days and spend 4 days visiting; it is my hope to do some wine tours and ride our bicycles while there in the hot arid climate.
This merits further thought. But another time.
In other news, my son and daughter have gone to sunny Oliver for the next 10 days. I will miss them. Sadly the truth is that they seemed quite pleased to be leaving! I guess I will never be a 'buddy' to my kids or someone they look forward to seeing. Nevertheless, I hope they have a fun and joyful time around the pool! Ramone and I will drive to Oliver in 10 days and spend 4 days visiting; it is my hope to do some wine tours and ride our bicycles while there in the hot arid climate.
2006-07-13
A Thought on Creation, Hunger and Food
It is always wise to bear in mind what Christ says brings blessedness. I was struck by the thought that when you read the story of Adam's creation you learn that God brought him forth and had him eat. As one who enjoys the intellectual life, this seems counter to my instincts. But the Lord didn't bring man forth to wonder at universal grammar, string theory, propositional calculus, theories of forms or of general relativity; he offered man food. Now this pre-fallen hunger is something I yearn to experience, for daily I fight a fallen aspect of hunger. But hunger as a good desire is foremost on Jesus' list of the Beatitudes; so it must bring blessedness if the hungry desire is pure. There are intimations of the Eucharist in this creation 'hunger' that would merit deeper analysis.
Creation Symbolism in James
The epistle of James has long presented dificulties for protestant New Testament scholars. Its seemingly moralistic tone, its apparent inattention to theological concerns, its defense of "justification by works" all have made it difficult for Protestant interpreters to discern its compatibility with other New Testament books. Luther's dismissal of James as an "epistle of straw" was only a characteristically blunt expression of an attitude shared by many. Of course this is not a problem for us; only for those looking to establish non-New Testament based views.
Recognizing the parallels between James and the Gospel of Matthew points us toward a more correct assessment of the epistle's character. There are many of the themes common to the two books. I will cite only a few: rejoicing in trials (Mt. 5:12; Jas. 1:2); perfection (Mt. 5:48; Jas. 1:4); meekness (Mt. 5:3, 5, 9; Jas. 3:13, 17-18); anger (Mt. 5:22; Jas. 1:20); the poor (Mt. 5:3, 25:35; Jas. 2:5, 16).
Several passages, moreover, show that the epistle of James has a more theological orientation than many protestant commentators acknowledge. In particular, there are several passages in which James alludes to the early chapters of Genesis in ways that display a penetrating grasp of biblical theology. Let us discuss two such passages.
1. James 1:12-18. The epistle of James begins with a discussion of two types of temptation. In 1:2-4, James encourages his readers to rejoice even in the midst of trials and afflictions. Such "temptations" bring endurance and perfection. In the background of these verses is James's confidence that the Lord is working even in these trials and affliction for the good of His body, the called.
In verses 12-18, James turns to a discussion of temptation in the moral sense. In this sense, James insists, we cannot say, "We are being tempted by God." God governs the circumstances that aflict and try us, but He cannot be accused of encouraging sin. For James, this is axiomatic, a simple implication of the holy and just character of God; the reason we cannot say, "God is tempting me," is simply that "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (v. 13).
In 1:14-15, James argues that we are enticed to sin not by our external circumstances but by our own evil desires or lusts. James uses conception and birth as an analogy for the process by which temptation leads to sin. Having given into temptation, lust conceives (the word describes the female role in conception) and then bears sin. Sin, in turns, fulfills itself in death. Already, we can see a faint reference to the temptation of Eve in Eden: She first desired the fruit, and then, having conceived, her desire gave birth to sin and her sin led to death.
That Genesis forms the background to these verses is confirmed when we examine verses 17-18, where James continues and develops the conception-birth imagery. Men give birth to sin; God, by contrast, is not the Father of sin, but the Father of lights. This is clearly a reference to Genesis 1's account of God's creation of the lamps of the firmament on the fourth day. Only good things come down from the One who created light; no darkness comes from Him; all His works are very good.
The phrase, "Father of lights," however, is dificult. If James has only the creation account in mind, it is an odd way to speak of God's relationship with the luminaries of heaven. "Creator," "Lord," or "Prince" of lights would be more expected. The use of "Father" thus points not only to the Creator but to the Redeemer, and suggests that the "lights" in view are the Lord's sons and daughters. The thought becomes clearer when we recall that the heavenly lights are often symbols of God's redeemed people (Gen. 26:4; Dan. 12:3). Specifically, the heavenly lamps signify God's people as a royal race. James's thought, then, is this: God does not tempt because He is not a God who gives birth to sin and death; instead, He is Father to a righteous, royal race that shines like the lights of heaven. His children are not death and sin, but lights.
The remainder of verse 17 emphasizes that since the Lord is the Father of lights, He does not change as the heavenly bodies do. Using several technical astronomical terms, James indicates that the Creator is not subject to the variation or darkening that the world is subject to. The light of the sun disappears each night; in the creation, God separated darkness and night. But the Creator is pure, eternal Light.
The birth imagery is carried on into verse 18. By the same word that brought about the first creation, God brings forth His people as the firstfruits of a new creation. Adamic man gives birth only to sin and death; the Father of lights brings forth a new creation. "Lights" and "firstfruits" are therefore two ways to describe the Lord's re-created people.
This passage, then, shows that James had a theological foundation to his moral exhortations. Here James comes very close to Pauline theology, especially in the use both make of the creation of light in drawing an analogy between creation and redemption (e.g., 2 Cor 4:6; 5:17).
2. James 3:7-8. One of the dominant themes of the epistle is the proper use of the tongue. Much of the third chapter is devoted to exhortations to control the tongue.
Verses 7-8 provide another example of James's creative use of biblical theology, and of the early chapters of Genesis in particular. Verse 7 is an obvious allusion to the mandate of Genesis 1:26-28, though James's list of animals is different from that of Genesis (interestingly, it includes reptiles). Both passages are concerned with human mastery over the lower creatures.
But James gives a remarkable twist to this allusion. Instead of considering the "dominion mandate" as a continuing project, he says that it is completed. Every animal of the heavens, earth, and sea have been brought under the yoke of man. Even the serpent-like "reptiles" have been mastered. Yet, though the creation mandate is completed, man has not yet tamed his own poisonous tongue (v. 8).
James would surely admit that some animals have not been tamed. The point, however, is to bring attention to the true character of the Christian's dominion. The unrighteous frequently rule the lower creation, but are incapable of reining in their own sin. Having died and risen with Christ, the Christian is freed from the mastery of sin and given resurrection power to live in holiness and righteousness.
The most important dominion is not dominion over the lower creation, but dominion over the flesh. Controlling the tongue, James implies, is one of the chief manifestations of this Spiritual dominion.
Man's initial act of dominion involved the tongue: naming the animals. His fall also involved the tongue. Adam stood by and failed to interrupt the serpent's attempt to seduce Eve, and then Adam lied to God. Thus, James is reflecting on the place of the tongue, the human image of the word of God, in directing human life. The "Father of lights" spoke the world into existence; man corrupted it with his words.
All of this shows an intense theological reflection upon Genesis 1-3.
Recognizing the parallels between James and the Gospel of Matthew points us toward a more correct assessment of the epistle's character. There are many of the themes common to the two books. I will cite only a few: rejoicing in trials (Mt. 5:12; Jas. 1:2); perfection (Mt. 5:48; Jas. 1:4); meekness (Mt. 5:3, 5, 9; Jas. 3:13, 17-18); anger (Mt. 5:22; Jas. 1:20); the poor (Mt. 5:3, 25:35; Jas. 2:5, 16).
Several passages, moreover, show that the epistle of James has a more theological orientation than many protestant commentators acknowledge. In particular, there are several passages in which James alludes to the early chapters of Genesis in ways that display a penetrating grasp of biblical theology. Let us discuss two such passages.
1. James 1:12-18. The epistle of James begins with a discussion of two types of temptation. In 1:2-4, James encourages his readers to rejoice even in the midst of trials and afflictions. Such "temptations" bring endurance and perfection. In the background of these verses is James's confidence that the Lord is working even in these trials and affliction for the good of His body, the called.
In verses 12-18, James turns to a discussion of temptation in the moral sense. In this sense, James insists, we cannot say, "We are being tempted by God." God governs the circumstances that aflict and try us, but He cannot be accused of encouraging sin. For James, this is axiomatic, a simple implication of the holy and just character of God; the reason we cannot say, "God is tempting me," is simply that "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (v. 13).
In 1:14-15, James argues that we are enticed to sin not by our external circumstances but by our own evil desires or lusts. James uses conception and birth as an analogy for the process by which temptation leads to sin. Having given into temptation, lust conceives (the word describes the female role in conception) and then bears sin. Sin, in turns, fulfills itself in death. Already, we can see a faint reference to the temptation of Eve in Eden: She first desired the fruit, and then, having conceived, her desire gave birth to sin and her sin led to death.
That Genesis forms the background to these verses is confirmed when we examine verses 17-18, where James continues and develops the conception-birth imagery. Men give birth to sin; God, by contrast, is not the Father of sin, but the Father of lights. This is clearly a reference to Genesis 1's account of God's creation of the lamps of the firmament on the fourth day. Only good things come down from the One who created light; no darkness comes from Him; all His works are very good.
The phrase, "Father of lights," however, is dificult. If James has only the creation account in mind, it is an odd way to speak of God's relationship with the luminaries of heaven. "Creator," "Lord," or "Prince" of lights would be more expected. The use of "Father" thus points not only to the Creator but to the Redeemer, and suggests that the "lights" in view are the Lord's sons and daughters. The thought becomes clearer when we recall that the heavenly lights are often symbols of God's redeemed people (Gen. 26:4; Dan. 12:3). Specifically, the heavenly lamps signify God's people as a royal race. James's thought, then, is this: God does not tempt because He is not a God who gives birth to sin and death; instead, He is Father to a righteous, royal race that shines like the lights of heaven. His children are not death and sin, but lights.
