I was up late last night.
I was up early this morning.
I didn't need to be, but I was.
Why? Because of some nagging and disturbing thoughts. I mean, I just read an article that had damned me to hell. I was damned by some really holy people. These people have a ministry centered around joy and freedom in their holiness before God (scroll down to "The Christian Walk"). They believe that holiness is the "norm" of the Christian life. Because that is not exactly the case for me, I'm not a "true" believer, and am therefore still in need of salvation.
That all pretty well lines up with Scripture, especially if you're looking for that. But to tell me I'm not really a Christian? That I'm still damned if I don't become one? That I am outside the grace of God until I "turn or burn"? ...Holy crap! (oh, I guess I just showed my damned state there too) That's enough to keep anyone with any sense of moral responsibility and a desire for Christ-likeness up.
Now, I wasn't up because I was questioning my salvation. "I know whom I have believed" [2 Timothy 1:12] and that "he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion" [Philippians 1:6]. I was up because something was very, very wrong with the statements of these very, very holy people.
Besides the nuisance of them disregarding everything I say as null simply because I am not of the mind of God, there is a deeper issue. The issue is with a fundamental question of Salvation: Does God save sinners?
If you followed the link above, you would see that they clearly do believe this. So why do I ask this question? Because they have made their answer beg another question: Does God save sinners so they no longer sin and no longer need saving, or does He "merely" save sinners?
I believe that God "merely" saves sinners. I also believe that the fruit of following Christ will be a more righteous life, but I am fairly confident that I will remain a sinner until the day that I die. If this is not the case, awesome; but, I'm not holding my breath or questioning God's redeeming work in my life.
From what I can tell of others (NGJ, my sister, and, it seems, Mormons) tend to hold to the other idea: You get saved and then you are on your own. Now would anyone actually claim this as true? I doubt it. But the fact remains: They are willing to tell me (in writing) that after being saved, I'd better be holy or I'm obviously still under the damning wrath of God. Hmm... but maybe that's not what they are saying at all. Perhaps I'm getting in the way and twisting what they would actually claim.
It could be that they would merely say that I have not "fully matured" in my walk with God. Perhaps they just think I'm stuck in the basics and haven't moved on to the life God has offered me. Maybe they wouldn't say I'm headed to Hell, exactly, more that I'm not exactly headed to Heaven either. Even so, the question remains: Does God save sinners?
-------
I just read a follow-up e-mail from my sister who assured me that her husband has found that he is dead to sin (porn, in particular, as that was what sparked this whole thing). That's awesome. I encourage everyone to break free from sin. I would welcome the state of "dead to sin", and even mentally ascent to it's reality. How that becomes reality for me, I'm unsure. My sister says that I need to listen to this series by Michael Pearl, so I'll see what I can do about that. Believe me, if it changes my life, I'll let you know.
For now, tonight, as I head off to bed, I must admit that I am still a sinner. I am still in desperate need of God's grace and salvation. And that is why I am so thankful that He saves sinners.
What would a life "dead to sin" be like, look like? I guess I'm not close enough to my sister to know. ...I admit it: That was mean. But I'll leave it there for now for two reasons: 1. I said it in part because I believe that a "true" Christian life would be Christ-like and therefore draw sinners to find what He is all about, and 2. It could be my fault (and so a reflection on my state not hers), in that if I am still too worldly I don't see the things of God... but that doesn't jive well with point 1. ...Bother, I am confused. And so, confused, hurt, and very aware of my own short-comings, I throw myself on the grace of God and bid you all "adieu" (quite literally: into the hands of God).
~Luke Holzmann
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
No Greater Harm
Edit: It has come to my attention that Michael (not Debi) wrote this article. The original letter was address to Debi, and I mistakenly assumed. My apologies. Please make note of this error as you read my post. However, since they are "one" there is much difference between the two.
My sister sent me an article. She said that she and her husband "really like" it and thought it would be a good resource for the book I'm writing. I really like it when people send me material to consider. It pushes me to think and re-evaluate my ideas. However, the ideas presented in this article are on par with the statements I felt the need to rebut in my "Flirting with Sexual Jerks" post, and so I feel the need to respond.
This article comes from a "ministry" named "No Greater Joy". My wife has read another of Debi's works and really liked it. So, I guess this goes to show that one must be very careful when representing Christ because, obviously, we all get it wrong from time to time. That being said, I pray that I will share "the mind of Christ" [1 Corinthians 2:16] and not spread more harm.
Please feel free to read the entire article before wading into my tirade.
Good. Moving on.
I will overlook the issues with the original note for now. The biggest problem I have with it is that the husband is not (according to him) looking at porn. So, why does everyone treat him as if he is? Oh sure, his TV use seems high, but the reason he's sleeping in his shop is probably because he isn't "getting any" (her words: "join myself to him") so why in the world would he want to sleep in the same bed? In short, she is not helping the situation; in fact, she is perpetuating the problem and driving her husband to porn.
How?
Well, the basic problem of pornography is not sex, or sex drive, or anything like that. Rather, it is linked to your relationships. If your relationship with your wife is cruddy, then why would you go to her for sex or anything at all for that matter? You wouldn't. And if she is demonizing you as a "porno-freak" and "pervert" then there is no way you'd go near her. I'm reminded of the passage: "God's kindness leads you toward repentance" [Romans 2:4]. Grace and mercy are much more effective at brining people to Christ, probably because that is what He was all about.
Debi talks about "husbands [who] are secretly following porn queens". Sure, there are certain girls (Camilla Belle is my current obsession) whom I "follow", but "porn queens"? I don't think my issues with porn are that different from other Christian guys. I know that many guys who have abandoned themselves to porn may latch on to certain "porn queens"... but, that doesn't fit with my experience. I don't like porn queens. I'm not interested in porn queens. I never have been. There is one "babe" whom I think is beautiful, but that's about as far as that goes (that being the header of my book's blog).
"At one large meeting of several thousand 'Christian' men, over 50% of those present confessed to having 'used pornography' in the previous seven days." The fact that she puts "Christian" in quotes shows her damnation of these men. I am sick of people who claim that because you sin you are not saved. That kind of thinking runs counter to the Good News (and it really is good news) that we are sinners saved by Grace alone. Do we then have license to do whatever we want? Of course not, but that doesn't change that fact that at its heart Christianity is about sinners. Romans 6 talks a lot about no longer being slaves to sin, but by becoming "slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." When we turn our lives over to God holiness is the result, not the aim. We get there by a proper understanding of God's love for us, and this process is life-long.
"If you isolate yourself in a room and indulge in pornography, you are not sick; you are evil." As I know, and I throw myself on God's grace. ...I'm sure that if you took a moment to consider your life, motives, and thoughts, you'd come to the same conclusion.
"You are part of a disgusting group of perverts, all piled onto the same image together. And somewhere there is a sexually dysfunctional editor enjoying the extent of his erotic powers." Now I like what Jason said once: How is liking girls perverted? Beyond this, from what I know of porn producers (granted, I only know one) they are doing what they can do make a buck, not reveling in their "erotic powers".
"You are not oversexed. You are not even sexed. You are alone." And here Debi gets as close as she is going to in the article to the truth about pornography: It's not about sex. Unfortunately, she disregards the fact she just pointed out and says that pornography is about sex. It's not about sex. It's about a lack in relationships. It's about being/feeling alone.
"Adam fell, but you are falling even further. You are plunging your soul into eternal destruction, moving as far away from God as you can get." This statement is ludicrous. How does she even begin to rationalize depths of "falleness"? It's about as binary as you can get. In fact, we start out damned and then have the option of being saved by God's grace... there isn't any plunging involved at all. Dead in sin, or alive in Christ [Romans 8]. Odd; why does this article make me feel like I have to go back to the "Roman Road to Salvation"? I see that my Blog Title is well chosen: There isn't much greater harm than messing up the Gospel.
"You justify your addiction"... no I don't. Porn is a problem. It's bad, destructive and not good. But how about offering a solution and talking about what's really going on instead of just liberally handing out "Get Into Hell Free" cards?
"You are having communion with the devil – bowing in worship of the flesh. You are a disciple of evil." Ouch. I wouldn't go that far, unless you want to apply that brand to every sin... which you don't, or you would have said something like: "You also are a disciple of evil who desperately needs God's grace too." Hmm... let me say that: Debi (and my sister, and you who are reading this): You also are a disciple of evil who desperately needs God's grace too.
"You have taken the downhill slide into Hell, and there is absolutely nothing to stop you except your willingness to apply the brakes." Again: Lunacy. Sin is always an issue of will, and we need God's grace and power to intervene. My desire to be good does nothing for me. C.S. Lewis in "The Screwtape Letters" demonstrated this well. Do we have a part to play? Absolutely. Repentance is an act we do. But to get off the path to Hell requires God's intervention. As with most things on this subject, Debi resorts to sensationalistic verbiage to try to make her statements more meaningful.
"There comes a point when any attempt at a normal relationship is nothing more than assisted masturbation. Your world grows ever smaller until you are alone with your semen. You stink of self. You do not deserve a woman." This is very true, but why? Because pornography is at heart about relationships, not sex. So, relationships are damaged by porn, and porn is reinforced by bad relationships. As for "deserving" of a companion... who would dare to say they "deserve" a spouse? If you dare, you have serious pride issues and a completely unrealistic view of self. The only way we "deserve" anything is as adopted children of God, which would make Him get the glory, not you.
"Don’t tell me that pornography is a substitute for a good woman." I wouldn't dream of it. Pornography is not about substituting sex, it's about substituting relationships in the "male" way. Read Dr. Sax's "Why Gender Matters". And then consider the actions taken in the letter that spawned the article. Again, telling your husband you won't have sex with him because he looks at porn will just push him toward pornography (thankfully, Debi does not condone this). If you refuse to have a relationship with him, he will gladly find that relationship somewhere else.
"[T]he drive for pornography is a cultivated, perverted passion that has nothing to do with love and marriage." I agree it has nothing to do with love and marriage, but it wasn't something that I cultivated. It is a twisting of perfection via my fallen human state, but "perverted passion"? If by "perverted" you mean "not ideal"... okay, but "perverted" has many negative connotations that I think are merely here for sensationalism (the line "If sodomy is sin, pornography is its 'significant other' " would indicate that I'm right).
"The children of godly parents are protected from unclean spirits by being under their moral umbrella. But when a father gives his mind over to wicked lusts, he removes the hedge of protection around his family and invites impure devils into his home. ...Any prayers you pray for their safety are negated the moment you open the pages of a pornographic book or glare at an electronic image." ...I agree that there are spiritual strongholds and physical locations of demonic activity. I even agree that engaging in certain sins opens the door evil spirits. However, the protection we have is from God, not our "moral umbrella". Where is Christ's Blood in this woman's writing? The lack of Christ indicates to me that she has lost sight of salvation and is now resting on "personal holiness"... may I never get there: Son of David have mercy on me and my family!
"If you think you can indulge in pornography and still be a Christian, you are blindly hoping against the clear statements of Scripture. ...You are dangling your soul and the souls of your children over the fires of eternal damnation." While it is true that sin is what we need saving from through Christ's Blood, I would challenge everyone to read Galatians 5:22-26: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." I fear that there is much conceit and a significant lack of "fruit" from the article. And so I would suggest that we all "continue to work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling" [Philippians 2:12].
"I have not been as hard on you as God will be in the day of judgment." That is up to God and my relationship with Christ. It has little to do with my sin, and nothing to do with you. But here, for the first time, Debi begins to talk sense. She starts to mention turning our lives over to Christ. That's good.
"I have done you a service by increasing your guilt... The good news is that Jesus Christ ...died the death you should die. If you repent toward God, God will remove the guilt and free you from sin’s power." I think guilt is entirely Satanic, which is why God removes it. So, I think it is sinful to go about "increasing" the guilt of others. And, while the rest of what Debi says is true, it ultimately lacks the point: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" [Romans 5:8. She also does not delve into the much more important detail of how God frees us from sin's power, what it means to be a "new creation", and how we walk blamelessly. She just assumes that you automatically do so. This is not at all the case, and, since I buy into Inaugurated Eschatology, it won't be fully here on earth.
"Your children, your wife, and your God are waiting." If God is waiting, you're toast. God isn't waiting; He's very much active. He didn't just send Christ to die and now is sitting back waiting to see who responds.
"How do you joyfully participate in your nuptial duties when you know that you are simply a receptacle for the eroticism stirred up by his vice? I have to admit that it stretches the limits of my faith to tell you that your duty remains the same." I find that sad. If Debi understood pornography (it's not rooted in sex), then she would tell wives to seek ever closer relationships with their husbands, not merely keep doing their "duty".