The remainder of verse 17 emphasizes that since the Lord is the Father of lights, He does not change as the heavenly bodies do. Using several technical astronomical terms, James indicates that the Creator is not subject to the variation or darkening that the world is subject to. The light of the sun disappears each night; in the creation, God separated darkness and night. But the Creator is pure, eternal Light.
The birth imagery is carried on into verse 18. By the same word that brought about the first creation, God brings forth His people as the firstfruits of a new creation. Adamic man gives birth only to sin and death; the Father of lights brings forth a new creation. "Lights" and "firstfruits" are therefore two ways to describe the Lord's re-created people.
This passage, then, shows that James had a theological foundation to his moral exhortations. Here James comes very close to Pauline theology, especially in the use both make of the creation of light in drawing an analogy between creation and redemption (e.g., 2 Cor 4:6; 5:17).
2. James 3:7-8. One of the dominant themes of the epistle is the proper use of the tongue. Much of the third chapter is devoted to exhortations to control the tongue.
Verses 7-8 provide another example of James's creative use of biblical theology, and of the early chapters of Genesis in particular. Verse 7 is an obvious allusion to the mandate of Genesis 1:26-28, though James's list of animals is different from that of Genesis (interestingly, it includes reptiles). Both passages are concerned with human mastery over the lower creatures.
But James gives a remarkable twist to this allusion. Instead of considering the "dominion mandate" as a continuing project, he says that it is completed. Every animal of the heavens, earth, and sea have been brought under the yoke of man. Even the serpent-like "reptiles" have been mastered. Yet, though the creation mandate is completed, man has not yet tamed his own poisonous tongue (v. 8).
James would surely admit that some animals have not been tamed. The point, however, is to bring attention to the true character of the Christian's dominion. The unrighteous frequently rule the lower creation, but are incapable of reining in their own sin. Having died and risen with Christ, the Christian is freed from the mastery of sin and given resurrection power to live in holiness and righteousness.
The most important dominion is not dominion over the lower creation, but dominion over the flesh. Controlling the tongue, James implies, is one of the chief manifestations of this Spiritual dominion.
Man's initial act of dominion involved the tongue: naming the animals. His fall also involved the tongue. Adam stood by and failed to interrupt the serpent's attempt to seduce Eve, and then Adam lied to God. Thus, James is reflecting on the place of the tongue, the human image of the word of God, in directing human life. The "Father of lights" spoke the world into existence; man corrupted it with his words.
All of this shows an intense theological reflection upon Genesis 1-3.
2006-07-11
A Thought on Creation
Assuming Gen. 1:1 describes an act of creation and is not a title: It's striking that the Genesis account begins with the creation of two realms rather than a single entity or realm.
Hesiod says that there was one reality, chaos; Anaximander says "together were all things"; Thales claimed that water was the beginning.
But not Genesis: Duality and difference does not arise from a prior unity. Difference is primordial in creation, as in God.
Gospel vs Over-helpful therapy vs Self-reliance: the battle rages in "One Nation Under Therapy"!
We need less opportunities to absolve ourselves of responsibilities. According to Sommers and Hoff, as a society in North America, we need to stress more self-reliance, not more of the psychological 'helpfulness' that tends toward removing challenges and responsibility.
PE classes are dangerous places. Dodge ball might leave nasty bruises, and, worse, the frustrations of competition and failure permanently destroy a kid’s psyche. Non-competitive activities like juggling or learning to use a wheel-chair are possible alternatives, but anyone who's tried juggling knows how psychologically destructive that can be. One expert helpfully suggests juggling silk scarves, which "are soft, nonthreatening, and float down slowly."
As Shakespeare would say, "Pity the satirist."
According to Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel, both resident scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, much contemporary child-rearing is founded on the assumption that kids are fragile and need to be kept inside a protective bubble. This is no insult to children, though, since "therapism" treats all of us as hand-wringing Hamlets and flower-throwing Ophelias, teetering on the edge of breakdown. Moral accountability is painful, so we avoid it. Addicts do not lack self-control; they are victims of "brain hijacking." The helping industry pathologizes normal human reactions to death, disaster, and loss, and in the process of pathologizing, professionalizes.
One Nation Under Therapy not only argues that the helping professions don't; the authors insist that therapism often, as in the case of Post-Vietnam Syndrome, makes a bad situation worse.
Hoff Sommers and Satel's polemic is well-researched, convincing, and frequently entertaining, but I had reservations. I wonder if the helping professionals are as dominant as the authors suggest. Virtually every high school in North America, after all, still has a basketball team, and millions of North Americans have the good sense to scorn the self-absorption of psychology.
At the same time, I'm also unconvinced by the authors' prescription that we just need to "cowboy up" in defense of the good ol' American "creed of stoicism and the ideology of achievement." If, as the authors say, psychology has displaced religion and ethics, a creed of self-reliance will not be a sufficient response.
And again, I wonder if the creed of stoicism really does justice to the complexities of the human soul. St. Augustine would be no supporter of the therapeutic culture, but he was deeply in awe of the intricacies of human passion and behavior. Far superior were the Fathers to stoicism because of their embracing the received wisdom. Of course this has largely been rejected in North America.
One Nation Under Therapy is loaded with information, but Philip Rieff’s Triumph of the Therapeutic, because it zeroes in on the religious dimension of therapism, is a far superior book, more relevant now than when it was published in 1966.
PE classes are dangerous places. Dodge ball might leave nasty bruises, and, worse, the frustrations of competition and failure permanently destroy a kid’s psyche. Non-competitive activities like juggling or learning to use a wheel-chair are possible alternatives, but anyone who's tried juggling knows how psychologically destructive that can be. One expert helpfully suggests juggling silk scarves, which "are soft, nonthreatening, and float down slowly."
As Shakespeare would say, "Pity the satirist."
According to Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel, both resident scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, much contemporary child-rearing is founded on the assumption that kids are fragile and need to be kept inside a protective bubble. This is no insult to children, though, since "therapism" treats all of us as hand-wringing Hamlets and flower-throwing Ophelias, teetering on the edge of breakdown. Moral accountability is painful, so we avoid it. Addicts do not lack self-control; they are victims of "brain hijacking." The helping industry pathologizes normal human reactions to death, disaster, and loss, and in the process of pathologizing, professionalizes.
One Nation Under Therapy not only argues that the helping professions don't; the authors insist that therapism often, as in the case of Post-Vietnam Syndrome, makes a bad situation worse.
Hoff Sommers and Satel's polemic is well-researched, convincing, and frequently entertaining, but I had reservations. I wonder if the helping professionals are as dominant as the authors suggest. Virtually every high school in North America, after all, still has a basketball team, and millions of North Americans have the good sense to scorn the self-absorption of psychology.
At the same time, I'm also unconvinced by the authors' prescription that we just need to "cowboy up" in defense of the good ol' American "creed of stoicism and the ideology of achievement." If, as the authors say, psychology has displaced religion and ethics, a creed of self-reliance will not be a sufficient response.
And again, I wonder if the creed of stoicism really does justice to the complexities of the human soul. St. Augustine would be no supporter of the therapeutic culture, but he was deeply in awe of the intricacies of human passion and behavior. Far superior were the Fathers to stoicism because of their embracing the received wisdom. Of course this has largely been rejected in North America.
One Nation Under Therapy is loaded with information, but Philip Rieff’s Triumph of the Therapeutic, because it zeroes in on the religious dimension of therapism, is a far superior book, more relevant now than when it was published in 1966.
2006-07-01
Serpent-wise?
Jesus said that we should be wise as serpents, but how are serpents wise?
Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was more "crafty" (ARUM) than any of the beasts of the field, and the same word is used a number of times in Proverbs, often translated as "prudent." A crafty man conceals what he knows (12:23). The crafty man acts knowingly, not impulsively (13:16). The crafty man is not gullible but considers his steps (14:15). Crafty men see evil coming and step aside to avoid it (22:3; 27:12). A related word is used in 15:5, where the prudent accept correction. These are some ways to imitate the "craftiness" of serpents as we minister as sheep in a world of wolves (Matthew 10:16).
Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was more "crafty" (ARUM) than any of the beasts of the field, and the same word is used a number of times in Proverbs, often translated as "prudent." A crafty man conceals what he knows (12:23). The crafty man acts knowingly, not impulsively (13:16). The crafty man is not gullible but considers his steps (14:15). Crafty men see evil coming and step aside to avoid it (22:3; 27:12). A related word is used in 15:5, where the prudent accept correction. These are some ways to imitate the "craftiness" of serpents as we minister as sheep in a world of wolves (Matthew 10:16).
2006-06-12
Odes of Solomon
From the 35th Ode of Solomon, it being my favourite:
The gentle showers of the Lord rinsed me with silence, and they caused a cloud of peace to rise over my head;
That it might guard me at all times. And it became salvation to me.
Everyone was disturbed and afraid, and there came from them smoke and judgment.
But I was tranquil in the Lord's legion; more than shade was He to me, and more than foundation.
And I was carried like a child by its mother; and He gave me milk, the dew of the Lord.
And I was enriched by His favor, and rested in His perfection.
And I spread out my hands in the ascent of myself, and I directed myself towards the Most High, and I was redeemed towards Him.
Most scholars date the Odes sometime around the middle of the 2d century, yet if they are heavily influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought and especially the ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a date long after 100 is unlikely. Henry Chadwick and many other scholars, remain convinced that they must not be labeled "gnostic," and therefore should not be dated to the late 2d century. The Odes remain one of my all-time favourite almost-canonical reads. Read them for yourself and decide whether some of the early Orthodox were not wise in thinking these sublime pieces of writing to be worthy of canonical inclusion.