"You can wrestle with it for years and never get any relief, but once you learn your lessons in faith and trust, God can work the miracle of deliverance." I believe this is also true for those who struggle with pornography.
"God can and will work to defend you and the children if you will truly commit it all to him and perform your duties cheerfully." I don't know how Debi feels she can say this. This is clearly not true, and the "hope" she can offer women who are not defended by God is that they were not "truly" committed to Him.
"[Tell your kids that] you are grieved that [your husband] is going to hell for the lack of Christ in his life." Well, she damned me. Impressive. If my salvation is bound to my holiness, I'm damned. If my salvation rests in Christ then I have hope. I prefer to live with hope. I am still curious about what Debi has to say about her own sin....
"Cantankerous wives can provoke their husbands to all kinds of anger and bitterness" and porn use. "But let me be clear, a lousy wife – a lousy sex partner – is not responsible for a husband turning to pornography." Responsible? No, we are responsible for our sin. But that does not change the fact that a bad relationship fuels porn.
"Finally, there is hope. Put it in God’s hands and wait patiently. Others have seen the victory. You can too." Finally. Wish she had painted a picture for how guys can do this with the damning sin--heh, all sin is damning [Romans 6:23]--of pornography.
Do I have the answer to porn? No, but I'm working on it. And a posture toward God, even mired in sin, is something that Debi never considered. Let me assure you: God can make the foulest clean.
May He turn His face toward you.
~Luke Holzmann
My sister sent me an article. She said that she and her husband "really like" it and thought it would be a good resource for the book I'm writing. I really like it when people send me material to consider. It pushes me to think and re-evaluate my ideas. However, the ideas presented in this article are on par with the statements I felt the need to rebut in my "Flirting with Sexual Jerks" post, and so I feel the need to respond.
This article comes from a "ministry" named "No Greater Joy". My wife has read another of Debi's works and really liked it. So, I guess this goes to show that one must be very careful when representing Christ because, obviously, we all get it wrong from time to time. That being said, I pray that I will share "the mind of Christ" [1 Corinthians 2:16] and not spread more harm.
Please feel free to read the entire article before wading into my tirade.
Good. Moving on.
I will overlook the issues with the original note for now. The biggest problem I have with it is that the husband is not (according to him) looking at porn. So, why does everyone treat him as if he is? Oh sure, his TV use seems high, but the reason he's sleeping in his shop is probably because he isn't "getting any" (her words: "join myself to him") so why in the world would he want to sleep in the same bed? In short, she is not helping the situation; in fact, she is perpetuating the problem and driving her husband to porn.
How?
Well, the basic problem of pornography is not sex, or sex drive, or anything like that. Rather, it is linked to your relationships. If your relationship with your wife is cruddy, then why would you go to her for sex or anything at all for that matter? You wouldn't. And if she is demonizing you as a "porno-freak" and "pervert" then there is no way you'd go near her. I'm reminded of the passage: "God's kindness leads you toward repentance" [Romans 2:4]. Grace and mercy are much more effective at brining people to Christ, probably because that is what He was all about.
Debi talks about "husbands [who] are secretly following porn queens". Sure, there are certain girls (Camilla Belle is my current obsession) whom I "follow", but "porn queens"? I don't think my issues with porn are that different from other Christian guys. I know that many guys who have abandoned themselves to porn may latch on to certain "porn queens"... but, that doesn't fit with my experience. I don't like porn queens. I'm not interested in porn queens. I never have been. There is one "babe" whom I think is beautiful, but that's about as far as that goes (that being the header of my book's blog).
"At one large meeting of several thousand 'Christian' men, over 50% of those present confessed to having 'used pornography' in the previous seven days." The fact that she puts "Christian" in quotes shows her damnation of these men. I am sick of people who claim that because you sin you are not saved. That kind of thinking runs counter to the Good News (and it really is good news) that we are sinners saved by Grace alone. Do we then have license to do whatever we want? Of course not, but that doesn't change that fact that at its heart Christianity is about sinners. Romans 6 talks a lot about no longer being slaves to sin, but by becoming "slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." When we turn our lives over to God holiness is the result, not the aim. We get there by a proper understanding of God's love for us, and this process is life-long.
"If you isolate yourself in a room and indulge in pornography, you are not sick; you are evil." As I know, and I throw myself on God's grace. ...I'm sure that if you took a moment to consider your life, motives, and thoughts, you'd come to the same conclusion.
"You are part of a disgusting group of perverts, all piled onto the same image together. And somewhere there is a sexually dysfunctional editor enjoying the extent of his erotic powers." Now I like what Jason said once: How is liking girls perverted? Beyond this, from what I know of porn producers (granted, I only know one) they are doing what they can do make a buck, not reveling in their "erotic powers".
"You are not oversexed. You are not even sexed. You are alone." And here Debi gets as close as she is going to in the article to the truth about pornography: It's not about sex. Unfortunately, she disregards the fact she just pointed out and says that pornography is about sex. It's not about sex. It's about a lack in relationships. It's about being/feeling alone.
"Adam fell, but you are falling even further. You are plunging your soul into eternal destruction, moving as far away from God as you can get." This statement is ludicrous. How does she even begin to rationalize depths of "falleness"? It's about as binary as you can get. In fact, we start out damned and then have the option of being saved by God's grace... there isn't any plunging involved at all. Dead in sin, or alive in Christ [Romans 8]. Odd; why does this article make me feel like I have to go back to the "Roman Road to Salvation"? I see that my Blog Title is well chosen: There isn't much greater harm than messing up the Gospel.
"You justify your addiction"... no I don't. Porn is a problem. It's bad, destructive and not good. But how about offering a solution and talking about what's really going on instead of just liberally handing out "Get Into Hell Free" cards?
"You are having communion with the devil – bowing in worship of the flesh. You are a disciple of evil." Ouch. I wouldn't go that far, unless you want to apply that brand to every sin... which you don't, or you would have said something like: "You also are a disciple of evil who desperately needs God's grace too." Hmm... let me say that: Debi (and my sister, and you who are reading this): You also are a disciple of evil who desperately needs God's grace too.
"You have taken the downhill slide into Hell, and there is absolutely nothing to stop you except your willingness to apply the brakes." Again: Lunacy. Sin is always an issue of will, and we need God's grace and power to intervene. My desire to be good does nothing for me. C.S. Lewis in "The Screwtape Letters" demonstrated this well. Do we have a part to play? Absolutely. Repentance is an act we do. But to get off the path to Hell requires God's intervention. As with most things on this subject, Debi resorts to sensationalistic verbiage to try to make her statements more meaningful.
"There comes a point when any attempt at a normal relationship is nothing more than assisted masturbation. Your world grows ever smaller until you are alone with your semen. You stink of self. You do not deserve a woman." This is very true, but why? Because pornography is at heart about relationships, not sex. So, relationships are damaged by porn, and porn is reinforced by bad relationships. As for "deserving" of a companion... who would dare to say they "deserve" a spouse? If you dare, you have serious pride issues and a completely unrealistic view of self. The only way we "deserve" anything is as adopted children of God, which would make Him get the glory, not you.
"Don’t tell me that pornography is a substitute for a good woman." I wouldn't dream of it. Pornography is not about substituting sex, it's about substituting relationships in the "male" way. Read Dr. Sax's "Why Gender Matters". And then consider the actions taken in the letter that spawned the article. Again, telling your husband you won't have sex with him because he looks at porn will just push him toward pornography (thankfully, Debi does not condone this). If you refuse to have a relationship with him, he will gladly find that relationship somewhere else.
"[T]he drive for pornography is a cultivated, perverted passion that has nothing to do with love and marriage." I agree it has nothing to do with love and marriage, but it wasn't something that I cultivated. It is a twisting of perfection via my fallen human state, but "perverted passion"? If by "perverted" you mean "not ideal"... okay, but "perverted" has many negative connotations that I think are merely here for sensationalism (the line "If sodomy is sin, pornography is its 'significant other' " would indicate that I'm right).
"The children of godly parents are protected from unclean spirits by being under their moral umbrella. But when a father gives his mind over to wicked lusts, he removes the hedge of protection around his family and invites impure devils into his home. ...Any prayers you pray for their safety are negated the moment you open the pages of a pornographic book or glare at an electronic image." ...I agree that there are spiritual strongholds and physical locations of demonic activity. I even agree that engaging in certain sins opens the door evil spirits. However, the protection we have is from God, not our "moral umbrella". Where is Christ's Blood in this woman's writing? The lack of Christ indicates to me that she has lost sight of salvation and is now resting on "personal holiness"... may I never get there: Son of David have mercy on me and my family!
"If you think you can indulge in pornography and still be a Christian, you are blindly hoping against the clear statements of Scripture. ...You are dangling your soul and the souls of your children over the fires of eternal damnation." While it is true that sin is what we need saving from through Christ's Blood, I would challenge everyone to read Galatians 5:22-26: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." I fear that there is much conceit and a significant lack of "fruit" from the article. And so I would suggest that we all "continue to work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling" [Philippians 2:12].
"I have not been as hard on you as God will be in the day of judgment." That is up to God and my relationship with Christ. It has little to do with my sin, and nothing to do with you. But here, for the first time, Debi begins to talk sense. She starts to mention turning our lives over to Christ. That's good.
"I have done you a service by increasing your guilt... The good news is that Jesus Christ ...died the death you should die. If you repent toward God, God will remove the guilt and free you from sin’s power." I think guilt is entirely Satanic, which is why God removes it. So, I think it is sinful to go about "increasing" the guilt of others. And, while the rest of what Debi says is true, it ultimately lacks the point: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" [Romans 5:8. She also does not delve into the much more important detail of how God frees us from sin's power, what it means to be a "new creation", and how we walk blamelessly. She just assumes that you automatically do so. This is not at all the case, and, since I buy into Inaugurated Eschatology, it won't be fully here on earth.
"Your children, your wife, and your God are waiting." If God is waiting, you're toast. God isn't waiting; He's very much active. He didn't just send Christ to die and now is sitting back waiting to see who responds.
"How do you joyfully participate in your nuptial duties when you know that you are simply a receptacle for the eroticism stirred up by his vice? I have to admit that it stretches the limits of my faith to tell you that your duty remains the same." I find that sad. If Debi understood pornography (it's not rooted in sex), then she would tell wives to seek ever closer relationships with their husbands, not merely keep doing their "duty".
"You can wrestle with it for years and never get any relief, but once you learn your lessons in faith and trust, God can work the miracle of deliverance." I believe this is also true for those who struggle with pornography.
"God can and will work to defend you and the children if you will truly commit it all to him and perform your duties cheerfully." I don't know how Debi feels she can say this. This is clearly not true, and the "hope" she can offer women who are not defended by God is that they were not "truly" committed to Him.
"[Tell your kids that] you are grieved that [your husband] is going to hell for the lack of Christ in his life." Well, she damned me. Impressive. If my salvation is bound to my holiness, I'm damned. If my salvation rests in Christ then I have hope. I prefer to live with hope. I am still curious about what Debi has to say about her own sin....
"Cantankerous wives can provoke their husbands to all kinds of anger and bitterness" and porn use. "But let me be clear, a lousy wife – a lousy sex partner – is not responsible for a husband turning to pornography." Responsible? No, we are responsible for our sin. But that does not change the fact that a bad relationship fuels porn.
"Finally, there is hope. Put it in God’s hands and wait patiently. Others have seen the victory. You can too." Finally. Wish she had painted a picture for how guys can do this with the damning sin--heh, all sin is damning [Romans 6:23]--of pornography.
Do I have the answer to porn? No, but I'm working on it. And a posture toward God, even mired in sin, is something that Debi never considered. Let me assure you: God can make the foulest clean.
May He turn His face toward you.
~Luke Holzmann
Sunday, September 23, 2007
What Makes Boys Cry?
aka: Love, "Love", and Love Acts
I watch a lot of movies. Currently, I get through at least five a week, often more. I also watch just about anything, so I've seen some pretty odd, lame, terrible, disgusting, and disturbing flicks.
But I just watched "Boys Don't Cry" which reminded me a lot of "Monster", both of which I would not recommend. I first heard about "Boys Don't Cry" on the radio way back in 1999 when it came out. It dropped off the radar for me until I heard about it again while I was watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated". So I checked it out.
It's a story about courage, or love, or hate, or something; possibly all three. A girl passing as a guy who loves girls, finds a true love and gets knocked off for it. Similar to "Monster" in that there's true girl-on-girl love that ultimately ends in death. The fact that there is much more going on--theft, murder, jail time, other loves, lots of drinking, drugs, and many other things that scream "white trash"--is really not the point of these movies. These films are about finding yourself, love, and a way to live (or die) for who you are. ...I guess. It's "Brokeback Mountain" with a little more meaning.