2006-06-04
Certainty and doubt
Is it possible to know and doubt simultaneously?
The vast number of men are caught somewhere between a consistent sceptical doubt and that which is certain. A few fortunate holy ones seem to attain to that level of 'comforting', undoubtable knowing. Most do not completely despair, but get caught somewhere above epistemological despondency; many of these learn to accept the knowledge of ethics, logic and aesthetics as ambiguious, as 'relative'. This notion comforts some men as it makes no one better or worse than another.
On the other side of the question are those who are comforted by thinking they know with certainty. Asked for a proof and they will reply with an appeal. But no appeal leads one to certainty. To be sure one requires a logical proof or a direct experience. Since all appeals are usually a pointer to one of these, the appeal is held by trust or belief; neither of which are undoubtable.
Again, regarding matters of tradition and faith, is it possible to know and doubt simultaneously?
Take the notion of friendship. My priest taught me that Christ's teaching on what it is to be a friend is a hard truth. At John 15:13, the full implications of friendship are made clear; a willingness to lay down one's life for another is the standard of friendship. Now I accept this as true. That is I know it to be so because I trust it is stated by Truth itself. Yet all of us who accept this idea of friendship can also entertain the idea that our trusted belief is capable of being doubted, even though we know it is the true doctrine of friendship.
Hence, I would suggest it is possible to know and doubt simultaneously. According to Hegel, that is what knowing in the fullest possible sense really is. How comforting is that? hehe.
2006-06-03
Gregory and The Prophet; dancing
My priest's son in law is getting me set up with a good bike; I think I will upgrade to sram XO immediately. The Cannondale model I will buy is called 'The Prophet'. This summer I am going to train by riding around The Fort and Glen Valley; also I will do a few dry runs to work with Ramone once we obtain a bike rack for her Subaru Forester. As well as the bike and rack, I will need to acquire the cycling wear for riding during the fall and winter months; but this can wait, for I need only some biking shorts, a helmut and a jersey to get through the summer.
In other news, my daughter had her dance recital tonight. She danced well with a big smile on her face; yet I sure do miss the days when Hannah studied Irish! All this hip hop and rap doesn't bring me delight; it is one of those grin and bear the sound sort of things. Fortunately it was held at the Chief Seapass Theatre inside the Fort Langley Fine Arts School just a block from my home; accordingly after Hannah was done, I walked home and had a cold ale. A fine day it was weather-wise, as we had some unexpected and most welcome sunshine.
In other news, my daughter had her dance recital tonight. She danced well with a big smile on her face; yet I sure do miss the days when Hannah studied Irish! All this hip hop and rap doesn't bring me delight; it is one of those grin and bear the sound sort of things. Fortunately it was held at the Chief Seapass Theatre inside the Fort Langley Fine Arts School just a block from my home; accordingly after Hannah was done, I walked home and had a cold ale. A fine day it was weather-wise, as we had some unexpected and most welcome sunshine.
2006-06-01
rainy
It has been rainy and very humid lately. More than I can recall ever at this time of year. I am reminded of Dante's descent into Hell and of the sign that reads, "Abandon hope all ye who enter." Well perhaps that is an exaggeration, but when it is rainy and muggy, the air is overbearing and too sweltering for a manly man; and one can even have trouble getting a good deep breath. Truly the rain itself is cool and renewing, but the humidity removes hope and drags a man.
Next September I am planning to ride my bicycle to work from the SFU campus at Surrey Central where Ramone, my money-lending wife, parks for her job. At the close of my day I will cycle back to rejoin Ramona. This will give me some consistent aerobic exercise; it will be a challenge for me to maintain 3x/week. I am going to start 'preparations' for this discipline after school gets out in two more weeks.
The petrol savings will be an added bonus, as will a slight loss in my stoutness:)
Next September I am planning to ride my bicycle to work from the SFU campus at Surrey Central where Ramone, my money-lending wife, parks for her job. At the close of my day I will cycle back to rejoin Ramona. This will give me some consistent aerobic exercise; it will be a challenge for me to maintain 3x/week. I am going to start 'preparations' for this discipline after school gets out in two more weeks.
The petrol savings will be an added bonus, as will a slight loss in my stoutness:)
2006-05-28
2006-05-27
course load revisited...
Another more senior colleague at my high school grieved the fact that the head of my department had assigned me History 12. As the formula the union uses to resolve such disputes involves looking at years of teaching beyond equivalent credentials, it was clear to me that my colleague would get what she wanted -- I am almost 41 and she is in her late 50s. My only solace was in the fact that my department head thought I was the best teacher to take the course. Accordingly I had to accept a different course load, albeit a slightly easier load for which to prepare materials. This will be my load in the coming 2006-2007 school year:>
2 blocks En.12
3 blocks En.11
2 blocks En. 8
In other news, I gave up the computer coordinator block. So my duties will be strictly in English this next year.
2 blocks En.12
3 blocks En.11
2 blocks En. 8
In other news, I gave up the computer coordinator block. So my duties will be strictly in English this next year.
2006-05-25
Who am I, verily? Surprise, honey I am...
You scored as Galadriel.What Tolkeinite are you like? created with QuizFarm.com |
2006-05-24
course load
Next school year I will have a rather heavy marking load. A full time instructor has 7 teaching blocks and 1 preparation block. My schedule for 2006-2007 looks so:>
En.12 - 2 blocks (English 12=loads of essays to mark)
Hi.12 - 2 blocks (History 12=content volume; essays)
En.11 - 1 block (English 11=loads of essays to mark)
En.8 - 1 block (English 8=easy load to mark; just manage the teeny-boppers by scaring them with my trademark wildeman.manly.looks)
The astute among you are wondering where I get my seventh block, aren't you? Well, I won't keep you in suspense. That other block comes from my computer coordinator block. Yes, knowing how to use OpenBSD and other Unix-like systems has its advantages. However I may drop the computer coordinator block and pick up another En.8 if I think I will have to help a load of llama newbie computer lusers with their problems reading documented directions.
Accordingly this summer I will be beefing up my En.12 lecture notes and assignments. Similarly I will do the same for Hi.12, which covers the years 1919 to 1991. Yes, the years are wacky; I didn't set them: the ministry did. And we all know what great decisions the ministries of education have made over these last fifty years Canada-wide. I will never forgive the dropping of classical Latin and Greek from the curriculum. That, for me, was much like saying forget what in great part has formed your world. But being culturally disinherited is not the worst thing that could happen; being spiritually disinherited is the worst. Hold the phone...that hasn't happened, or no?
En.12 - 2 blocks (English 12=loads of essays to mark)
Hi.12 - 2 blocks (History 12=content volume; essays)
En.11 - 1 block (English 11=loads of essays to mark)
En.8 - 1 block (English 8=easy load to mark; just manage the teeny-boppers by scaring them with my trademark wildeman.manly.looks)
The astute among you are wondering where I get my seventh block, aren't you? Well, I won't keep you in suspense. That other block comes from my computer coordinator block. Yes, knowing how to use OpenBSD and other Unix-like systems has its advantages. However I may drop the computer coordinator block and pick up another En.8 if I think I will have to help a load of llama newbie computer lusers with their problems reading documented directions.
Accordingly this summer I will be beefing up my En.12 lecture notes and assignments. Similarly I will do the same for Hi.12, which covers the years 1919 to 1991. Yes, the years are wacky; I didn't set them: the ministry did. And we all know what great decisions the ministries of education have made over these last fifty years Canada-wide. I will never forgive the dropping of classical Latin and Greek from the curriculum. That, for me, was much like saying forget what in great part has formed your world. But being culturally disinherited is not the worst thing that could happen; being spiritually disinherited is the worst. Hold the phone...that hasn't happened, or no?
2006-05-19
For Vic
You Are an Old Soul |
You are an experienced soul who appreciates tradition. Mellow and wise, you like to be with others but also to be alone. Down to earth, you are sensible and impatient. A creature of habit, it takes you a while to warm up to new people. You hate injustice, and you're very protective of family and friends A bit demanding, you expect proper behavior from others. Extremely independent you don't mind living or being alone. But when you find love, you tend to want marriage right away. Souls you are most compatible with: Warrior Soul and Visionary Soul |
For what it is worth...I do think it is fairly accurate. The Soul Titles are so flaky!
2006-05-09
Like butter: moooove over...
thomas -- [adjective]: Similar to butter in texture and appearance 'How will you be defined in the dictionary?' at QuizGalaxy.com |
2006-05-08
parenting
Being the father of twins, I found these five points about parenting as an Orthodox Christian to ring true. I found these 'principles' in an article years ago. As turnabout is said to be fair play, I recently found them again being exposed by Leithart in the same original text! Here below is my rendition of these common sense points on parenting.
1. Children are sinners, not innocent and naturally good (Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:9-18). As Jesus said, infants and children are models of dependent faith. Yet, our children are also descended from Adam and therefore are corrupted by original sin. This condition characterises infants and children as well as adult sinners.
This innate corruption manifests itself in many ways. Crying is an infant’s only mode of communication, and it is not necessarily sinful; despite what Luther wrote in "Away in a Manger," Jesus in the manger did cry and yet was sinless. Yet, our infants do more than communicate with their cries. When only a few days old, infants cry to express their anger or impatience when their desires are not immediately fulfilled. Worse, descended from fallen Adam, our children resist anyone who tries to control or exercise authority over them. They invariably test the limits. When I said "No" to my 2 year-old son as he stretched out his hand to touch the computer keyboard, I could see on his face that he was debating whether or not to go ahead with his plans. Some children are less overtly rebellious than others, but all are rebels.