Maybe it's the fact that "Monster" and "Boy's Don't Cry" are based on reality. Maybe it's because of the chapter on homosexuality in "Why Gender Matters". Maybe it's because I've known quite a few homosexuals myself. Maybe it's just because I'm odd. But whatever the reason, I feel like I need to respond to these movies and entertain the questions they raise in my mind.
As the song asks, "What is love?" Oh sure, we all know it's far more than a feeling. We may even understand that it is a verb. But what does that mean? How does one love someone who has determined (for whatever horrible reasons) to be unlovable?
"But wait a minute, Luke," someone may counter, "these girls found love with a very special female soul-mate." I guess I have to at least nod in that direction. But the love they found... it doesn't feel like love. Sure, it was love making. It seems like it felt very meaningful. And even Dr. Sax in "Why Gender Matters" points out that intimacy is very different for girls and boys, which further blurs this line and definition of love. But still, it feels like escapism. The only way these girls could function in the world was to (ideally) run off with their lover girl and be happy. Mean ol' Society (or Fate, or whatever) stepped in and decimated their hopes, dreams, and futures. So what should we have done instead?
We know that we should not have murdered "Brandon". We know these girls were just seeking love. We know that the "love acts" they did with girls made them feel like a million bucks. But what acts of love should I have done if I had been there? If we don't want these kinds of terrible events to repeat themselves, then give me a suggest for what I can do to help.
What bothers me most about these stories is that no one, especially the filmmakers, has a suggestion for what we should do. There's a sense of rage, frustration, and a demand for the "truth" of these stories, but absolutely no action, no hope, no redemption.
What makes this boy cry is that I don't have a suggestion either. If people go down these devastating paths, for whatever the reason, there is nothing I can do. That is so not my world, my experience, my reality that I can't fathom what I'd suggest or say to them if they came to me. Worse still, because I am not in their world, there is no way they would come to me.
This isn't about environment, per se, but it is about the life we choose and the hope we have. Again, someone might suggest that these girls did not have a lot of choices in life, and that may be true. But at least 50% of the blame rests on their shoulders: The refused to seek help (or accept help, like in the scene in "Monster" where the guy offers her a ride, money, and anything else she needs; she responds by putting a bullet in his head). The other 50% of the blame clearly rests on our shoulders because we are not visible enough as an obvious place of rest. We have not been helpful enough.
And that's what's so totally mind-blowing about Christ: People knew He was the guy to go to. How did He do it? I pray that one day my pursuit of Christ-likeness will lead me to the answer. Until then, if you have any ideas, let me know.
~Luke Holzmann
I watch a lot of movies. Currently, I get through at least five a week, often more. I also watch just about anything, so I've seen some pretty odd, lame, terrible, disgusting, and disturbing flicks.
But I just watched "Boys Don't Cry" which reminded me a lot of "Monster", both of which I would not recommend. I first heard about "Boys Don't Cry" on the radio way back in 1999 when it came out. It dropped off the radar for me until I heard about it again while I was watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated". So I checked it out.
It's a story about courage, or love, or hate, or something; possibly all three. A girl passing as a guy who loves girls, finds a true love and gets knocked off for it. Similar to "Monster" in that there's true girl-on-girl love that ultimately ends in death. The fact that there is much more going on--theft, murder, jail time, other loves, lots of drinking, drugs, and many other things that scream "white trash"--is really not the point of these movies. These films are about finding yourself, love, and a way to live (or die) for who you are. ...I guess. It's "Brokeback Mountain" with a little more meaning.
Maybe it's the fact that "Monster" and "Boy's Don't Cry" are based on reality. Maybe it's because of the chapter on homosexuality in "Why Gender Matters". Maybe it's because I've known quite a few homosexuals myself. Maybe it's just because I'm odd. But whatever the reason, I feel like I need to respond to these movies and entertain the questions they raise in my mind.
As the song asks, "What is love?" Oh sure, we all know it's far more than a feeling. We may even understand that it is a verb. But what does that mean? How does one love someone who has determined (for whatever horrible reasons) to be unlovable?
"But wait a minute, Luke," someone may counter, "these girls found love with a very special female soul-mate." I guess I have to at least nod in that direction. But the love they found... it doesn't feel like love. Sure, it was love making. It seems like it felt very meaningful. And even Dr. Sax in "Why Gender Matters" points out that intimacy is very different for girls and boys, which further blurs this line and definition of love. But still, it feels like escapism. The only way these girls could function in the world was to (ideally) run off with their lover girl and be happy. Mean ol' Society (or Fate, or whatever) stepped in and decimated their hopes, dreams, and futures. So what should we have done instead?
We know that we should not have murdered "Brandon". We know these girls were just seeking love. We know that the "love acts" they did with girls made them feel like a million bucks. But what acts of love should I have done if I had been there? If we don't want these kinds of terrible events to repeat themselves, then give me a suggest for what I can do to help.
What bothers me most about these stories is that no one, especially the filmmakers, has a suggestion for what we should do. There's a sense of rage, frustration, and a demand for the "truth" of these stories, but absolutely no action, no hope, no redemption.
What makes this boy cry is that I don't have a suggestion either. If people go down these devastating paths, for whatever the reason, there is nothing I can do. That is so not my world, my experience, my reality that I can't fathom what I'd suggest or say to them if they came to me. Worse still, because I am not in their world, there is no way they would come to me.
This isn't about environment, per se, but it is about the life we choose and the hope we have. Again, someone might suggest that these girls did not have a lot of choices in life, and that may be true. But at least 50% of the blame rests on their shoulders: The refused to seek help (or accept help, like in the scene in "Monster" where the guy offers her a ride, money, and anything else she needs; she responds by putting a bullet in his head). The other 50% of the blame clearly rests on our shoulders because we are not visible enough as an obvious place of rest. We have not been helpful enough.
And that's what's so totally mind-blowing about Christ: People knew He was the guy to go to. How did He do it? I pray that one day my pursuit of Christ-likeness will lead me to the answer. Until then, if you have any ideas, let me know.
~Luke Holzmann
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Faggots, Thongs, and Britches
I was reading "Saint Frances of Assisi" by Chesterton and he said something about being the "fag-end of the faggot" and it got me thinking. Nothing concrete, see, but just a whirring in my mind. This man spells the phenomenon of the perception of a specific spectrum of light "colour", so we should take what he writes with a hand on the dictionary. There are other words, like faggot, that have been, well, shifted over the years. "Thong" used to mean "sandal" and now means "a clothless panty". "Gay" used to mean "happy" and now means "lame", which used to mean "crippled" and now means "less than ideal" which is my current working definition of "sucks". "Sucks" used to be a verb for the force used to draw a fluid along a pipe. This shifted to a specific fluid down a pipe-like fixture. Now it's a general word, much like every other four letter word out there, which means just about whatever you want it to mean. And this brings me, in my "free association" mind scramble, to a discussion of Meaning and Language. More specifically: How are Language and Meaning connected?
Those who ascribe to the "Muted Group Theory" of communication--which states that because English was developed by white males it has consistently oppressed the minorities and women, and which is the only theory I remember from my college class on the subject of theories of communication because it was so totally bunk--would likely say that Meaning is defined by Language and it must have taken a radical visionary to give voice to the homosexual community by giving them a less "socially-stigmatized" word by which to define themselves, which has inevitably lead us to today's inane definition of "gay".
Others would say that Language is merely a mode of transmitting Meaning, and Meaning can be had even if the words are garbled, like a scene where a character spouts out "Why that f-ing f-er f-ed my f-ed-up f-ing f-, so now I'm f-ing going to f- him up". Surprisingly, this makes sense.
Perhaps this ultimately goes back to audience. Depending on when and where you are in the world, a faggot is either a stick or on par with a racial slur. And while this is very important to us as communicators, it is equally essential when we are listeners. We must be careful to filter everything we read and hear through the context from which the speaker is speaking. Otherwise the Bible is unclear, the Constitution meaningless, and our laws inert.
So what do we mean by a "cubit"? What are "britches"? And how would we know if we were the very "fag-end of the faggot"?
Often, we must look to the past to understand it. Looking back with "20/20 Hindsight" often gives us the wrong impression because our world is not their world, our words not theirs, and we have a tendency to be rather stuck-up about our perception. Likely, to find more meaning and truth we need more humility.
Humility does not say that we are wrong, but it allows for the possibility. Humility lets us be assertive and certain while at the same time cautious and correctable. We can learn if we are humble, and we have much to learn from the past. It may be a good idea to not only read Chesterton, but also "The Dictionary of Disagreeable English" to lay a fun, albeit "la-di-da" (what?), foundation to our understanding of the world we now experience from the lessons of the past.
So, please, keep your britches on and your eyes open because whether your thongs are worn on your feet or between your butt-cheeks, we could all use more humility so as not to end our lives with an epitaph that states: Here lies the fag end of the faggot, may he burn forever.
~Luke Holzmann
Those who ascribe to the "Muted Group Theory" of communication--which states that because English was developed by white males it has consistently oppressed the minorities and women, and which is the only theory I remember from my college class on the subject of theories of communication because it was so totally bunk--would likely say that Meaning is defined by Language and it must have taken a radical visionary to give voice to the homosexual community by giving them a less "socially-stigmatized" word by which to define themselves, which has inevitably lead us to today's inane definition of "gay".
Others would say that Language is merely a mode of transmitting Meaning, and Meaning can be had even if the words are garbled, like a scene where a character spouts out "Why that f-ing f-er f-ed my f-ed-up f-ing f-, so now I'm f-ing going to f- him up". Surprisingly, this makes sense.
Perhaps this ultimately goes back to audience. Depending on when and where you are in the world, a faggot is either a stick or on par with a racial slur. And while this is very important to us as communicators, it is equally essential when we are listeners. We must be careful to filter everything we read and hear through the context from which the speaker is speaking. Otherwise the Bible is unclear, the Constitution meaningless, and our laws inert.
So what do we mean by a "cubit"? What are "britches"? And how would we know if we were the very "fag-end of the faggot"?
Often, we must look to the past to understand it. Looking back with "20/20 Hindsight" often gives us the wrong impression because our world is not their world, our words not theirs, and we have a tendency to be rather stuck-up about our perception. Likely, to find more meaning and truth we need more humility.
Humility does not say that we are wrong, but it allows for the possibility. Humility lets us be assertive and certain while at the same time cautious and correctable. We can learn if we are humble, and we have much to learn from the past. It may be a good idea to not only read Chesterton, but also "The Dictionary of Disagreeable English" to lay a fun, albeit "la-di-da" (what?), foundation to our understanding of the world we now experience from the lessons of the past.
So, please, keep your britches on and your eyes open because whether your thongs are worn on your feet or between your butt-cheeks, we could all use more humility so as not to end our lives with an epitaph that states: Here lies the fag end of the faggot, may he burn forever.
~Luke Holzmann
Monday, July 02, 2007
Zeitgeist - Our Era
While dumping some footage this evening I had time to poke around what videos are big on Google Videos and found a documentary on "Christianity, 9/11, and the Federal Reserve". Curious, I watched it. Granted, it's two hours long and could really use some editing, but the content is certainly provocative if not sensationalistic, biased and wrong.
After watching the whole video, I followed the link to the references. It was clearly stated that "some information... is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper." In other words, Wikipedia did not back a single claim I double checked. Granted, Wikipedia is hardly the end all of information, but many of his(?) claims in the first part about Christianity didn't even make sense. Glancing through his sources you find that his bit on Christianity consists of 19 sources, three of which are written by the same guy. His bias is clear. Even so, it was disconcerting to me that I did not have specific rebuttals to the claims. Worse still, I have no idea where to go get them.
He's clearly out to lunch on some of this stuff, but how much? How would we know?
This is where, again, my Christian education didn't prepare me to respond. We are told what is true and what isn't. We are told that there are people out there with difficult questions. In some of my really good Bible classes we were even exposed to a few of these questions, but then were given the answer right out. So, yes, this guy is wrong... but if I had to discuss this with him face to face, would I be able to at least present the other side so he couldn't leave thinking I was completely clueless? Where do I find the answers, the rebuttal, the solution?
And perhaps that is why were are where we are in this era. This isn't merely a "relativistic culture" like we hear in church. No, there's a reason why everything seems grey. The world is so complex, truth so elusive, and perspectives so easily flawed that it makes it difficult to say, for certain and with clarity, "You're wrong." Not because truth can't be known, but because it is hard to state truth in a way that others can accept.
Like Zeitgeist--interesting, biased and paranoid, but what could I possibly say that would shed light on the other side? He accepts his truth "and disregards the rest". By the same token, how would I know what truth I've disregarded? My perspective is far too limited.