Most Christians believe in original sin, but often it plays little role in our parenting. We are reluctant to regard our children’s sin as sin. Instead, we make excuses for them. Very young infants, of course, have not learned the meaning of "No." Once they have learned that, however, we should not say of a disobedient child, "He doesn’t understand." When a child is uncooperative, we should not say, "Oh, he’s just tired." When children fight and treat one another cruelly, we should not say, "Boys will be boys." At other times, we refuse to believe that our children are capable of being as depraved as the Bible says they are: "Oh my child would never lie, steal, cheat, etc." But he would, and he does. We should recognise sin as sin and treat it as such. Circumstances might make children more prone to fuss and fight but circumstances are not an excuse for sinful behaviour. If your child has done something wrong, admit that it is a sin and give him the opportunity to confess it. Otherwise, you are training him to avoid responsibility. Thus, a corollary of this first notion is, don’t make excuses.
Also it poses a challenge to us as parents. Infants cannot raise infants. If you want your children to grow into mature adults, you have to act like an adult. Parents who make excuses for their own behaviour, who resist and rebel against those in authority over them, who follow whatever impulses pass through their heads, can hardly expect their children to behave differently.
2. You are the parents and they are the children. By this, I mean several things. As parent, you know better than your children what is good for them. They prefer sweets and ice cream to green vegetables, but you know that they need vegetables. You know that brushing their teeth is good for them, even if they do not understand that. You know they need a certain amount of sleep, so you set times for naps and bed.
Being the parent also means that you set the rules. Of course, we need to make sure that the rules are fair and biblical. If parents make up rules as they go, children can never know when they have broken the rules, and they will become frustrated. Children should see that parents too are under rules, that we cannot make up whatever rules we like. The fundamental rule to teach very young children is the fifth commandment: "Honour your father and mother." Every instruction or command from a parent becomes a rule because it comes from the parent.
Being a parent also means that you enforce the rules of the house and make sure the children live within the structures you set up. This is perhaps the most frequent failing for parents, especially new parents. We tell our son he needs to finish his vegetables before he has ice cream, but he complains and we eventually give in. We tell our daughter to go to bed, and in five minutes she is back in the lounge asking for a teddy bear. We tell a child to come, but he runs in the other direction.
This pattern produces enormous stress on parents and children. Parents get more and more frustrated and angry because their children do not listen, and children bear the brunt of the parents’ frustration. But parents often bring frustration upon themselves. In the short run, it takes some extra energy to make sure that children follow our instructions. In the long run, it is much easier on both parents and children if parents to follow through with their instructions and enforce the rules from an early age. Laziness is the main reason we do not follow through. And laziness is sin. If we have told our son to finish his vegetables, we need to make sure he does, even if this means spooning them into his mouth or leaving them for next morning’s breakfast. If we insist that he finish his vegetables before he eats anything else, he will eventually be hungry enough to eat broccoli, asparagus, and mushroom soup. If we send our daughter to bed, she should be required to stay there. If you tell your child to come to you and he does not, do not say it again, do not beg, coax, bribe, threaten, or count to three. Go get him and make him come. If you tell your children to help with the dishes and they do not, do not walk away. Make them do it.
In enforcing rules, parents have to recognise and resist their children’s efforts to manipulate. Do not let a child manipulate you by threats (I’m gonna run away) or emotional appeals (you don’t love me). If your child says such things, it may be a signal of deeper problems. More often than not, it is mainly a way to control you and to keep you from controlling him. Do not fall for it.
Being the parent means, finally, that your children owe you respect. Respect does not come naturally any more than obedience does. You need to train children to respect you. One way of teaching respect is by requiring them to submit to your control and your rules. If you tell them to do something but let them get away with ignoring you, they will lose respect. Children should also be disciplined specifically for disrespect, whether it manifests itself in words, actions, a tone of voice, or a gesture. Children should be disciplined not only for their disobedience but also for bad attitudes. If a mother tells her children to do something and gets a cheeky response, that is a sin and needs to be corrected.
Given points 1 and 2, it follows that conflict and confrontation are an unavoidable part of parenting. If your child is a sinner who wants to go his own way, and if you, as parent, take seriously your responsibility to train your children, then conflicts will occur. Of course, we should not create conflict, but when it happens we should not ignore or side-step it. Do not let a desire for peace and quiet dominate your parenting. What passes for peace is sometimes nothing more than a thin layer covering intense hostility. Conflict is not a sign of failure but of serious effort and even success. It shows that you are doing your job, not letting your children go off into foolishness but confronting and stopping it. If peace and quiet are supreme priorities, if you want to avoid conflict, do not have children.
3. Corporal discipline is a good and proper method for child training (Proverbs 19:18; 29:15). The Bible, tradition and the Fathers are clear not only that corporal discipline is a key tool for parenting, but also promises that faithful discipline will have spiritual effects. Stripes reach to the inner parts and cleanse away evil (Proverbs 20:30), the rod drives away foolishness (Proverbs 22:15), and disciplining a child will save him from Sheol (Proverbs 23:13-14). Christian parents sometimes come up with excuses for not spanking their children: It will turn our children against us, make them hateful and violent, get us in trouble with authorities. None of these holds weight. Using corporal discipline is a simple matter of obedience to God’s Word. We must use this tool wisely, but there is no valid reason for completely refusing to use it.
Corporal discipline must occur in a context of love and understanding. If done outside a loving and close relationship, smacking will seem harsh and arbitrary and it will be difficult for your child to believe that you are disciplining out of love. Your child will get the impression that they have to get into trouble to get any attention at all. Besides, children are different and respond to different kinds of training and discipline. At a young age, there is no substitute for swatting. No matter how persuasive you are, you cannot argue a determined one- or two-year-old out of running into the street. He needs to be restrained. As children get older, other forms of discipline may be more effective for particular children in particular circumstances, and you need to know your children well enough to discover what means are most effective with each.
Developing a close relationship requires some time. Parents should schedule individual time with each child to listen to them and seek to understand them. For several years, I have taken one of my children on a "date" every week. I spend an hour or so at the park, a coffee shop, or shopping mall. This gives me an opportunity to talk with each of them without interruption, and is a chance to discuss things that need to be addressed, such as school, future plans, friends, and so on.
When should a parent use corporal discipline? In part, this depends on the child and the parent. You will learn when your child will be corrected with a verbal rebuke and when they need a smacking. And it depends on the seriousness of the wrongdoing. Yet, as a rule, swatting is legitimate whenever your child breaks the rules. Breaking the rules is rebellion, and you must nip rebellion in the bud. If a parent calls a child, and the child refuses to come, the parent should go get the child, swat him on the bottom and make him come. If a daughter who has been put to bed keeps getting up, she should be spanked and sent back to bed. If a boy keeps climbing out of his high chair, he should be swatted and put back into the chair until the parent is ready to let him down. If they follow this procedure, mothers especially will feel that on some days they do nothing but swat the children. That can be emotionally draining, but my wife and I have found that early practice of corporal discipline does bear fruit, as the Lord has promised.
If corporal discipline is, as the Bible says, an act of love, it should look like an act of love. Parents should explain that they are disciplining out of love for the child. Afterwards, the parent should hug the child, kiss him, pray with him, and tell him again that he uses the rod out of love and out of obedience to the Lord. Loving discipline, however, does not mean mushy or vague discipline. Just as the Lord is specific in His demands upon us and specific in His rebukes, so loving discipline should be firm and specific. Parents should make sure that the child understands the rules, and make sure that he knows what rule has been broken. We should encourage children to take responsibility for the specific sin they have committed. Saying "I’m sorry" is usually not sufficient; the child should be required to say, "I’m sorry for hitting Julie" or "I’m sorry for taking your truck without asking" or "I’m sorry for lying." In this way, we train our children to take responsibility for their own specific actions.
I do not believe it is always wrong for a parent to swat a child when he or she is angry. The Lord disciples His people in wrath, and anger at disobedience can give the child a proper sense of the seriousness of his sin. It is wrong, however, for a parent to swat a child because he or she is angry. That would turn discipline into an opportunity for the parent to vent his frustrations, and would encourage the child to express himself violently. Corporal discipline should always be motivated by the loving desire to prevent the child from doing something wrong or harmful, to purge foolishness from his heart, to keep him on the way of righteousness. As the Bible shows us, God’s love for His children and His anger at their foolishness are closely linked.
4. Children grow up. At this point the goals of parenting come into play. What are we trying to accomplish during the 15--20 years we raise our children? Should protection be our main goal? Do we want to produce children that are carbon copies of ourselves, imitating our tastes, plans, and dreams? Or do we want to encourage them to chart their own course without regard to our opinions? As Christians, our goal in parenting is to raise mature adult believers who trust in and follow Jesus and serve His Church and Kingdom. With respect to our faith, we hope our children will imitate us, insofar as we are faithful. The Church, however, is made up of many members with many different gifts, and we should not expect our children to have the same gifts we have. Parents who are ears in the body of Christ may end up with children who are hands, brains, and toes. Our goal is to train our children to be the best hands, brains, and toes they can possibly be, rejoicing in their specific abilities.
In parenting, then, there has to be a balance of control and freedom. Maintaining this balance is difficult, but the Lord’s training of Israel gives us an example to follow. In Galatians 3:23-24 and 4:1-2, Paul says that Israel under the Old Covenant was like a minor child under the control of tutors and child-minders. Though a child is the heir of the whole house, he is treated like a slave during his childhood. But now, Paul says, those who are in Christ are no longer under the "elementary principles" of the law, but are mature and fully active sons and heirs. Paul’s point is clearer when we consider the character of the Old Covenant system. The Lord told Israel what to eat (Leviticus 11) and what kinds of clothes to wear (Leviticus 19:19; Numbers 15:37-41). Normal bodily functions caused uncleanness, so Israelites had to bathe before entering the Lord’s house (Leviticus 12-15). Their lives were tightly controlled and regulated. All of these commands to Israel are instructive for the Church today (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17) and God is still concerned about the details of His Word and of our obedience to it. Yet, we no longer have to perform these "elementary" regulations because, in Christ, we have grown up.