The comfort I take is that I still watch these kinds of things, still inquire, still search, still question. But in my search and openness I still hold to a consistent, orthodox view of things, and that is something sadly missing from the cynics of today. This era is full of questions that demand not answers, but apologies for the confronted. So, perhaps my lack of rebuttals isn't a problem because the counter-argument is not being sought. Rather, we must rethink how we approach these issues and find a viable solution buried behind the pain of the accusers. And therein lies the rub: This isn't logic we must combat, but hurt. And those that are hurt do not fight by the rules of reason. No, they are out for blood so theirs is not shed. Too bad they refuse to accept the fact that Blood enough has been spilled.
So, Mr. Documentary-Guy, I'm not after you or your ideas (as "out to lunch" as they may be). Rather, I want to know what started you down this path. Why did you make this video? Who hurt you? And what links Christianity, 9/11, and the Federal Reserve for you? That isn't clear in your movie and I can't piece it together. I'm curious, and I want to learn.
~Luke Holzmann
After watching the whole video, I followed the link to the references. It was clearly stated that "some information... is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper." In other words, Wikipedia did not back a single claim I double checked. Granted, Wikipedia is hardly the end all of information, but many of his(?) claims in the first part about Christianity didn't even make sense. Glancing through his sources you find that his bit on Christianity consists of 19 sources, three of which are written by the same guy. His bias is clear. Even so, it was disconcerting to me that I did not have specific rebuttals to the claims. Worse still, I have no idea where to go get them.
He's clearly out to lunch on some of this stuff, but how much? How would we know?
This is where, again, my Christian education didn't prepare me to respond. We are told what is true and what isn't. We are told that there are people out there with difficult questions. In some of my really good Bible classes we were even exposed to a few of these questions, but then were given the answer right out. So, yes, this guy is wrong... but if I had to discuss this with him face to face, would I be able to at least present the other side so he couldn't leave thinking I was completely clueless? Where do I find the answers, the rebuttal, the solution?
And perhaps that is why were are where we are in this era. This isn't merely a "relativistic culture" like we hear in church. No, there's a reason why everything seems grey. The world is so complex, truth so elusive, and perspectives so easily flawed that it makes it difficult to say, for certain and with clarity, "You're wrong." Not because truth can't be known, but because it is hard to state truth in a way that others can accept.
Like Zeitgeist--interesting, biased and paranoid, but what could I possibly say that would shed light on the other side? He accepts his truth "and disregards the rest". By the same token, how would I know what truth I've disregarded? My perspective is far too limited.
The comfort I take is that I still watch these kinds of things, still inquire, still search, still question. But in my search and openness I still hold to a consistent, orthodox view of things, and that is something sadly missing from the cynics of today. This era is full of questions that demand not answers, but apologies for the confronted. So, perhaps my lack of rebuttals isn't a problem because the counter-argument is not being sought. Rather, we must rethink how we approach these issues and find a viable solution buried behind the pain of the accusers. And therein lies the rub: This isn't logic we must combat, but hurt. And those that are hurt do not fight by the rules of reason. No, they are out for blood so theirs is not shed. Too bad they refuse to accept the fact that Blood enough has been spilled.
So, Mr. Documentary-Guy, I'm not after you or your ideas (as "out to lunch" as they may be). Rather, I want to know what started you down this path. Why did you make this video? Who hurt you? And what links Christianity, 9/11, and the Federal Reserve for you? That isn't clear in your movie and I can't piece it together. I'm curious, and I want to learn.
~Luke Holzmann
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Internet is for...
So, I happened across this today. If you happed to feel like I just ruined your virgin eyes... I'm not sorry. I am sorry if you are 4 and have not been exposed to pornography as of yet, but I started that when I was six. And, considering I doubt anyone younger than 6 will be reading this blog, I don't think I did anything new to you.
The picture made me laugh. Why did I chuckle at such an obviously... "bad" thing? Because it's true. It's very, very true. It reminds me, once again, of a very famous Google Video. I recently showed the video to my (married) little sister and she was disturbed. She asked me how I could find something like that funny. It's hard to explain why a joke is funny, and often ruins it, so I had to think for a moment. The best I could offer was something to the lines of, "It's funny because that's what's going on. Nobody is really willing to talk about it, so I think it's great people are doing so in a such a light hearted way." Maybe now we can finally talk about this subject... for real.
Granted, this does all stem from our book, but as I write I get more and more frustrated that I don't have it finished yet. People need the truth, and without it they are still locked up. They aren't set free. Please, let this free you. We do know, exactly, what it is you've been Googling. If your wife does not know, it's about time she did.
Last week we had a family reunion. At one point in time my dad started talking with my Uncle about what he does at his church. My Uncle talked about the ministry opportunities he has, and how he mentors people with problems. He was very pleased to announce that he is personally mentoring guys who were addicted to pornography.
My ears perked up. Perhaps my Uncle had some new ideas or information that I could use in my book. He then went on say that he was working with these two guys every week.
Wait... what? Two?
He only knows/mentors two guys with the porn problem? Nevermind. There's no way he has anything new to say. ...He didn't. He did cover some of the same ground we've been fleshing out in the book, but nothing, literally nothing, else.
Of the guys I've known who are around my age, I know for a fact that 90% of them struggle with porn. Of the 10% that I don't know for sure, they are in the "virgin eyes" camp and can't be trusted. I think it is safe to assume that just about every guy I know within 5 years of my age (anyone older or younger isn't going to confide that in me yet) looks at porn on a regular basis.
Let that sink in.
Your husband, boyfriend, buddy, pastor, judge, principal, jailer, father, friend looks at porn to some extent or another. As do you (1 in 3 odds even if you're a girl). Time to come clean.
As I posted recently, I've been involved in a little experiment with that. I downloaded some "accountability" software that will e-mail my wife my web history. She already knows I look at porn, but not to the extent to which I have. Since installing the software I've been much more limited, to things like images of Melissa Theuriau and the humorously captioned bikini girl. So, sure, I haven't gone to obviously bad sites, but I still seek this stuff out in more acceptable ways.
It's been hard.
It's been really hard.
To be honest, it hasn't made sex any better. It hasn't improved my marriage. It hasn't helped with anything. In fact, just yesterday, we got into a huge fight surrounding all this, and I haven't been to a porn site of any kind in almost two weeks... partly because I hadn't been to a porn site in two weeks... but that's a different issue that requires some time before I will be willing to write about it.
The point of all this? I'm not really sure--I saw a picture that made me laugh and I wanted to post it with some thoughts. No clarity, just a chuckle.
~Luke Holzmann
The picture made me laugh. Why did I chuckle at such an obviously... "bad" thing? Because it's true. It's very, very true. It reminds me, once again, of a very famous Google Video. I recently showed the video to my (married) little sister and she was disturbed. She asked me how I could find something like that funny. It's hard to explain why a joke is funny, and often ruins it, so I had to think for a moment. The best I could offer was something to the lines of, "It's funny because that's what's going on. Nobody is really willing to talk about it, so I think it's great people are doing so in a such a light hearted way." Maybe now we can finally talk about this subject... for real.
Granted, this does all stem from our book, but as I write I get more and more frustrated that I don't have it finished yet. People need the truth, and without it they are still locked up. They aren't set free. Please, let this free you. We do know, exactly, what it is you've been Googling. If your wife does not know, it's about time she did.
Last week we had a family reunion. At one point in time my dad started talking with my Uncle about what he does at his church. My Uncle talked about the ministry opportunities he has, and how he mentors people with problems. He was very pleased to announce that he is personally mentoring guys who were addicted to pornography.
My ears perked up. Perhaps my Uncle had some new ideas or information that I could use in my book. He then went on say that he was working with these two guys every week.
Wait... what? Two?
He only knows/mentors two guys with the porn problem? Nevermind. There's no way he has anything new to say. ...He didn't. He did cover some of the same ground we've been fleshing out in the book, but nothing, literally nothing, else.
Of the guys I've known who are around my age, I know for a fact that 90% of them struggle with porn. Of the 10% that I don't know for sure, they are in the "virgin eyes" camp and can't be trusted. I think it is safe to assume that just about every guy I know within 5 years of my age (anyone older or younger isn't going to confide that in me yet) looks at porn on a regular basis.
Let that sink in.
Your husband, boyfriend, buddy, pastor, judge, principal, jailer, father, friend looks at porn to some extent or another. As do you (1 in 3 odds even if you're a girl). Time to come clean.
As I posted recently, I've been involved in a little experiment with that. I downloaded some "accountability" software that will e-mail my wife my web history. She already knows I look at porn, but not to the extent to which I have. Since installing the software I've been much more limited, to things like images of Melissa Theuriau and the humorously captioned bikini girl. So, sure, I haven't gone to obviously bad sites, but I still seek this stuff out in more acceptable ways.
It's been hard.
It's been really hard.
To be honest, it hasn't made sex any better. It hasn't improved my marriage. It hasn't helped with anything. In fact, just yesterday, we got into a huge fight surrounding all this, and I haven't been to a porn site of any kind in almost two weeks... partly because I hadn't been to a porn site in two weeks... but that's a different issue that requires some time before I will be willing to write about it.
The point of all this? I'm not really sure--I saw a picture that made me laugh and I wanted to post it with some thoughts. No clarity, just a chuckle.
~Luke Holzmann
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Heroes of Old
I've recently started watching a TV Show based on a very X-Men-ish storyline. Basically, "Evolution" has begun to shape men into Heroes with super-human abilities (including flight, "cell regeneration" [which is a misnomer because she can actually come back from the dead], and telepathy). The show is quite enjoyable, but would be much better without the horrible "recaps" every few episodes (the voice talent is almost as bad as the blurb writer).
The idea of evolutionary betterment so we can survive as a "species" feels compelling. It makes sense, and draws from the horribly un-idyllic world in which we live. It calls for a Savior, a Superman, Heroes. It feels right. But something has been bothering me. I finally figured out what it was: Heroes are not new.
This show draws on the idea that we are now (whenever the show is supposed to take place) in need of Heroes, and evolution in its blind "wisdom" is here to save us. In the face of coming Nuclear disaster, "Evolution" has stepped in... which is exactly the opposite of Natural Selection, which states that the "fit" survive... meaning that it is only post-apocalypse that we see whom the "fit" were (namely, the cockroaches the show begins with). Evolution, by definition can't be preemptive. But that's an entirely different issue.
The thing that bothers me the most is that these kinds of stories claim that heroes are on the rise now, for the first time, to save humanity. This is simply not the case. History, lore, and legend all point to "heroes of old, men of renown". Even thinking back to movies like "300", we have stories from long ago of Heroes who rose.
Certainly, the creators of the show aren't trying to argue for a complete lack of heroes before now, but their painfully evolutionary bent reeks of lameness. It's lacking, biased, and myopic. Stories are powerful ways of shaping the beliefs and actions of people, and a story that says that in light of evolution's "violent process... morality looses its meaning. The question of 'good' and 'evil' reduced to one simple choice: Survive or perish" is not a story I can support. I can enjoy the ride, but I can't shake the brooding emptiness of such a world. Not only is such a world empty, but it is also naturally self-contradictory. We can only enjoy a story when we believe that the choices, struggles and problems our Heroes face will allow for good to win. Even tragedy only works within a functional "moral" world. Outside of good and evil, tragedy becomes comedy and drama becomes boring. I first noticed this consciously at the end of "Swordfish". The movie begins with the "bad guy" talking about how the "bad guy" should win for once in a Hollywood movie. The film then tries to make this guy into a "bad guy" by giving him guns, girls, and gold. Stuff blows up, boobies get shown, and, low-and-behold the "bad guy" gets away. The problem is that he's not really a bad guy. Sure, he does bad stuff, but the movie only works because people believe that he did the right thing. Was it "moral"? Was it "good"? No, but it was right... for the film and the filmmakers.
We now tread into "situational ethics" and "relativistic morality" which are decried, with good reason, by the religious. However, there is a certain amount of truth to all this: While there is definite right and wrong, motivation, far more than action, determines your moral status. So, sure, it is wrong to murder, but is it really wrong to tear people apart when you enter your "Hulk/Hyde" state? That's hard to say. Why? Because is it wrong to protect yourself? That's hard to say as well.
But back to the point of this post: We have long had heroes and evolution has had nothing to do with it. Evolution is certainly a tool in the "hand of God", so it could very well be that there was some genetic reason that Samson kicked so much butt, but probably not.
So, sure, enjoy the show "Heroes" but remember, 2 Samuel has some wicked-awesome stories as well. Perhaps I should team up with Frank Miller and Zack Snyder and work on "30" or something.
~Luke Holzmann
The idea of evolutionary betterment so we can survive as a "species" feels compelling. It makes sense, and draws from the horribly un-idyllic world in which we live. It calls for a Savior, a Superman, Heroes. It feels right. But something has been bothering me. I finally figured out what it was: Heroes are not new.