Similarly, in raising our children, we move through four general stages. These are not absolutely distinct and it would be a mistake to make this some kind of absolute framework, but they give a rough outline of how the parents’ role changes as the child grows.
First, when children are very young, parents control them. Young children should be trained to obey their parents immediately without discussion or question. Parents supervise the most minute details of their lives: what to wear, when to go to bed, how to hold the fork and spoon, how to chew food. In this phase, parents must do many things for the child. This is the predominant mode of parenting for the first seven or eight years, though the time period will vary somewhat.
Second, the parental role changes to coaching, from about eight to young teens. Coaching involves detailed and ongoing guidance of the child. A coach teaches and corrects, but the child is responsible to follow the coach’s direction. Thus, the older child has more responsibility and independence. Parents can test whether their children are ready for this transition by giving them small projects or tasks and evaluating their performance. A child of eight or nine should be able, for example, to go to the post office to buy stamps or to a newsagent to buy a paper. Daddy might first accompany his son, show him what to do, and then send him on his own the next time. By giving responsibility at this micro-level and gradually increasing it, parents avoid overwhelming their children, increase their confidence to act on their own, and give them room to fail and learn.
If a coach is doing his job, his players will eventually learn to think independently, calling some of their own plays. They will sometimes want to ask the coach for his advice in a particular situation, but they will increasingly learn to make decisions for themselves. This is the stage the Whites call counselling. During this period, parents advise children when asked, but leave them considerable room to experiment with their own ways of doing things. Even at this stage, parents exercise some degree of control. Parents should never give their children freedom to sin. As long as my children are in my house, for example, I will expect and require them to attend worship, participate in family worship, walk in God’s commandments. But the parents’ role is changing as the child grows into an independent adult believer.
Finally, with adult children, you reach the stage of caring. Grown children may ask parents for advice and sometimes even detailed coaching. There may be occasions when a parent must, in obedience to Christ, take the initiative to rebuke or correct a child. Here, however, their relationship has become more like that of two unrelated adult believers. Generally, parents should avoid giving their grown children unsolicited advice, freeing them to make their own decisions and their own mistakes.
To help make this scheme more concrete, let me offer one specific example: money. At the control stage, a child is physically unable to handle money. If given an allowance, he is likely to lose it. So, parents should exercise a great deal of control. If a child receives a monetary gift, the parent should decide how it is spent, perhaps even without consulting the child. If the child makes some change by working around the house, the parents should keep it for him.
Once the child can keep track of money without losing it and can add and subtract, the parent shifts to coaching. At this point, the child may be given an allowance, but the parent will still exercise a significant degree of authority over how it is used. The parent might require, for example, that the child give 10% to the church, keep 40% for savings and gifts, and have 50% for spending. If the child wishes to make a foolish purchase, the parent may forbid it. Alternatively, it may be prudent for a parent occasionally to allow a foolish purchase, which can be turned into an opportunity for the child to learn from a mistake. At least, the child who makes a rash financial decision will learn the painful but absolute economic truth that money spent on one item cannot be spent on another.
At the counselling stage, parents give advice concerning how money is spent and may occasionally intervene to forbid a purchase. In the main, however, the parents’ role is one of advising. If a child wishes to buy a computer, for example, the parents might help him find information, instruct him how to decide on a good purchase, point out the costs of using and maintaining a computer, warn against the temptations that might present themselves on the Internet or in some computer games. If the child finds that he has made a poor decision, he should be left to correct the problem himself.
When children have grown to adulthood and left home, parents should generally leave financial decisions completely to them. If parents have been careful to train their children in financial prudence, they are less likely to get into serious financial problems as adults. If they do fall into difficulties, parents should resist the temptation to intervene immediately to protect them from ruin.
In this process, two main errors must be avoided. Parents err if they fail to exercise control at the early stages of life or give too much responsibility too early. On the other hand, parents err if they try to maintain tight control when their children have outgrown that stage of their lives. Knowing when to loosen and when to tighten the reins requires a great deal of wisdom and prayer. This brings me to the fifth and last point…
5. God is sovereign; the Trinity rules all things for His own purposes, including our children. We must make every effort to train them in His ways, but their future is ultimately in His hands. That is a good thing, for I would certainly make a muddle of things! For parents, the truth that God is sovereign means: Relax and Trust the risen Lord.
1. Children are sinners, not innocent and naturally good (Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:9-18). As Jesus said, infants and children are models of dependent faith. Yet, our children are also descended from Adam and therefore are corrupted by original sin. This condition characterises infants and children as well as adult sinners.
This innate corruption manifests itself in many ways. Crying is an infant’s only mode of communication, and it is not necessarily sinful; despite what Luther wrote in "Away in a Manger," Jesus in the manger did cry and yet was sinless. Yet, our infants do more than communicate with their cries. When only a few days old, infants cry to express their anger or impatience when their desires are not immediately fulfilled. Worse, descended from fallen Adam, our children resist anyone who tries to control or exercise authority over them. They invariably test the limits. When I said "No" to my 2 year-old son as he stretched out his hand to touch the computer keyboard, I could see on his face that he was debating whether or not to go ahead with his plans. Some children are less overtly rebellious than others, but all are rebels.
Most Christians believe in original sin, but often it plays little role in our parenting. We are reluctant to regard our children’s sin as sin. Instead, we make excuses for them. Very young infants, of course, have not learned the meaning of "No." Once they have learned that, however, we should not say of a disobedient child, "He doesn’t understand." When a child is uncooperative, we should not say, "Oh, he’s just tired." When children fight and treat one another cruelly, we should not say, "Boys will be boys." At other times, we refuse to believe that our children are capable of being as depraved as the Bible says they are: "Oh my child would never lie, steal, cheat, etc." But he would, and he does. We should recognise sin as sin and treat it as such. Circumstances might make children more prone to fuss and fight but circumstances are not an excuse for sinful behaviour. If your child has done something wrong, admit that it is a sin and give him the opportunity to confess it. Otherwise, you are training him to avoid responsibility. Thus, a corollary of this first notion is, don’t make excuses.
Also it poses a challenge to us as parents. Infants cannot raise infants. If you want your children to grow into mature adults, you have to act like an adult. Parents who make excuses for their own behaviour, who resist and rebel against those in authority over them, who follow whatever impulses pass through their heads, can hardly expect their children to behave differently.
2. You are the parents and they are the children. By this, I mean several things. As parent, you know better than your children what is good for them. They prefer sweets and ice cream to green vegetables, but you know that they need vegetables. You know that brushing their teeth is good for them, even if they do not understand that. You know they need a certain amount of sleep, so you set times for naps and bed.
Being the parent also means that you set the rules. Of course, we need to make sure that the rules are fair and biblical. If parents make up rules as they go, children can never know when they have broken the rules, and they will become frustrated. Children should see that parents too are under rules, that we cannot make up whatever rules we like. The fundamental rule to teach very young children is the fifth commandment: "Honour your father and mother." Every instruction or command from a parent becomes a rule because it comes from the parent.
Being a parent also means that you enforce the rules of the house and make sure the children live within the structures you set up. This is perhaps the most frequent failing for parents, especially new parents. We tell our son he needs to finish his vegetables before he has ice cream, but he complains and we eventually give in. We tell our daughter to go to bed, and in five minutes she is back in the lounge asking for a teddy bear. We tell a child to come, but he runs in the other direction.
This pattern produces enormous stress on parents and children. Parents get more and more frustrated and angry because their children do not listen, and children bear the brunt of the parents’ frustration. But parents often bring frustration upon themselves. In the short run, it takes some extra energy to make sure that children follow our instructions. In the long run, it is much easier on both parents and children if parents to follow through with their instructions and enforce the rules from an early age. Laziness is the main reason we do not follow through. And laziness is sin. If we have told our son to finish his vegetables, we need to make sure he does, even if this means spooning them into his mouth or leaving them for next morning’s breakfast. If we insist that he finish his vegetables before he eats anything else, he will eventually be hungry enough to eat broccoli, asparagus, and mushroom soup. If we send our daughter to bed, she should be required to stay there. If you tell your child to come to you and he does not, do not say it again, do not beg, coax, bribe, threaten, or count to three. Go get him and make him come. If you tell your children to help with the dishes and they do not, do not walk away. Make them do it.
In enforcing rules, parents have to recognise and resist their children’s efforts to manipulate. Do not let a child manipulate you by threats (I’m gonna run away) or emotional appeals (you don’t love me). If your child says such things, it may be a signal of deeper problems. More often than not, it is mainly a way to control you and to keep you from controlling him. Do not fall for it.
Being the parent means, finally, that your children owe you respect. Respect does not come naturally any more than obedience does. You need to train children to respect you. One way of teaching respect is by requiring them to submit to your control and your rules. If you tell them to do something but let them get away with ignoring you, they will lose respect. Children should also be disciplined specifically for disrespect, whether it manifests itself in words, actions, a tone of voice, or a gesture. Children should be disciplined not only for their disobedience but also for bad attitudes. If a mother tells her children to do something and gets a cheeky response, that is a sin and needs to be corrected.
Given points 1 and 2, it follows that conflict and confrontation are an unavoidable part of parenting. If your child is a sinner who wants to go his own way, and if you, as parent, take seriously your responsibility to train your children, then conflicts will occur. Of course, we should not create conflict, but when it happens we should not ignore or side-step it. Do not let a desire for peace and quiet dominate your parenting. What passes for peace is sometimes nothing more than a thin layer covering intense hostility. Conflict is not a sign of failure but of serious effort and even success. It shows that you are doing your job, not letting your children go off into foolishness but confronting and stopping it. If peace and quiet are supreme priorities, if you want to avoid conflict, do not have children.