This show draws on the idea that we are now (whenever the show is supposed to take place) in need of Heroes, and evolution in its blind "wisdom" is here to save us. In the face of coming Nuclear disaster, "Evolution" has stepped in... which is exactly the opposite of Natural Selection, which states that the "fit" survive... meaning that it is only post-apocalypse that we see whom the "fit" were (namely, the cockroaches the show begins with). Evolution, by definition can't be preemptive. But that's an entirely different issue.
The thing that bothers me the most is that these kinds of stories claim that heroes are on the rise now, for the first time, to save humanity. This is simply not the case. History, lore, and legend all point to "heroes of old, men of renown". Even thinking back to movies like "300", we have stories from long ago of Heroes who rose.
Certainly, the creators of the show aren't trying to argue for a complete lack of heroes before now, but their painfully evolutionary bent reeks of lameness. It's lacking, biased, and myopic. Stories are powerful ways of shaping the beliefs and actions of people, and a story that says that in light of evolution's "violent process... morality looses its meaning. The question of 'good' and 'evil' reduced to one simple choice: Survive or perish" is not a story I can support. I can enjoy the ride, but I can't shake the brooding emptiness of such a world. Not only is such a world empty, but it is also naturally self-contradictory. We can only enjoy a story when we believe that the choices, struggles and problems our Heroes face will allow for good to win. Even tragedy only works within a functional "moral" world. Outside of good and evil, tragedy becomes comedy and drama becomes boring. I first noticed this consciously at the end of "Swordfish". The movie begins with the "bad guy" talking about how the "bad guy" should win for once in a Hollywood movie. The film then tries to make this guy into a "bad guy" by giving him guns, girls, and gold. Stuff blows up, boobies get shown, and, low-and-behold the "bad guy" gets away. The problem is that he's not really a bad guy. Sure, he does bad stuff, but the movie only works because people believe that he did the right thing. Was it "moral"? Was it "good"? No, but it was right... for the film and the filmmakers.
We now tread into "situational ethics" and "relativistic morality" which are decried, with good reason, by the religious. However, there is a certain amount of truth to all this: While there is definite right and wrong, motivation, far more than action, determines your moral status. So, sure, it is wrong to murder, but is it really wrong to tear people apart when you enter your "Hulk/Hyde" state? That's hard to say. Why? Because is it wrong to protect yourself? That's hard to say as well.
But back to the point of this post: We have long had heroes and evolution has had nothing to do with it. Evolution is certainly a tool in the "hand of God", so it could very well be that there was some genetic reason that Samson kicked so much butt, but probably not.
So, sure, enjoy the show "Heroes" but remember, 2 Samuel has some wicked-awesome stories as well. Perhaps I should team up with Frank Miller and Zack Snyder and work on "30" or something.
~Luke Holzmann
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Rooting Out the Problem
Believe it or not I am posting about my plumbing again. Yes, yes, it feels like yesterday that I was shelling out $300 for a guy to come to my house and push a metal cord down my pipes, but I had to do it again yesterday. This time the bill was "only" $210. It would have been 50 bucks more if I had not pulled out the toilet myself. I'd never removed a toilet before, though I had seen it in a movie. My experience was almost as awesome. Well, not really.
So, the plumber clears the line (turns out that it took 75 feet of snake from the basement floor, which makes me feel a little better since my snake is only 50 feet and I tend to go in from the roof). Shortly after he leaves, however, the drain backs up again. So I called them this afternoon and they came are re-snaked the line. This time the problem was about 100 feet down and it didn't cost me anything. A 6 month warranty is much better than a one month. In short, don't go with the expensive guys. Sure, they treated me okay, but I still feel ripped off for a couple reasons.
So, we're able to do dishes, wash clothes, and flush the toilet as often as we want instead of only once every hour or so. And, the basement isn't flooding again. All good things.
But just like there's been buildup in the pipes, there's been crap flowing through my life too. One of those things is, of course, porn. I checked out xxxchurch.com yesterday and decided to give their x3watch software a "go". It's free and cake to install, so why not try it?
I've always thought that "accountability software" was a dumb idea. I mean, it's not really going to stop me from masturbating or looking at stuff I shouldn't. It may slow me down and limit my access, but it won't really help anything. Right?
Well, that was my thinking not that long ago, but my opinion has shifted a little.
Limited access may be the point. Sure, it's not going to stop my sexually charged body from desiring porn or stop me from finding images that get me going. But what it will do is stop me from going to explicitly pornographic sites. Now that my wife will be getting a web history of my browsing I won't be visiting obviously bad places on the net. So? Does it stop me from finding "innocent" places to whack off? No. So, what good does it do?
It stops me from getting into the really bad, destructive crap. Does it fix all the issues of the crap flowing through me? No. But it does take out some of the roots growing deep down in the "pipes" of my soul.
But now that I've let my wife in on my web history, she wants in everywhere. That's why I started writing this post in the first place: She's in the basement searching my computer for objectionable content. And that makes me upset. How does she know there is questionable stuff on my computer? Because I told her. What does she want to do with it? Delete it, of course. But I don't want her to, and figuring out why might be a really good thing to do.
1. I have only gathered stuff that intrigues me and I think it beautiful. I don't have any hardcore porn at all. I do have pictures of girls in very little, and even some showing a little more than that, but I kept those images because I liked them more than because I could use them to get off. Most of the images don't show any more than you would see at a beach. Am I just trying to fool myself? Perhaps. But the next point could indicate otherwise.
2. I have been conducting an experiment. Of all the porn I look at, I only really like pictures of a few girls, and only a handful of their pictures. So, for all the girls I've seen on the internet, I like a dozen or so pictures. They are pictures I'd like to return to, not because they are the most effective, but because they are the most appealing images I've seen. It's like the classic nudes of art, in a way. Erotic? Sure. Pornographic? Hard to say. So, I have kept them around to see if they would stop being porn and turn into something closer to art. The results? I look at the images rarely, consistently weed out the ones I don't really like, and rarely use them as "inspiration". So, does it make a difference? Yes, I believe it does. No longer are they the "bad" images online, but the pictures of female beauty on my computer.
Now, to be completely honest, there are times that I open up that folder just to use those images for my own purposes, but it isn't nearly as often as I log onto the internet to look for other stuff.
So what has my wife found on my computer? I'm not sure, but I'll have to go check on her in a minute. Not looking forward to that. For how much I like to be open an honest about stuff, it's hard to do with an irate wife.
What has she done to my prized images? Hard to say since she hasn't returned triumphantly from her quest as of yet. Is she still rooting for the problem? If she is, she's in the wrong place. The issue isn't my hard drive. The issue is me and our relationship.
I've held onto many of these images with a desire, a hope that I could share them with her. Not because I want her to sit down and watch porn with me, but this isn't even porn. I want to share with her what I find beautiful. I want to be able to share with my wife the things about women that excite and move me. But I haven't, and now I won't be able to. Why didn't I just show her the video with nudity the moment I watched it instead of downloading it? Because she'd make me delete it, and the reasons she would have nothing to do with my reasons for keeping it. But how would I go about explaining that one? I can't. It's unjustifiable. And that feels like it has to be wrong.
Odd how messy this all is.
Wait. It's not odd at all. It's just like the drainage main in my house: A few little roots and crap is literally floating in the shower.
~Luke Holzmann
So, the plumber clears the line (turns out that it took 75 feet of snake from the basement floor, which makes me feel a little better since my snake is only 50 feet and I tend to go in from the roof). Shortly after he leaves, however, the drain backs up again. So I called them this afternoon and they came are re-snaked the line. This time the problem was about 100 feet down and it didn't cost me anything. A 6 month warranty is much better than a one month. In short, don't go with the expensive guys. Sure, they treated me okay, but I still feel ripped off for a couple reasons.
So, we're able to do dishes, wash clothes, and flush the toilet as often as we want instead of only once every hour or so. And, the basement isn't flooding again. All good things.
But just like there's been buildup in the pipes, there's been crap flowing through my life too. One of those things is, of course, porn. I checked out xxxchurch.com yesterday and decided to give their x3watch software a "go". It's free and cake to install, so why not try it?
I've always thought that "accountability software" was a dumb idea. I mean, it's not really going to stop me from masturbating or looking at stuff I shouldn't. It may slow me down and limit my access, but it won't really help anything. Right?
Well, that was my thinking not that long ago, but my opinion has shifted a little.
Limited access may be the point. Sure, it's not going to stop my sexually charged body from desiring porn or stop me from finding images that get me going. But what it will do is stop me from going to explicitly pornographic sites. Now that my wife will be getting a web history of my browsing I won't be visiting obviously bad places on the net. So? Does it stop me from finding "innocent" places to whack off? No. So, what good does it do?
It stops me from getting into the really bad, destructive crap. Does it fix all the issues of the crap flowing through me? No. But it does take out some of the roots growing deep down in the "pipes" of my soul.
But now that I've let my wife in on my web history, she wants in everywhere. That's why I started writing this post in the first place: She's in the basement searching my computer for objectionable content. And that makes me upset. How does she know there is questionable stuff on my computer? Because I told her. What does she want to do with it? Delete it, of course. But I don't want her to, and figuring out why might be a really good thing to do.
1. I have only gathered stuff that intrigues me and I think it beautiful. I don't have any hardcore porn at all. I do have pictures of girls in very little, and even some showing a little more than that, but I kept those images because I liked them more than because I could use them to get off. Most of the images don't show any more than you would see at a beach. Am I just trying to fool myself? Perhaps. But the next point could indicate otherwise.
2. I have been conducting an experiment. Of all the porn I look at, I only really like pictures of a few girls, and only a handful of their pictures. So, for all the girls I've seen on the internet, I like a dozen or so pictures. They are pictures I'd like to return to, not because they are the most effective, but because they are the most appealing images I've seen. It's like the classic nudes of art, in a way. Erotic? Sure. Pornographic? Hard to say. So, I have kept them around to see if they would stop being porn and turn into something closer to art. The results? I look at the images rarely, consistently weed out the ones I don't really like, and rarely use them as "inspiration". So, does it make a difference? Yes, I believe it does. No longer are they the "bad" images online, but the pictures of female beauty on my computer.
Now, to be completely honest, there are times that I open up that folder just to use those images for my own purposes, but it isn't nearly as often as I log onto the internet to look for other stuff.
So what has my wife found on my computer? I'm not sure, but I'll have to go check on her in a minute. Not looking forward to that. For how much I like to be open an honest about stuff, it's hard to do with an irate wife.
What has she done to my prized images? Hard to say since she hasn't returned triumphantly from her quest as of yet. Is she still rooting for the problem? If she is, she's in the wrong place. The issue isn't my hard drive. The issue is me and our relationship.
I've held onto many of these images with a desire, a hope that I could share them with her. Not because I want her to sit down and watch porn with me, but this isn't even porn. I want to share with her what I find beautiful. I want to be able to share with my wife the things about women that excite and move me. But I haven't, and now I won't be able to. Why didn't I just show her the video with nudity the moment I watched it instead of downloading it? Because she'd make me delete it, and the reasons she would have nothing to do with my reasons for keeping it. But how would I go about explaining that one? I can't. It's unjustifiable. And that feels like it has to be wrong.
Odd how messy this all is.
Wait. It's not odd at all. It's just like the drainage main in my house: A few little roots and crap is literally floating in the shower.
~Luke Holzmann
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Flirting with Sexual Jerks
Okay, so I'm writing a book with my best friend. It pretty much rules. Because of this, Jason sends me stuff all the time to consider and reflect upon, and to which respond. It's good because it helps keep us up-to-date with what the Christian culture is saying and how we need to respond to it. Jason just sent me an article and asked for my thoughts. These certainly belong in our book, but that's not coming out for a while so I'm just going to spout out a rant here and now.
First, a disclaimer: This is written in anger, frustration, and is not going to go through several readings to make sure that it says exactly what it should. Thus, there may be a twinge of un-love coming across. For that, I am sorry. However, despite the untold number of editors of the original article, it is equally, if not severely more, un-loving and destructive. ...hence my need to get a response out now... and the flaws of this post. 'nough said.
I do not know John Thomas. I've never met him, nor have I read much of his stuff. This is not coming from years of bitterness and build up. In fact, it is entirely possibly (though extremely unlikely based on the article I'm responding to) that he has some really good, solid stuff to say. Due to the fact that John holds the copyrights to this, I don't think I can post the whole thing here. Please go and read it so my comments will make more sense.
-------
The first question John responds to comes from a woman who is "happily married" and has been for almost a decade. She met a guy who plays on the worship team, and spends quite a bit of time talking and "texting" with him, and even has planned to hang out with him and some friends for coffee and such. She wants to know: Is this inappropriate even though they are both aware of their relationships with others.