3. Corporal discipline is a good and proper method for child training (Proverbs 19:18; 29:15). The Bible, tradition and the Fathers are clear not only that corporal discipline is a key tool for parenting, but also promises that faithful discipline will have spiritual effects. Stripes reach to the inner parts and cleanse away evil (Proverbs 20:30), the rod drives away foolishness (Proverbs 22:15), and disciplining a child will save him from Sheol (Proverbs 23:13-14). Christian parents sometimes come up with excuses for not spanking their children: It will turn our children against us, make them hateful and violent, get us in trouble with authorities. None of these holds weight. Using corporal discipline is a simple matter of obedience to God’s Word. We must use this tool wisely, but there is no valid reason for completely refusing to use it.
Corporal discipline must occur in a context of love and understanding. If done outside a loving and close relationship, smacking will seem harsh and arbitrary and it will be difficult for your child to believe that you are disciplining out of love. Your child will get the impression that they have to get into trouble to get any attention at all. Besides, children are different and respond to different kinds of training and discipline. At a young age, there is no substitute for swatting. No matter how persuasive you are, you cannot argue a determined one- or two-year-old out of running into the street. He needs to be restrained. As children get older, other forms of discipline may be more effective for particular children in particular circumstances, and you need to know your children well enough to discover what means are most effective with each.
Developing a close relationship requires some time. Parents should schedule individual time with each child to listen to them and seek to understand them. For several years, I have taken one of my children on a "date" every week. I spend an hour or so at the park, a coffee shop, or shopping mall. This gives me an opportunity to talk with each of them without interruption, and is a chance to discuss things that need to be addressed, such as school, future plans, friends, and so on.
When should a parent use corporal discipline? In part, this depends on the child and the parent. You will learn when your child will be corrected with a verbal rebuke and when they need a smacking. And it depends on the seriousness of the wrongdoing. Yet, as a rule, swatting is legitimate whenever your child breaks the rules. Breaking the rules is rebellion, and you must nip rebellion in the bud. If a parent calls a child, and the child refuses to come, the parent should go get the child, swat him on the bottom and make him come. If a daughter who has been put to bed keeps getting up, she should be spanked and sent back to bed. If a boy keeps climbing out of his high chair, he should be swatted and put back into the chair until the parent is ready to let him down. If they follow this procedure, mothers especially will feel that on some days they do nothing but swat the children. That can be emotionally draining, but my wife and I have found that early practice of corporal discipline does bear fruit, as the Lord has promised.
If corporal discipline is, as the Bible says, an act of love, it should look like an act of love. Parents should explain that they are disciplining out of love for the child. Afterwards, the parent should hug the child, kiss him, pray with him, and tell him again that he uses the rod out of love and out of obedience to the Lord. Loving discipline, however, does not mean mushy or vague discipline. Just as the Lord is specific in His demands upon us and specific in His rebukes, so loving discipline should be firm and specific. Parents should make sure that the child understands the rules, and make sure that he knows what rule has been broken. We should encourage children to take responsibility for the specific sin they have committed. Saying "I’m sorry" is usually not sufficient; the child should be required to say, "I’m sorry for hitting Julie" or "I’m sorry for taking your truck without asking" or "I’m sorry for lying." In this way, we train our children to take responsibility for their own specific actions.
I do not believe it is always wrong for a parent to swat a child when he or she is angry. The Lord disciples His people in wrath, and anger at disobedience can give the child a proper sense of the seriousness of his sin. It is wrong, however, for a parent to swat a child because he or she is angry. That would turn discipline into an opportunity for the parent to vent his frustrations, and would encourage the child to express himself violently. Corporal discipline should always be motivated by the loving desire to prevent the child from doing something wrong or harmful, to purge foolishness from his heart, to keep him on the way of righteousness. As the Bible shows us, God’s love for His children and His anger at their foolishness are closely linked.
4. Children grow up. At this point the goals of parenting come into play. What are we trying to accomplish during the 15--20 years we raise our children? Should protection be our main goal? Do we want to produce children that are carbon copies of ourselves, imitating our tastes, plans, and dreams? Or do we want to encourage them to chart their own course without regard to our opinions? As Christians, our goal in parenting is to raise mature adult believers who trust in and follow Jesus and serve His Church and Kingdom. With respect to our faith, we hope our children will imitate us, insofar as we are faithful. The Church, however, is made up of many members with many different gifts, and we should not expect our children to have the same gifts we have. Parents who are ears in the body of Christ may end up with children who are hands, brains, and toes. Our goal is to train our children to be the best hands, brains, and toes they can possibly be, rejoicing in their specific abilities.
In parenting, then, there has to be a balance of control and freedom. Maintaining this balance is difficult, but the Lord’s training of Israel gives us an example to follow. In Galatians 3:23-24 and 4:1-2, Paul says that Israel under the Old Covenant was like a minor child under the control of tutors and child-minders. Though a child is the heir of the whole house, he is treated like a slave during his childhood. But now, Paul says, those who are in Christ are no longer under the "elementary principles" of the law, but are mature and fully active sons and heirs. Paul’s point is clearer when we consider the character of the Old Covenant system. The Lord told Israel what to eat (Leviticus 11) and what kinds of clothes to wear (Leviticus 19:19; Numbers 15:37-41). Normal bodily functions caused uncleanness, so Israelites had to bathe before entering the Lord’s house (Leviticus 12-15). Their lives were tightly controlled and regulated. All of these commands to Israel are instructive for the Church today (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17) and God is still concerned about the details of His Word and of our obedience to it. Yet, we no longer have to perform these "elementary" regulations because, in Christ, we have grown up.
Similarly, in raising our children, we move through four general stages. These are not absolutely distinct and it would be a mistake to make this some kind of absolute framework, but they give a rough outline of how the parents’ role changes as the child grows.
First, when children are very young, parents control them. Young children should be trained to obey their parents immediately without discussion or question. Parents supervise the most minute details of their lives: what to wear, when to go to bed, how to hold the fork and spoon, how to chew food. In this phase, parents must do many things for the child. This is the predominant mode of parenting for the first seven or eight years, though the time period will vary somewhat.
Second, the parental role changes to coaching, from about eight to young teens. Coaching involves detailed and ongoing guidance of the child. A coach teaches and corrects, but the child is responsible to follow the coach’s direction. Thus, the older child has more responsibility and independence. Parents can test whether their children are ready for this transition by giving them small projects or tasks and evaluating their performance. A child of eight or nine should be able, for example, to go to the post office to buy stamps or to a newsagent to buy a paper. Daddy might first accompany his son, show him what to do, and then send him on his own the next time. By giving responsibility at this micro-level and gradually increasing it, parents avoid overwhelming their children, increase their confidence to act on their own, and give them room to fail and learn.
If a coach is doing his job, his players will eventually learn to think independently, calling some of their own plays. They will sometimes want to ask the coach for his advice in a particular situation, but they will increasingly learn to make decisions for themselves. This is the stage the Whites call counselling. During this period, parents advise children when asked, but leave them considerable room to experiment with their own ways of doing things. Even at this stage, parents exercise some degree of control. Parents should never give their children freedom to sin. As long as my children are in my house, for example, I will expect and require them to attend worship, participate in family worship, walk in God’s commandments. But the parents’ role is changing as the child grows into an independent adult believer.
Finally, with adult children, you reach the stage of caring. Grown children may ask parents for advice and sometimes even detailed coaching. There may be occasions when a parent must, in obedience to Christ, take the initiative to rebuke or correct a child. Here, however, their relationship has become more like that of two unrelated adult believers. Generally, parents should avoid giving their grown children unsolicited advice, freeing them to make their own decisions and their own mistakes.
To help make this scheme more concrete, let me offer one specific example: money. At the control stage, a child is physically unable to handle money. If given an allowance, he is likely to lose it. So, parents should exercise a great deal of control. If a child receives a monetary gift, the parent should decide how it is spent, perhaps even without consulting the child. If the child makes some change by working around the house, the parents should keep it for him.
Once the child can keep track of money without losing it and can add and subtract, the parent shifts to coaching. At this point, the child may be given an allowance, but the parent will still exercise a significant degree of authority over how it is used. The parent might require, for example, that the child give 10% to the church, keep 40% for savings and gifts, and have 50% for spending. If the child wishes to make a foolish purchase, the parent may forbid it. Alternatively, it may be prudent for a parent occasionally to allow a foolish purchase, which can be turned into an opportunity for the child to learn from a mistake. At least, the child who makes a rash financial decision will learn the painful but absolute economic truth that money spent on one item cannot be spent on another.
At the counselling stage, parents give advice concerning how money is spent and may occasionally intervene to forbid a purchase. In the main, however, the parents’ role is one of advising. If a child wishes to buy a computer, for example, the parents might help him find information, instruct him how to decide on a good purchase, point out the costs of using and maintaining a computer, warn against the temptations that might present themselves on the Internet or in some computer games. If the child finds that he has made a poor decision, he should be left to correct the problem himself.
When children have grown to adulthood and left home, parents should generally leave financial decisions completely to them. If parents have been careful to train their children in financial prudence, they are less likely to get into serious financial problems as adults. If they do fall into difficulties, parents should resist the temptation to intervene immediately to protect them from ruin.
In this process, two main errors must be avoided. Parents err if they fail to exercise control at the early stages of life or give too much responsibility too early. On the other hand, parents err if they try to maintain tight control when their children have outgrown that stage of their lives. Knowing when to loosen and when to tighten the reins requires a great deal of wisdom and prayer. This brings me to the fifth and last point…
5. God is sovereign; the Trinity rules all things for His own purposes, including our children. We must make every effort to train them in His ways, but their future is ultimately in His hands. That is a good thing, for I would certainly make a muddle of things! For parents, the truth that God is sovereign means: Relax and Trust the risen Lord.
2006-05-05
Emily is for manly men
Because I could not stop for Death
BECAUSE I could not stop for Death--
He kindly stopped for me--
The Carriage held but just Ourselves--
And Immortality.
We slowly drove--He knew no haste
And I had put away
My labour and my leisure too,
For His Civility--
We passed the School, where Children strove
At Recess--in the Ring--
We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain--
We passed the Setting Sun--
We paused before a House that seemed
A Swelling of the Ground--
The Roof was scarcely visible--
The Cornice--in the Ground--
Since then--'tis Centuries--and yet
Feels shorter than the Day
I first surmised the Horses Heads
Were toward Eternity--
Emily Dickinson
I've considered Emily Dickinson to be a poet of the highest order for many years. If pressed, I would say this gem is one of my favourites.
I enjoy how the poem can aid one in contemplating a restful drive outside of our time-space continuum. Be sure to make note of the number of passengers.
2006-04-27
homily by Leithart
Paul determined to know nothing but Jesus and the cross. Was that enough? To answer that question, we need to answer another: What is the cross?
The cross is the work of the Father, who gave His Son in love for the world; the cross is the work of the Son, who did not cling to equality with God but gave Himself to shameful death; the cross is the work of the Spirit, through whom the Son offers Himself to the Father and who is poured out by the glorified Son. The cross displays the height and the depth and the breadth of eternal Triune love.
The cross is the light of the world; on the cross Jesus is the firmament, mediating between heaven and earth; the cross is the first of the fruit-bearing trees, and on the cross Jesus shines as the bright morning star; on the cross Jesus is sweet incense arising to heaven, and He dies on the cross as True Man to bring the Sabbath rest of God.
Adam fell at a tree, and by a tree he was saved. At a tree Eve was seduced, and through a tree the bride was restored to her husband. At a tree, Satan defeated Adam; on a tree Jesus destroyed the works of the devil. At a tree man died, but by Jesus' death we live. At a tree God cursed, and through a tree that curse gave way to blessing. God exiled Adam from the tree of life; on a tree the Last Adam endured exile so that we might inherit the earth.
The cross is the tree of knowledge, the tree of judgment, the site of the judgment of this world. The cross is the tree of life, whose cuttings planted along the river of the new Jerusalem produce monthly fruit and leaves for the healing of the nations.
The cross is the tree in the middle of history. It reverses what occurred in the beginning at the tree of Eden, and because of the cross, we are confident the tree of life will flourish through unending ages after the end of the age.
The cross is the wooden ark of Noah, the refuge for all the creatures of the earth, the guarantee of a new covenant of peace and the restoration of Adam. The cross is the ark that carries Jesus, the greater Noah, with all His house, through the deluge and baptism of death to the safety of a new creation.
The cross is the olive tree of Israel on which the true Israel died for the sake of Israel. For generations, Israel worshiped idols under every green tree. Israel cut trees, burned wood for fuel, and shaped the rest into an idol to worship. Now in the last days, idolatrous Israel cut trees, burned wood for fuel, and shaped the rest into a cross. The cross is the climax of the history of Israel, as the leaders of Israel gather to jeer, as their fathers had done, at their long-suffering King.
The cross is the imperial tree, where Jesus is executed as a rebel against empire. It is the tree of Babylon and of Rome and of all principalities and powers that will have no king but Caesar. It is the tree of power that has spawned countless crosses for executing innumerable martyrs. But the cross is also the imperial tree of the Fifth Monarchy, the kingdom of God, which grows to become the chief of all the trees of the forest, a haven for birds of the air and beasts of the field.
The cross is the staff of Moses, which divides the sea and leads Israel dry through it. The cross is the wood thrown into the waters of Marah to turn the bitter waters sweet. The cross is the pole on which Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, as Jesus is lifted up to draw all men to Himself.
The cross is the tree of cursing, for cursed is every man who hangs on a tree. On the tree of cursing hung the chief baker of Egypt; but now bread of life. On the tree of cursing hung the king of Ai and the five kings of the South; but now the king of glory, David's greater Son. On the tree of cursing hung Haman the enemy who sought to destroy Israel; but now the savior of Israel, One greater than Mordecai. Jesus bears the curse and burden of the covenant to bear the curse away.
The cross is the wooden ark of the new covenant, the throne of the exalted savior, the sealed treasure chest now opened wide to display the gifts of God – Jesus the manna from heaven, Jesus the Eternal Word, Jesus the budding staff. The cross is the ark in exile among Philistines, riding in triumph even in the land of enemies.
Jesus had spoken against the temple, with its panels and pillars made from cedars of Lebanon. He predicted the temple would be chopped and burned, until there was not one stone left on another. The Jews had made the temple into another wood-and-stone idol, and Israel must have her temple, even at the cost of destroying the Lord of the temple. Yet, the cross becomes the new temple, and at Calvary the temple is destroyed to be rebuilt in three days. The cross is the temple of the prophet Ezekiel, from which living water flows out to renew the wilderness and to turn the salt sea fresh.
The cross is the wood on the altar of the world on which is laid the sacrifice to end all sacrifice. The cross is the wood on which Jesus burns in His love for His Father and for His people, the fuel of His ascent in smoke as a sweet-smelling savor. The cross is the wood on the back of Isaac, climbing Moriah with his father Abraham, who believes that the Lord will provide. The cross is the cedar wood burned with scarlet string and hyssop for the water of purification that cleanses from the defilement of death.
The cross is planted on a mountain, and Golgotha is the new Eden, the new Ararat, the new Moriah; it is greater than Sinai, where Yahweh displays His glory and speaks His final word, a better word than the word of Moses; it is greater than Zion, the mountain of the Great King; it is the climactic mount of transfiguration where the Father glorifies His Son. Calvary is the new Carmel, where the fire of God falls from heaven to consume a living twelve-stone altar to deliver twelve tribes, and turn them into living stones. Planted at the top of the world, the cross is a ladder to heaven, angels ascending and descending on the Son of man.
The cross tears Jesus and the veil so that through His separation He might break down the dividing wall that separated Yahweh from his people and Jew from Gentile. The cross stretches embrace the world, reaching to the four corners, the four winds of heaven, the points of the compass, from the sea to the River and from Hamath to the brook of Egypt. It is the cross of reality, the symbol of man, stretching out, as man does, between heaven and earth, distended between past and future, between inside and outside.
The cross is the crux, the crossroads, the twisted knot at the center of reality, to which all previous history led and from which all subsequent history flows. By it we know all reality is cruciform – the love of God, the shape of creation, the labyrinth of human history. Paul determined to know nothing but Christ crucified, but that was enough. The cross was all he knew on earth; but knowing the cross he, and we, know all we need to know.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
2006-04-26
St. John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily
Is this not the finest homily to teach everything one needs to know about Orthodoxy and to express the inexpressible joy of Pascha at the same time? I was told by Fr. Lawrence it was composed sometime in the late 4th or early 5th century; this homily is a delight to hear year after year, one of the finest treasures of our Orthodox inheritance.
The Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom
If anyone is devout and a lover of God, let him enjoy this beautiful and radiant festival.
If anyone is a wise servant, let him, rejoicing, enter into the joy of his Lord.
If anyone has wearied himself in fasting, let him now receive his recompense.
If anyone has labored from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward. If anyone has come at the third hour, with thanksgiving let him keep the feast. If anyone has arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings; for he shall suffer no loss. If anyone has delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near without hesitation. If anyone has arrived even at the eleventh hour, let him not fear on account of his delay. For the Master is gracious and receives the last, even as the first; he gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, just as to him who has labored from the first. He has mercy upon the last and cares for the first; to the one he gives, and to the other he is gracious. He both honors the work and praises the intention.
Enter all of you, therefore, into the joy of our Lord, and, whether first or last, receive your reward. O rich and poor, one with another, dance for joy! O you ascetics and you negligent, celebrate the day! You that have fasted and you that have disregarded the fast, rejoice today! The table is rich-laden; feast royally, all of you! The calf is fatted; let no one go forth hungry!
Let all partake of the feast of faith. Let all receive the riches of goodness.
Let no one lament his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one mourn his transgressions, for pardon has dawned from the grave.
Let no one fear death, for the Saviour's death has set us free.
He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed, "Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions." It was embittered, for it was abolished! It was embittered, for it was mocked! It was embittered, for it was purged! It was embittered, for it was despoiled! It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and, face to face, met God! It took earth and encountered heaven! It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen!
"O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?"
Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb!
For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the First-fruits of them that slept.
To him be glory and might unto ages of ages. Amen.
2006-04-18
manliness
So it appears that Maddox has published a book on manliness. I am certain the book will be hilarious and profoundly manly at one and the same time. Mathematically, as Maddox expresses it, the book's manliness limit is limitless:>
lim
Manliness → ∞
I still think that Maddox has yet to read Judges 19 to understand what untamed manliness is like. Whoever thought the Bible records only the rosy and lovey-dovey tales is mistaken. Of course the type of manliness described in Judges 19 is manliness-falsely-so-called. But Maddox's book should be a howl.
lim
Manliness → ∞
I still think that Maddox has yet to read Judges 19 to understand what untamed manliness is like. Whoever thought the Bible records only the rosy and lovey-dovey tales is mistaken. Of course the type of manliness described in Judges 19 is manliness-falsely-so-called. But Maddox's book should be a howl.
2006-04-11
QW: the best first person shooter!
The finest game I have ever played, quake, has an online version called quakeworld. I have played this game since 1997-1998. I started my gaming life by playing a great shooter called DooM. That was in 1993-4. I remember Dave Folster got me set up with the game. I played the game without a mouse, using only the keyboard to move and look around. I enjoyed DooM a lot and still like to deathmatch against another person or a bot. Occasionally I still load up the game and play it through in single player. I have to admit I've seen everything DooM can offer, yet the game can at times freak me out because of the in-game atmosphere. The single player game of Quake teaches you to engage in battle with demons; which I must say is a very good activity for the manly spirit in all of us. In QW, it is much the same. The main difference being that QW is about playing deathmatch against other humans, most often in 4 versus 4 matches. There is little doubt that QW involves the most demanding skill-set of any first person shooter; the speed of the game, the hard-to-learn movement skills and the team communication skills and tactics are challenging to master. QW is like chess with a boomstick.