The reply? "Of course it's inappropriate."
John starts with a discussion of age. He's not that much younger, so an affair is totally possible. It's wrong to hang out with a guy this close to you in proximity "unless he is your twin brother". For me, this should have been a huge, gigantic red flag for John as he wrote. In fact, it feels like it was because that's where John leaves it. It's as if he said, 'Wait a minute... what if it was her twin brother?'
Since John didn't entertain this thought, I will.
If it was her "twin" brother (must be identical since the age thing is there... a-hem, okay, I admit it, that was mean) then somehow that is okay for John. Why? My guess: Because it's family. What difference does that make? Again, I can only assume: Family members don't screw. This is certainly not true, but may be infrequent enough that John can have the point. And I'll give it to him. But John won't let me give him the point because he goes on to accuse this woman of being in an "emotional affair".
So, back to the brother thing. If I was a woman and had a "twin" brother with whom I talked and "texted" all the time, would John have a problem with it? John probably wouldn't. Why should he? Well, because I would be spending so much emotional time with my brother that I would have to be having an emotion affair with him and my husband should be angry. Which, I guess, begs the question: What in the world is an "emotional affair"? An affair with emotions... which means what? That I have transfered some of my emotions to another person besides my husband? And when has that ever not happened? Even as a guy I share particular emotions with others, some that my wife doesn't experience with me (like the major testosterone boost I got with the guys in my family when we went to see 300).
John here sounds like a man throwing around sensationalistic terms to make the situation sound dire. It's unfair, mean, and completely wrong. I may even agree that affairs often happen when you get emotionally close to someone. But, they also happen because you are pissed off at your spouse. Affairs happen not because you get another person to talk to, but because you no longer are emotionally close to your spouse. An "emotional affair" does not cause an affair; a disconnect between you and your spouse may lead you to find connection with another. But just because you find connection with someone else does not mean you will (or are even likely) to run off with them.
To say so shows just how insecure John is in his own marriage. Again, I don't know him, but he married a girl 6 years younger than he. No idea why, but probably because she was cute, nice, and thought the world of him. Great reasons to marry her. But it would be the same thing John did to this poor woman writing in if I were to, legitimately, claim that John has serious issues with his marriage because if another, younger girl came along he would dump his wife that instant for the newer model. John should tell me I'm wrong. I probably would be. Why? Because John is, I hope, happily married. He does not leave his wife every time he sees a younger, nice girl who thinks the world of him. But John, in his attempt to "affair-proof" his marriage must avoid all younger, nice girls who like him because, oh man, it could lead to an affair. If he does not, then he should never have written to this woman the way he did. Even if he does live what he preaches, his preaching is still wrong.
John, in his second point, accuses this woman of keeping this secret from her husband. The woman said no such thing, but let's say that she is. Let's say that when her husband comes home from work and says, "What'd you do today?" she responds, "Oh, you know, this and that." Her husband, being like me, takes that as a complete answer. And then Sunday rolls around and while at church this woman avoids "worship guy" because she "knows" that she's doing wrong. Her husband is completely clueless. Yes, that would be bad. But why? Because it shows a disconnect, a lack of trust, and a problem between the happily married couple. John should have said, "If your husband doesn't know that you really like talking with this guy, or even that you do, then you should tell him. If you keep the communication doors open then you will not be in danger."
Instead, John said, "I can't imagine that your husband approves". Some help.
Now John turns the tables: Well, what if it was your husband with a younger woman? Huh? Nobody'd be okay with that, so there! To be fair, John actually said, "I doubt you or anyone else would call that appropriate behavior".
First, I'm somebody else. So is my wife. I see no problem with spending time talking and "texting" and even going to coffee, on a walk, or even to the movies with another girl. My wife wouldn't be okay with it if it was "exclusive" or hidden from her. I've been to the movies, since getting married, with a girl without my wife, to dinner with a girl and her friends without my wife, and danced with a girl last night while my wife went off with someone else. In summary: If she knows about the relationship and can observe it, she has no problems with it. Again, openness and communication is the issue, not constantly and exclusively being together. Shoot, if that's the case I couldn't go to work and ever talk to one of my female co-workers. John, do you do that?
John's solution to this woman's problem: You need to tell the guy that you're both being "entirely inappropriate" and you need to limit, if not completely sever, contact with him.
How does this solve the problem? First, it makes it impossible to be so emotionally "affairous". Second, it... it... umm... yep, that's it. In fact, John shows his ignorance (or something) to what is going on by suggesting that this woman find a trusted female friend to keep her accountable to not talking with him ever again (if it comes to that). Why is that wrong? Because why should she get a female involved when this is an "emotional affair" within her marriage? What's the female friend there for? Shouldn't she go confess this to her husband (if she's been keeping it a secret) and make right with him? She should, but John doesn't suggest that at all. Why?
I have no idea. My only guess is that John has no idea what really causes affairs because all he has read was the same stuff that he writes: Sensationalistic crap that sounds really, really holy and completely lacks Biblical backing. John does not include a single Scripture. To be fair, neither have I. But so far, I've had nothing that requires more than a high school class in Psychology to know. There has been no talk of God yet at all. But wait, it's coming.
John ends his response by saying, "It sounds like God has helped you and your husband make it through some difficult times"... it does? Where did he read that? It's certainly not in her "happily married" bit. In fact, it's an assumption that John makes that because this woman shows any interest in another man then she must have had some rough times with her husband. What crap. John is one of those guys who would probably tell me that he never notices when another girl is cute who is not his wife. That's a lie. Yes, I just called John a liar. True, I've never spoken with him, but to say that it "sounds like" this woman and her husband have marriage problems is a lie.
Finally, John suggests that she enter her "prayer closet and fight for your marriage and your love for your husband". He also suggests that she do what God shows her to do. I wonder what John thinks that would be. My prayer is that God will tell this woman that she is okay, that she does not have a sick and lustful heart, and that she should continue to have a good, pleasing, and edifying relationship with this guy and continue to be a good wife to her husband.
In sum: John makes this woman's concern that she might be doing something wrong into a super sexual encounter. That's all this is about: You might have sex with this guy! That's true. She might. But if she is happily married and talks about it with her husband, she won't. There's no reason to.
My wife had a crush on a guy once. Being raised on the same stuff John has read she was nervous about telling me. I smiled and said, "So?" She likes another guy and finds him intriguing. Her vows are still good, and she's not about to go have an affair with him especially since she told me. John has a problem, and I wish he had not passed his problem on to this poor woman. John's problem is this: He wants everyone to appear so holy that he accuses them of being a friend of sinners, if not a sinner out right. Time for some Bible references: Luke 7:34; Isaiah 53:6.
-------
The second answer John gives ticks me off even more.
The question: Isn't it wrong to have an opposite gender roommate?
The situation: A girl living with four guys in a house.
John's response: "It is a very poor witness for Christian singles of the opposite sex — in ministry no less! — to be living in the same house together. They are damaging their credibility as Christians and especially leaders in ministry."
John's support to all this:
1. We wouldn't let a guy and girl move in together, so why would it be okay because there are more of them?
Answer to point 1: Because the reason it's not good a for a guy and a girl to live together is because it's far too easy for sexual problems to develop. Why do we encourage people to go on "dates" en masse? Because more people means good "accountability". Same with many people in a house.
2. Christians who think it's okay agree with Feminists.
Answer to point 2: I looked up a Feminism site and found this:
"Feminism uncovers the ways in which social and cultural assumptions and structures are shaped by gender.
"By focusing on the extent to which traditional questions, theories and analyses [sic] have failed to take gender into account, Women's Studies (as a field) adopts scholarly and critical perspective toward the experiences of women."
John, you're wrong. Feminist's arguments that men and women are the same (which based on what this site says in their mission statement is not the case) are not the reason people of opposite genders move in together. If you can show me research that demonstrates this, I would be happy to consider it, but my guess is that this is your sensationalism again.
3. Christians must build each other up.
Answer to point 3: John said, "In a college setting, where the hook-up culture is doing everything it can to tear down healthy relationships between guys and girls, Christians should be making every effort to live as counter-cultural to that as possible."
There is nothing in this entire paragraph about building each other up. It is about how we need to show the world how evil it is (not Christ's message at all). In short, John's use of Scripture is null because he doesn't even talk about the passage he just cited. Why in the world is that?
John's conclusion is that this person should "keep urging them to change their living arrangements, for their sake, for the sake of those who are watching them, and for the Lord's sake, who commands us to 'do all to the glory of God.'"
Again, John has made this issue instantly about sex (what else could be wrong with living together?) even if sex was not ever an issue. What if it was a 90 year old granny who opened her house to these guys? That would be okay. So, this is about sex. John, I know sex is always on our minds, but we don't have to filter everything through it.
As for those watching them: This is an excellent opportunity to discuss with someone who asks why they should not live/sleep over at their boyfriend's house. This is very good for the "sake of those who are watching them".
And as for "the Lord's sake"... that's just lame. It's a pathetic attempt to make this about God and not about his own misconceptions. God does not ever, anywhere, talk about how you should not have a mixed gender living arrangement. He does tell us that if we sleep with a girl we should marry her [Exodus 22:16] and not to commit adultery [Dueteronomy 5:18].
For the record: My wife and I had a girl our age living with us for almost a year without incident. There are far too many examples of this working for John to be right. Should you be cautious? Sure. Should you live with your lover? No. But this isn't lovers we're talking about.
All in all, this just reminds me how messed up our current Christian culture's mindset is about sex. We need to get this book written.
~Luke Holzmann
First, a disclaimer: This is written in anger, frustration, and is not going to go through several readings to make sure that it says exactly what it should. Thus, there may be a twinge of un-love coming across. For that, I am sorry. However, despite the untold number of editors of the original article, it is equally, if not severely more, un-loving and destructive. ...hence my need to get a response out now... and the flaws of this post. 'nough said.
I do not know John Thomas. I've never met him, nor have I read much of his stuff. This is not coming from years of bitterness and build up. In fact, it is entirely possibly (though extremely unlikely based on the article I'm responding to) that he has some really good, solid stuff to say. Due to the fact that John holds the copyrights to this, I don't think I can post the whole thing here. Please go and read it so my comments will make more sense.
-------
The first question John responds to comes from a woman who is "happily married" and has been for almost a decade. She met a guy who plays on the worship team, and spends quite a bit of time talking and "texting" with him, and even has planned to hang out with him and some friends for coffee and such. She wants to know: Is this inappropriate even though they are both aware of their relationships with others.
The reply? "Of course it's inappropriate."
John starts with a discussion of age. He's not that much younger, so an affair is totally possible. It's wrong to hang out with a guy this close to you in proximity "unless he is your twin brother". For me, this should have been a huge, gigantic red flag for John as he wrote. In fact, it feels like it was because that's where John leaves it. It's as if he said, 'Wait a minute... what if it was her twin brother?'
Since John didn't entertain this thought, I will.
If it was her "twin" brother (must be identical since the age thing is there... a-hem, okay, I admit it, that was mean) then somehow that is okay for John. Why? My guess: Because it's family. What difference does that make? Again, I can only assume: Family members don't screw. This is certainly not true, but may be infrequent enough that John can have the point. And I'll give it to him. But John won't let me give him the point because he goes on to accuse this woman of being in an "emotional affair".
So, back to the brother thing. If I was a woman and had a "twin" brother with whom I talked and "texted" all the time, would John have a problem with it? John probably wouldn't. Why should he? Well, because I would be spending so much emotional time with my brother that I would have to be having an emotion affair with him and my husband should be angry. Which, I guess, begs the question: What in the world is an "emotional affair"? An affair with emotions... which means what? That I have transfered some of my emotions to another person besides my husband? And when has that ever not happened? Even as a guy I share particular emotions with others, some that my wife doesn't experience with me (like the major testosterone boost I got with the guys in my family when we went to see 300).
John here sounds like a man throwing around sensationalistic terms to make the situation sound dire. It's unfair, mean, and completely wrong. I may even agree that affairs often happen when you get emotionally close to someone. But, they also happen because you are pissed off at your spouse. Affairs happen not because you get another person to talk to, but because you no longer are emotionally close to your spouse. An "emotional affair" does not cause an affair; a disconnect between you and your spouse may lead you to find connection with another. But just because you find connection with someone else does not mean you will (or are even likely) to run off with them.