2006-04-07
Fr. Chris, Thomas Aquinas, Temporality, and the end of deeds
Earlier in Lent, I was discussing the relationship between time and the end of actions with Fr. Chris of Vancouver. The insight of that conversation led me to think about what Thomas Aquinas had written on the topic.
Why should there be a final judgment when God judges in time?
Thomas Aquinas answers: "Judgment on something changeable cannot be rendered fully before its consummation. Thus judgment cannot be rendered fully regarding the quality of any action before its completion, both in itself and its results, because many actions appear to be advantageous, which by their effects are shown to be harmful. Even a human life continues after the human life is ended: it must be observed that although a person's earthly life in itself ends with death, it nevertheless remains to some degree dependent on what comes after it in the future. In one way, one's life continues on in people's memories, in which, sometimes contrary to the truth, good or evil reputations linger on. In another way, one lives on in one's children, who are, as it were, something of their parent. In a third way, one lives on to a degree in the result of one's actions, as in the case of how, from the deceit of Arius and other false leaders, unbelief continues to flourish down to the end of the world, just as faith will continue to derive its progress until then from the preaching of the apostles. In a fourth way, one lives on as regards the body, which is sometimes buried with honour and sometimes left unburied, and finally turns completely to dust. In a fifth way, one lives on in the things on which one's heart is set, such as worldly concerns, some of which are ended quickly, while others endure longer."
Given this, God must render judgment not only actions and persons in the middle of their history but also at the end: "a definitive and public judgment cannot be made of all these things during the course of this present time."
In a way this doesn't do much to answer the original question, since Aquinas believes that the final verdict will be the same as the verdict passed at the time of a person's death (a person will be in heaven or hell before their actions are "ended"). He suggests that one reason for the final public judgment is to overturn and correct "the imperfect judgment that human beings have made" in the course of history. Plus, although the judgment rendered at death is not reversible, there can be a kind of intensification of judgment: "Arius, at his death, could be judged for his erroneous beliefs about the Trinity; at the final judgment he could also be held accountable for the evil effects of his teaching on later generations."
Apart from the context of final judgment, Thomas' comments here are very intriguing. First, it suggests that endings are as problematic and elusive as beginnings. Second, it suggests some grounds for thinking that the meaning/significance of things appears to change over time. The reason Aquinas gives is that actions are not complete until all the consequences of the action have been taken into account. Precisely, Thomas does not believe that the significance of an action changes over time, but rather that the action is not complete without its effects, and that the meaning of the action cannot be known until it is complete. Thus, for instance, the final meaning of my speech-act today is deferred until all the effects of my speech-act are realized. This puts Thomas intriguingly into conversation with Derrida, with the absolutely critical difference that Thomas believes there is an end, a final summing up, a final judgment. (Thomas also believes that there are judgments within history as well as at the end; this also seems to be an important qualification to his recognition of dissemination.)
Finally, this passage discloses something about Thomas, whose theology is often characterized as static and rigid. To that we can say: not at all. As Fr. Chris said to me, "Thomas stop thinking linearly." In some ways I am like the great Schoolman, yet I fail to possess any of his non-linear mystical fire. "O for a Muse of fire that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention," as the Poet wrote. O that I would ascend!
2006-04-05
Apple Allows Windows on Its Machines
April 5, 2006
Turning a decades-long rivalry on its head, Apple Computer introduced software today that it says will easily allow users to install Microsoft's Windows XP operating system on Apple's newest computers.
The software, Boot Camp, is available as a free download on Apple's Web site and will be part of the next version of Apple's operating system, Leopard. It works on Apple's three lines of computer that run on Intel chips  the Mac mini, the iMac and the MacBook Pro.
Apple's move is a recognition of the growing interest among some users in running Windows on Macintosh computers now that they are using Intel processors, which power the majority of Windows-based personal computers. Many technology enthusiasts have already been sharing software and tricks on the Internet to allow Mac users to add Windows to their new machines, though those approaches involve a far more complicated installation than Apple's new software does.
In a statement today, Apple said it does not intend to support Windows for customers who install Boot Camp and run Windows XP on their machines. Still, the company said it is providing the software because it recognizes a sizeable demand  and opportunity.
"We think Boot Camp makes the Mac even more appealing to Windows users considering making the switch," Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in the statement.
Investors seemed to think the strategy would help Apple expand its share of the personal computer market beyond the 3 percent to 5 percent level where it has stood at for many years. Shares of Apple jumped $4.23, or 7 percent, to $65.40 in morning trading. Shares of Microsoft were up 6 cents, to $27.70.
After years of stagnant or declining computer sales, Apple has seen a steady and significant rise in its desktops and laptops in recent years as more consumers have purchased its iPod music player and bought songs through its online iTunes music store.
Though Apple's shift to Intel from chips made by International Business Machines and a former division of Motorola has been considered risky from a technical and business standpoint, the move could help the company capitalize further on the so-far modest gains it has made in the computer business.
Many personal computer users have been reluctant to switch to Apple, because they cannot use software that is written to run exclusively on the Windows operating system, said Charles Wolf, a veteran technology industry analyst at Needham & Company. By making it easy for users to run Windows software on its machine, Apple has taken away "one of the most significant barriers to switching," he said.
The key test will be whether computer buyers will be willing to spend more money to buy an Apple computer to run the same software they can run on a far cheaper Windows-based machine from manufacturers like Dell and Hewlett-Packard.
Mr. Wolf calculates that Apple's biggest market share gains will be among residential users, who are more likely to be swayed by Apple's design and media savvy than corporate and government customers who will likely to stick with cheaper hardware and software configurations.
The shift could mean a significant increase in sales for Apple over time, especially after Leopard becomes the standard Mac operating system late this year or early in 2007. But the company's gains do not have to mean big losses for other hardware makers, Mr. Wolf said, because they will only lose a small fraction of their market share.
"You are starting out with a market share of 2 or 3 percent and maybe going to a market share of 6 or 7," he said. "Apple is not going to take over the world."
Users who download and install Boot Camp must buy a copy of Windows XP software, which starts at $141.98 for the home edition. The Boot Camp software serves as an intermediary that creates an installation disk (users will need to provide a blank compact disk for this step) that lets the Windows software operate the Apple hardware, including its networking, audio and graphics devices and controls. Certain other features like a remote control for Apple's media software will not work with Windows software.
Once the installation is complete, users can select which operating system, Apple or Windows, they want to use each time they start the computer. Sounds sweet?!
Turning a decades-long rivalry on its head, Apple Computer introduced software today that it says will easily allow users to install Microsoft's Windows XP operating system on Apple's newest computers.
The software, Boot Camp, is available as a free download on Apple's Web site and will be part of the next version of Apple's operating system, Leopard. It works on Apple's three lines of computer that run on Intel chips  the Mac mini, the iMac and the MacBook Pro.
Apple's move is a recognition of the growing interest among some users in running Windows on Macintosh computers now that they are using Intel processors, which power the majority of Windows-based personal computers. Many technology enthusiasts have already been sharing software and tricks on the Internet to allow Mac users to add Windows to their new machines, though those approaches involve a far more complicated installation than Apple's new software does.
In a statement today, Apple said it does not intend to support Windows for customers who install Boot Camp and run Windows XP on their machines. Still, the company said it is providing the software because it recognizes a sizeable demand  and opportunity.
"We think Boot Camp makes the Mac even more appealing to Windows users considering making the switch," Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in the statement.
Investors seemed to think the strategy would help Apple expand its share of the personal computer market beyond the 3 percent to 5 percent level where it has stood at for many years. Shares of Apple jumped $4.23, or 7 percent, to $65.40 in morning trading. Shares of Microsoft were up 6 cents, to $27.70.
After years of stagnant or declining computer sales, Apple has seen a steady and significant rise in its desktops and laptops in recent years as more consumers have purchased its iPod music player and bought songs through its online iTunes music store.
Though Apple's shift to Intel from chips made by International Business Machines and a former division of Motorola has been considered risky from a technical and business standpoint, the move could help the company capitalize further on the so-far modest gains it has made in the computer business.
Many personal computer users have been reluctant to switch to Apple, because they cannot use software that is written to run exclusively on the Windows operating system, said Charles Wolf, a veteran technology industry analyst at Needham & Company. By making it easy for users to run Windows software on its machine, Apple has taken away "one of the most significant barriers to switching," he said.
The key test will be whether computer buyers will be willing to spend more money to buy an Apple computer to run the same software they can run on a far cheaper Windows-based machine from manufacturers like Dell and Hewlett-Packard.
Mr. Wolf calculates that Apple's biggest market share gains will be among residential users, who are more likely to be swayed by Apple's design and media savvy than corporate and government customers who will likely to stick with cheaper hardware and software configurations.
The shift could mean a significant increase in sales for Apple over time, especially after Leopard becomes the standard Mac operating system late this year or early in 2007. But the company's gains do not have to mean big losses for other hardware makers, Mr. Wolf said, because they will only lose a small fraction of their market share.
"You are starting out with a market share of 2 or 3 percent and maybe going to a market share of 6 or 7," he said. "Apple is not going to take over the world."
Users who download and install Boot Camp must buy a copy of Windows XP software, which starts at $141.98 for the home edition. The Boot Camp software serves as an intermediary that creates an installation disk (users will need to provide a blank compact disk for this step) that lets the Windows software operate the Apple hardware, including its networking, audio and graphics devices and controls. Certain other features like a remote control for Apple's media software will not work with Windows software.
Once the installation is complete, users can select which operating system, Apple or Windows, they want to use each time they start the computer. Sounds sweet?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)