To say so shows just how insecure John is in his own marriage. Again, I don't know him, but he married a girl 6 years younger than he. No idea why, but probably because she was cute, nice, and thought the world of him. Great reasons to marry her. But it would be the same thing John did to this poor woman writing in if I were to, legitimately, claim that John has serious issues with his marriage because if another, younger girl came along he would dump his wife that instant for the newer model. John should tell me I'm wrong. I probably would be. Why? Because John is, I hope, happily married. He does not leave his wife every time he sees a younger, nice girl who thinks the world of him. But John, in his attempt to "affair-proof" his marriage must avoid all younger, nice girls who like him because, oh man, it could lead to an affair. If he does not, then he should never have written to this woman the way he did. Even if he does live what he preaches, his preaching is still wrong.
John, in his second point, accuses this woman of keeping this secret from her husband. The woman said no such thing, but let's say that she is. Let's say that when her husband comes home from work and says, "What'd you do today?" she responds, "Oh, you know, this and that." Her husband, being like me, takes that as a complete answer. And then Sunday rolls around and while at church this woman avoids "worship guy" because she "knows" that she's doing wrong. Her husband is completely clueless. Yes, that would be bad. But why? Because it shows a disconnect, a lack of trust, and a problem between the happily married couple. John should have said, "If your husband doesn't know that you really like talking with this guy, or even that you do, then you should tell him. If you keep the communication doors open then you will not be in danger."
Instead, John said, "I can't imagine that your husband approves". Some help.
Now John turns the tables: Well, what if it was your husband with a younger woman? Huh? Nobody'd be okay with that, so there! To be fair, John actually said, "I doubt you or anyone else would call that appropriate behavior".
First, I'm somebody else. So is my wife. I see no problem with spending time talking and "texting" and even going to coffee, on a walk, or even to the movies with another girl. My wife wouldn't be okay with it if it was "exclusive" or hidden from her. I've been to the movies, since getting married, with a girl without my wife, to dinner with a girl and her friends without my wife, and danced with a girl last night while my wife went off with someone else. In summary: If she knows about the relationship and can observe it, she has no problems with it. Again, openness and communication is the issue, not constantly and exclusively being together. Shoot, if that's the case I couldn't go to work and ever talk to one of my female co-workers. John, do you do that?
John's solution to this woman's problem: You need to tell the guy that you're both being "entirely inappropriate" and you need to limit, if not completely sever, contact with him.
How does this solve the problem? First, it makes it impossible to be so emotionally "affairous". Second, it... it... umm... yep, that's it. In fact, John shows his ignorance (or something) to what is going on by suggesting that this woman find a trusted female friend to keep her accountable to not talking with him ever again (if it comes to that). Why is that wrong? Because why should she get a female involved when this is an "emotional affair" within her marriage? What's the female friend there for? Shouldn't she go confess this to her husband (if she's been keeping it a secret) and make right with him? She should, but John doesn't suggest that at all. Why?
I have no idea. My only guess is that John has no idea what really causes affairs because all he has read was the same stuff that he writes: Sensationalistic crap that sounds really, really holy and completely lacks Biblical backing. John does not include a single Scripture. To be fair, neither have I. But so far, I've had nothing that requires more than a high school class in Psychology to know. There has been no talk of God yet at all. But wait, it's coming.
John ends his response by saying, "It sounds like God has helped you and your husband make it through some difficult times"... it does? Where did he read that? It's certainly not in her "happily married" bit. In fact, it's an assumption that John makes that because this woman shows any interest in another man then she must have had some rough times with her husband. What crap. John is one of those guys who would probably tell me that he never notices when another girl is cute who is not his wife. That's a lie. Yes, I just called John a liar. True, I've never spoken with him, but to say that it "sounds like" this woman and her husband have marriage problems is a lie.
Finally, John suggests that she enter her "prayer closet and fight for your marriage and your love for your husband". He also suggests that she do what God shows her to do. I wonder what John thinks that would be. My prayer is that God will tell this woman that she is okay, that she does not have a sick and lustful heart, and that she should continue to have a good, pleasing, and edifying relationship with this guy and continue to be a good wife to her husband.
In sum: John makes this woman's concern that she might be doing something wrong into a super sexual encounter. That's all this is about: You might have sex with this guy! That's true. She might. But if she is happily married and talks about it with her husband, she won't. There's no reason to.
My wife had a crush on a guy once. Being raised on the same stuff John has read she was nervous about telling me. I smiled and said, "So?" She likes another guy and finds him intriguing. Her vows are still good, and she's not about to go have an affair with him especially since she told me. John has a problem, and I wish he had not passed his problem on to this poor woman. John's problem is this: He wants everyone to appear so holy that he accuses them of being a friend of sinners, if not a sinner out right. Time for some Bible references: Luke 7:34; Isaiah 53:6.
-------
The second answer John gives ticks me off even more.
The question: Isn't it wrong to have an opposite gender roommate?
The situation: A girl living with four guys in a house.
John's response: "It is a very poor witness for Christian singles of the opposite sex — in ministry no less! — to be living in the same house together. They are damaging their credibility as Christians and especially leaders in ministry."
John's support to all this:
1. We wouldn't let a guy and girl move in together, so why would it be okay because there are more of them?
Answer to point 1: Because the reason it's not good a for a guy and a girl to live together is because it's far too easy for sexual problems to develop. Why do we encourage people to go on "dates" en masse? Because more people means good "accountability". Same with many people in a house.
2. Christians who think it's okay agree with Feminists.
Answer to point 2: I looked up a Feminism site and found this:
"Feminism uncovers the ways in which social and cultural assumptions and structures are shaped by gender.
"By focusing on the extent to which traditional questions, theories and analyses [sic] have failed to take gender into account, Women's Studies (as a field) adopts scholarly and critical perspective toward the experiences of women."
John, you're wrong. Feminist's arguments that men and women are the same (which based on what this site says in their mission statement is not the case) are not the reason people of opposite genders move in together. If you can show me research that demonstrates this, I would be happy to consider it, but my guess is that this is your sensationalism again.
3. Christians must build each other up.
Answer to point 3: John said, "In a college setting, where the hook-up culture is doing everything it can to tear down healthy relationships between guys and girls, Christians should be making every effort to live as counter-cultural to that as possible."
There is nothing in this entire paragraph about building each other up. It is about how we need to show the world how evil it is (not Christ's message at all). In short, John's use of Scripture is null because he doesn't even talk about the passage he just cited. Why in the world is that?
John's conclusion is that this person should "keep urging them to change their living arrangements, for their sake, for the sake of those who are watching them, and for the Lord's sake, who commands us to 'do all to the glory of God.'"
Again, John has made this issue instantly about sex (what else could be wrong with living together?) even if sex was not ever an issue. What if it was a 90 year old granny who opened her house to these guys? That would be okay. So, this is about sex. John, I know sex is always on our minds, but we don't have to filter everything through it.
As for those watching them: This is an excellent opportunity to discuss with someone who asks why they should not live/sleep over at their boyfriend's house. This is very good for the "sake of those who are watching them".
And as for "the Lord's sake"... that's just lame. It's a pathetic attempt to make this about God and not about his own misconceptions. God does not ever, anywhere, talk about how you should not have a mixed gender living arrangement. He does tell us that if we sleep with a girl we should marry her [Exodus 22:16] and not to commit adultery [Dueteronomy 5:18].
For the record: My wife and I had a girl our age living with us for almost a year without incident. There are far too many examples of this working for John to be right. Should you be cautious? Sure. Should you live with your lover? No. But this isn't lovers we're talking about.
All in all, this just reminds me how messed up our current Christian culture's mindset is about sex. We need to get this book written.
~Luke Holzmann
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Children and the Arrow
I recently finished reading "The Tipping Point" and it got me thinking. There were several thought-worthy ideas in the book, but I'm only going to touch on one of the last impressions: The idea of parenting.
Gladwell, and others whom I have read, all point to research that indicates the complete lack of "parental influence" on children. Studies have shown that it doesn't matter who you are as a parent, or what you try to do, or how much time you spend with your kids, they will turn out differently from you. In other words, what I learning in High School Psychology was wrong, at least partially. The Nature via Nurture idea does not apply to parents. Rather, it is one's peers that define who you become*.
This has been bothersome to me. Parenting is extremely important, right? "Well, sure," these researchers say, "just not in any of the ways we typically think." Whatever that means.
Then I took a shower this morning. This is hardly abnormal behavior for me, and perhaps I learned it from my parents, whom, I'm quite confident shower every morning as well. My wife does not. I have not spent enough nights at her family's house to gage whether she got that from her family or not either. But, I digress, slightly.
In the shower I remembered a sermon I heard, oh, years ago. In it my pastor described parenting like being a good archer, taken from the passage that says that children are like arrows. The goal of the archer is not to make the arrows, that's the work of a fletcher; rather, a good archer positions the arrow so it flies in the direction it should go. Thus, parenting is not molding your children into something, but rather recognizing who they are, what they are designed for, and then pointing them in the direction they should go and letting go. Good parenting is recognizing who your kids are and encouraging them in that.
This opens up a whole new response to the current research. Of course you can't make your kids turn out a certain way. That's already set in motion by who they are. The purpose of parenting is to gently, carefully, point the children in the right direction for who they are. Sure, instill values in your kids, teach them, encourage them to do good, but ultimately the job of a parent is to see where the child is designed to go, point them in that direction, and let them fly.
I've got more thoughts on kids bumping around in the back of my head, but I have to go to my nephew's first birthday party. I guess I'll have kids on my mind all day.
*These studies do not mention Homeschooling, so I'm curious to see how a kid whose peers are his family turns out.
~Luke Holzmann
Gladwell, and others whom I have read, all point to research that indicates the complete lack of "parental influence" on children. Studies have shown that it doesn't matter who you are as a parent, or what you try to do, or how much time you spend with your kids, they will turn out differently from you. In other words, what I learning in High School Psychology was wrong, at least partially. The Nature via Nurture idea does not apply to parents. Rather, it is one's peers that define who you become*.
This has been bothersome to me. Parenting is extremely important, right? "Well, sure," these researchers say, "just not in any of the ways we typically think." Whatever that means.
Then I took a shower this morning. This is hardly abnormal behavior for me, and perhaps I learned it from my parents, whom, I'm quite confident shower every morning as well. My wife does not. I have not spent enough nights at her family's house to gage whether she got that from her family or not either. But, I digress, slightly.
In the shower I remembered a sermon I heard, oh, years ago. In it my pastor described parenting like being a good archer, taken from the passage that says that children are like arrows. The goal of the archer is not to make the arrows, that's the work of a fletcher; rather, a good archer positions the arrow so it flies in the direction it should go. Thus, parenting is not molding your children into something, but rather recognizing who they are, what they are designed for, and then pointing them in the direction they should go and letting go. Good parenting is recognizing who your kids are and encouraging them in that.
This opens up a whole new response to the current research. Of course you can't make your kids turn out a certain way. That's already set in motion by who they are. The purpose of parenting is to gently, carefully, point the children in the right direction for who they are. Sure, instill values in your kids, teach them, encourage them to do good, but ultimately the job of a parent is to see where the child is designed to go, point them in that direction, and let them fly.
I've got more thoughts on kids bumping around in the back of my head, but I have to go to my nephew's first birthday party. I guess I'll have kids on my mind all day.
*These studies do not mention Homeschooling, so I'm curious to see how a kid whose peers are his family turns out.
~Luke Holzmann
Monday, March 05, 2007
"The Jerk" from Rags to Riches to Rags...
"My story?" I didn't even like the film but it's appropriate.
I was standing in an inch of greasy, chemical water, a hose stuck in the drain, two plumber's snakes and two empty bottles of drain cleaner as well as a disconected pipe with wretch attched to it. Life was going down the drain, mostly because the water was not.
I'd been told for several weeks now to just hire a plumber. Stubborn as I am I refused. I've unclogged this thing before and have purchased three tools and many odds and ends to fix this problem. Besides, I just paid the bills so it's not like I have cash just sitting around that I can throw at a problem that I know the guy isn't just going to be able to walk in and fix. The clog is more than 25 feet down a curvy pipe under the concrete slab of my basement. As Gary Larson says, "This not be cheap."
So I'm yelling, now at my wife because she came down to tell me to stop. Ten minutes later my best friend calls. He asks me what's up. I let me know... mostly calmly.
What does he do? An hour later he calls back. The bad news: He's subborn and I'm going to accept his generosity. The good news: He wired me money and I have to hire a plumber tomorrow. I don't know, he probably got those two mixed up.
My best friend is a jerk. It makes me want to cry because it's one of those acts of kindness that really shows what it means to be "Christ-like". Maybe it's the whole fish for your taxes thing or something. I don't know. But I also want to go smash things. I want to pick up the hammer I was using on the wrench on the pipe and just smash my laundry room to bits.
It raises an odd question in my mind: If I had handled the problem well (e.g. calmly) what would have happened? Would my friend have stepped in? Am I just such a baby that people feel they have to come in and care for me? Or is this just one more chance for God to smile knowingly at me and say, "See? You should listen to your wife."
But all that is crap. This isn't a cosmic "I told you so" or anything like that. Nope, this is the core of friendship and brotherly love. It's so awesome it brings tears to my eyes. And it's crap. It's total crap. I feel like Steve Martin sitting on the curb dirty and smelly. The movie is just about to end and the family has pulled up to take me home. Even my wife takes me back. And me? I'm still yelling, "I don't need anything. ...except this plunger. You'll see! I don't need anything except this plunger. ...and this hose. I'll show you!"
What a bitterness grace carries. It's the taste of swallowed pride finally flowing out of the clogged heart.
I'll call the plumber in the morning.
~Luke Holzmann
I was standing in an inch of greasy, chemical water, a hose stuck in the drain, two plumber's snakes and two empty bottles of drain cleaner as well as a disconected pipe with wretch attched to it. Life was going down the drain, mostly because the water was not.
I'd been told for several weeks now to just hire a plumber. Stubborn as I am I refused. I've unclogged this thing before and have purchased three tools and many odds and ends to fix this problem. Besides, I just paid the bills so it's not like I have cash just sitting around that I can throw at a problem that I know the guy isn't just going to be able to walk in and fix. The clog is more than 25 feet down a curvy pipe under the concrete slab of my basement. As Gary Larson says, "This not be cheap."
So I'm yelling, now at my wife because she came down to tell me to stop. Ten minutes later my best friend calls. He asks me what's up. I let me know... mostly calmly.
What does he do? An hour later he calls back. The bad news: He's subborn and I'm going to accept his generosity. The good news: He wired me money and I have to hire a plumber tomorrow. I don't know, he probably got those two mixed up.
My best friend is a jerk. It makes me want to cry because it's one of those acts of kindness that really shows what it means to be "Christ-like". Maybe it's the whole fish for your taxes thing or something. I don't know. But I also want to go smash things. I want to pick up the hammer I was using on the wrench on the pipe and just smash my laundry room to bits.
It raises an odd question in my mind: If I had handled the problem well (e.g. calmly) what would have happened? Would my friend have stepped in? Am I just such a baby that people feel they have to come in and care for me? Or is this just one more chance for God to smile knowingly at me and say, "See? You should listen to your wife."
But all that is crap. This isn't a cosmic "I told you so" or anything like that. Nope, this is the core of friendship and brotherly love. It's so awesome it brings tears to my eyes. And it's crap. It's total crap. I feel like Steve Martin sitting on the curb dirty and smelly. The movie is just about to end and the family has pulled up to take me home. Even my wife takes me back. And me? I'm still yelling, "I don't need anything. ...except this plunger. You'll see! I don't need anything except this plunger. ...and this hose. I'll show you!"
What a bitterness grace carries. It's the taste of swallowed pride finally flowing out of the clogged heart.
I'll call the plumber in the morning.
~Luke Holzmann
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Dropped Frames and Frames of Reference
Returning from a foreign country, or any trip, is rough for me. Of course, going on a trip is hard as well. I don't like traveling and foreign countries don't impress me. The shrubs may be different, the sky more polluted, the streets more smelly, and the language incomprehensible, but it's still earth and I've been to places at least a little like it before. It's all strangely familiar and so I have yet to experience "culture shock". So being there isn't a problem, but preparation is stressful. I don't like turblence. I'm not fond of immunizations or having to avoid drinking water from the tap. I also don't like having to try to clean the house before leaving.
But coming back is much harder. There's a pile of bills, paperwork, and now tax forms to wade through. Also, I have to get back into "working mode" and get on top of everything that needs to get done for my current and future video projects and sorted out on the business end of things. I have to restock the fridge and dropping $200 for food is just painful. Not only that, but the expansion pack came out right before we left, so that's a "priority" I still haven't shelled out the money for. There are things weighing on me so heavily that I start shaking as if I was dropping into hypothermia. In fact, this afternoon I just curled up on my bed for an hour and slept. I just want to give up. It's all too much and totally not worth it. Like so many times before in life I feel far too young and ignorant to be doing any of this or holding so much responsibility. At the same time, I'm far too old to be this completely clueless about how to live life. And coming back after being away just amplifies the urgency of everything I haven't learned or dealt with yet.
Right now I'm "dumping" footage onto my computer. My new, still in beta, hard drive system (I'll provide a link to it once I would no longer be breaking the non-disclosure agreement I signed) can't seem to keep up with the data transfer, or something. So I'm getting lots of "dropped frames" where video starts "melting", pixelating, or becomes jittery. It's really how I feel: Overloaded, unable to keep up, incapable of getting all the information I need. I feel like screaming one moment, "What the crap am I supposed to do!" and the next huddling under the covers, giving up, and letting it all just crumble around me. I mean, seriously, is life worth this? In ten years my 1099 forms and all my reciepts for business expenses will hopefully be recycled and no longer matter at all. I wish I could just do things that did matter.
But like my computer, I have dropped some frames. I lost some frames of reference, and perhaps coming back from India was the catalyst. Over there I got to see all the really awesome, meaningful things that were going on. Coming home my plumbing is backed up and I have a credit card bill that I can't quite pay because the bank was slow in processing my deposits. It makes life here seems so pointless, inane, and forced. It almost makes me want to ship off to a country where you live in a shack you put together out of bits of plywood and chickenwire and you don't have to worry about filing a W2, or 1040, or whatever. There you could, in theory, focus on human interaction and helping others. Granted, that's not the case because there are other pressures such as malaria and finding enough food or potable water. But the thought lingers.
If I take a moment to realign myself with reality I notice that I've missed the truth. Certainly paperwork is lame and not really benefiting anyone, but it is one of the aspects of being who I am and living where I do. The world in which we live is finite and frustrated. There are consequences that we must over come no matter who we are or where we live. I have lost sight of all the tremendous opportunities for great things I have because of my current state. So, while I don't like it and I may end up falling apart again and again, bring it on. I'm here for a reason (hopefully many of them) and these struggles I must live through are eclipsed by surpassing joy awaiting me if I would but keep going.
Now if only I could this hard drive thing to work....
~Luke Holzmann
But coming back is much harder. There's a pile of bills, paperwork, and now tax forms to wade through. Also, I have to get back into "working mode" and get on top of everything that needs to get done for my current and future video projects and sorted out on the business end of things. I have to restock the fridge and dropping $200 for food is just painful. Not only that, but the expansion pack came out right before we left, so that's a "priority" I still haven't shelled out the money for. There are things weighing on me so heavily that I start shaking as if I was dropping into hypothermia. In fact, this afternoon I just curled up on my bed for an hour and slept. I just want to give up. It's all too much and totally not worth it. Like so many times before in life I feel far too young and ignorant to be doing any of this or holding so much responsibility. At the same time, I'm far too old to be this completely clueless about how to live life. And coming back after being away just amplifies the urgency of everything I haven't learned or dealt with yet.
Right now I'm "dumping" footage onto my computer. My new, still in beta, hard drive system (I'll provide a link to it once I would no longer be breaking the non-disclosure agreement I signed) can't seem to keep up with the data transfer, or something. So I'm getting lots of "dropped frames" where video starts "melting", pixelating, or becomes jittery. It's really how I feel: Overloaded, unable to keep up, incapable of getting all the information I need. I feel like screaming one moment, "What the crap am I supposed to do!" and the next huddling under the covers, giving up, and letting it all just crumble around me. I mean, seriously, is life worth this? In ten years my 1099 forms and all my reciepts for business expenses will hopefully be recycled and no longer matter at all. I wish I could just do things that did matter.
But like my computer, I have dropped some frames. I lost some frames of reference, and perhaps coming back from India was the catalyst. Over there I got to see all the really awesome, meaningful things that were going on. Coming home my plumbing is backed up and I have a credit card bill that I can't quite pay because the bank was slow in processing my deposits. It makes life here seems so pointless, inane, and forced. It almost makes me want to ship off to a country where you live in a shack you put together out of bits of plywood and chickenwire and you don't have to worry about filing a W2, or 1040, or whatever. There you could, in theory, focus on human interaction and helping others. Granted, that's not the case because there are other pressures such as malaria and finding enough food or potable water. But the thought lingers.
If I take a moment to realign myself with reality I notice that I've missed the truth. Certainly paperwork is lame and not really benefiting anyone, but it is one of the aspects of being who I am and living where I do. The world in which we live is finite and frustrated. There are consequences that we must over come no matter who we are or where we live. I have lost sight of all the tremendous opportunities for great things I have because of my current state. So, while I don't like it and I may end up falling apart again and again, bring it on. I'm here for a reason (hopefully many of them) and these struggles I must live through are eclipsed by surpassing joy awaiting me if I would but keep going.
Now if only I could this hard drive thing to work....
~Luke Holzmann
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Cartman, I'm like the French
Growing up I had the hardest time being good at things. More specificially, I had trouble being as good as, say, my little brother at, say, computer games. Even with the age advantage, he would soon top my best scores in everything but the text-based games... and those games didn't even keep high scores.
With such a humilating defeat, I decided that computer games just weren't "for me" and went off in pursuit of other things, like writing. In a nutshell, I did what Cartman accuses the French of doing in "Make Love, Not Warcraft" and "quit playing".
This rather immature response started a thought pattern that eventually led me to a freeing truth: I'm a different person and so I should be good at different things. It's not important that I wasn't a good football player. Why? Not because "football sucks" or anything as juvenile as that, but because I'm a swimmer, not a football player.
I'm sick of hearing about how I'm "special" and "unique" so I shouldn't feel bad that others are better than me in certain areas. That is hardly uplifting. The reason nobody should ever feel bad when comparing themselves to others is due to the simple fact that we should not compare ourselves to others because we aren't them.
The truth is that I am "unique" and therefore "special", but the way it is presented normally is more discouraging than freeing. If you are having trouble feeling good about yourself, you need to stop looking at the things you can't do that others can. You need to "quit playing" if that's what it's going to take. That doesn't mean you can sit on your butt now. No, you have to go out and do your thing. What do you like to do? What do you feel you're good at doing? Do that.
I'm currently in the process of trying to get another children's story published that covers this same idea. I think it's important that kids realize this a whole lot earlier than I did so they can stop getting their faces pushed in the mud, and rather shine in their area of skill.
By the way, I do play World of Warcraft now. And since I know that I'm more of a social player, I don't mind that my wife hit 60 before me. Well, I don't mind too much.
~Luke Holzmann
With such a humilating defeat, I decided that computer games just weren't "for me" and went off in pursuit of other things, like writing. In a nutshell, I did what Cartman accuses the French of doing in "Make Love, Not Warcraft" and "quit playing".
This rather immature response started a thought pattern that eventually led me to a freeing truth: I'm a different person and so I should be good at different things. It's not important that I wasn't a good football player. Why? Not because "football sucks" or anything as juvenile as that, but because I'm a swimmer, not a football player.
I'm sick of hearing about how I'm "special" and "unique" so I shouldn't feel bad that others are better than me in certain areas. That is hardly uplifting. The reason nobody should ever feel bad when comparing themselves to others is due to the simple fact that we should not compare ourselves to others because we aren't them.
The truth is that I am "unique" and therefore "special", but the way it is presented normally is more discouraging than freeing. If you are having trouble feeling good about yourself, you need to stop looking at the things you can't do that others can. You need to "quit playing" if that's what it's going to take. That doesn't mean you can sit on your butt now. No, you have to go out and do your thing. What do you like to do? What do you feel you're good at doing? Do that.
I'm currently in the process of trying to get another children's story published that covers this same idea. I think it's important that kids realize this a whole lot earlier than I did so they can stop getting their faces pushed in the mud, and rather shine in their area of skill.
By the way, I do play World of Warcraft now. And since I know that I'm more of a social player, I don't mind that my wife hit 60 before me. Well, I don't mind too much.
~Luke Holzmann
Monday, November 06, 2006
Yet another Blog...
I seem to be amassing Blogs like... umm... broken appliances (yep, the microwave died last week, that after needing new tires for my car and a toasted Tascam US-122, not to mention the laptop...).
But because I'm trying to get up and write every morning at 6am, I thought having another outlet may help. It will probably just be one more distraction so I don't get anything done, but here's hoping.
This will become the Blog for thoughts, insights, and whatever else. Don't forget that TomySky.blogspot.com is my poetry page.
And if you want the basics of video production, check out Production Now.
That's all for starters.
~Luke Holzmann
But because I'm trying to get up and write every morning at 6am, I thought having another outlet may help. It will probably just be one more distraction so I don't get anything done, but here's hoping.
This will become the Blog for thoughts, insights, and whatever else. Don't forget that TomySky.blogspot.com is my poetry page.
And if you want the basics of video production, check out Production Now.
That's all for starters.
~Luke Holzmann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
