“I believe that many who find that 'nothing happens' when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.”
C.S. Lewis - Introduction to "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius
04.30.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 9:35 am by Adam B.
Despite my out-of-date reading list I have continued to read this semester. My reading was stunted in January and February due to excessive vocab in Hebrew. I have read several books since then, however.
A Tale of Two Cities
This is another (some would say his best) classic by Dickens. It took me a while to get into it, but about when they finally arrived in Paris towards the end of the book it was came together. I have found that true with many “classics” that they urge you to give up half way through, but if you persist you are greatly rewarded. My favorite scene was a fight to the death between an English maid and a French woman. The English maid, though she had lived in France for sometime, refused to learn French because she hated the French (I love it). When the two of them fight they yell back and forth at each other but neither understands the other, and yet they communicate perfectly. There were so many redeeming qualities about this book, but most were saved until the very end. I doubt most readers would have the patience to wait.
A Wrinkle in Time
I read this book when I was young and didn’t understand a word. Reading it this time around it was better, but not a favorite. The author deliberately raises questions and then doesn’t answer them (I know this because they interviewed her about it) and she had this obsession with intuition. She seems to enjoy mystery herself and so she left much in her work unexplained. Even though this was deliberate I felt it just lazy. The questions wouldn’t annoy me if they related to life in general, but they didn’t. They were limited to the realm of her story so they create interest then offer no outlet for exploration.
Animal Farm
I enjoyed this book from cover to cover. This was similar to 1984 in that history was always being re-written. It showed a very natural progression from liberty to bondage. Everything is about controlling information and the one who can do that will rule. Highly recommended.
I Shouldn’t Even Be Doing This!
This was a comedy book by Bob Newhart about his life. I became interested in this comedian when he was celebrated on TV with some lifetime achievement award. I saw some of his old routines on the program and loved them. I have been interested in improving my comedic affect in my writing so I picked up his book. I imagine if a humerous writer tried stand-up comedy he would be about as successful as this book was. It had its moments, though.
On Writing
This was a book about writing by Stephen King. If you fancy yourself a writer and have not read this book, I highly recommend it. I have read several books on writing and the only I have enjoyed as much is The Elements of Style.
I also read some theology on the side, but I will not bore you with the details. I just finished watching Charlotte’s Web (better than expected), Little Women (I may have to read the book now) and the original Parent Trap 1 (funny enough) and 2 (what were they thinking). I am currently reading The Wind in the Willows, but I’m not sure I buy the whole animals in clothes thing if they are not trying to take over the farm.
Permalink
04.23.07
Posted in Reflections at 8:17 am by Adam B.
This week I translated sections of wisdom literature. The professor gave us a paper with all the uses of the word normally translated “meaningless” or “vanity” in Ecclesiastes. Often the word could be translated “nothing” but it was also used to refer to idols. “Why do you worship those nothings?” Solomon says all things are “nothing” but that word doesn’t give the full sense of his meaning to us. There is a repetition of the word in the first verse and it is in construct so it should be read, “nothing of nothings” or as some translate it “vanity of vanities”. Of all the things that are vain or meaningless in this world what he is writing about is the most vain, the most meaningless, the most nothing. His main point is that nothing lasts forever so ultimately nothing is ever accomplished. “All rivers flow into the sea but it is never full.” How much work does it take to move all that water into the sea and yet it is never finished but will go on forever. So it is with our lives that everything we pour our time and hearts into only feed bellies that get hungry again. Even if we create something wonderful we will soon pass away and eventually all we have labored for will be overturned. It is inevitable, even more, it is built into the system. “The eye is never satisfied with seeing and the ear is never full of hearing.” In the end, no matter what we do, we will gain as much as if we spent our whole lives chasing wind.
Proverbs was more inspiring. Several verses I translated had no verbs, which made it all the more inspiring because it was easier to read. “Wisdom weighty jewels” or “she tree of life to those firm in her”. The reader must supply the linking verb “is”. She is a tree of life, wisdom is more weighty than jewels, etc. Any time a verse is easy to translate it seems more meaningful.
Permalink
04.16.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 8:27 am by Adam B.
Jonah chapter 3 raises a lot of questions for me. As I was translating this passage I found myself perplexed in the middle of verse 8. The first word was a verb, “let them cover”. The second word was the plural noun “sackcloths”. In Hebrew the word following the verb is typically the subject. So I read, “let sackcloths cover”. The next word is usually the subject, and in this case it made sense, “men”. “Let sackcloths cover the men.” The next word was preceded by a conjunctive letter (and) showing either a second thought if it were a verb (for example “let sackcloths cover the men and let them fast) or a relation to “men” if it were a noun (for example …men and women). The word was a noun, but not the noun I expected. The word was animals. If I understood the passage right, which I am never completely sure at this point, then the first phrase should be read “let sackcloths cover men and animals.” I pondered this for a moment and decided to check the professional translations for confirmation. Sure enough, by edict of the king, both man and beast would wear sackcloth.
What a strange thing. Did the animals somehow participate in the sin of the people that they too should repent? This reminds me of the passage in Samuel when Saul is supposed to kill every animal in a city but instead he keeps some so he can “sacrifice them”. God was displeased with this because he wanted the entire city destroyed including all the animals (1 Samuel 15:3). What did the animals do there? I am not sure if these passages are related conceptually or not. It appears that there was closer connection between one member of the community and the rest and this connection, on occasion, even extends to the livestock. At the end of chapter 4, the last sentance of the book in fact, God says, “Should I not look compassionately on Nineveh, the great city with one hundred and twenty thousand men (who do not know their right hand from their left) and many animals.”
Enough with that, interesting as it is.
God is sometimes described as having a sense of humor, and I could see Jonah making a case. God appoints a plant to grow to give Jonah shade, and then he appoints a worm the next day to “destroy” the plant. This makes Jonah very angry.
I wonder if God is really trying to “teach us something” when things go wrong, or simply expose us. I always thought it a little simplistic (or at least monotonous) to ask “I wonder what God is trying to teach me in this situation.” To its credit, this attitude has the humility to acknowledge it is not yet perfect. Nevertheless, I think this is our way of making God manageable and his ways comprehensible. “God, why did that jerk cut me off… maybe to teach me patience. God why did my wife leave me… perhaps to teach me to rely more on you.” I don’t think things are so simple in either case. When we answer the question “what is he trying to teach me” we are never really learning, but stating what we already know we should be doing. If you think he is trying to teach you patience it is because you already know you are impatient. Do we need to wait for said “lesson” to learn this. No, we knew it already, that is why God’s cryptic way of “teaching” us seemed so clear in that instant. However, for more difficult and inexplicable matters I think we use the “teaching” defense because we cannot face the truth. It is easier, spiritually, to say that something terrible has happened to us because of some deficiency in ourselves. “My wife left me because I didn’t rely on God enough. He is just trying to teach me.” Other people blame the devil for everything bad that happens. I do not deny his involvement in such matters, but I think we let God off the hook too easily, to our own demise. God, as our all-powerful father, is responsible. Job, when he was hurting said, “if not God then who?” That is a good question, who can do these destructive things in our lives outside the watchful eye, outside the authority of God? No one. He is responsible. Does this let us off the hook (or the wife, in this case)? Of course not. But if we push God’s involvement in our lives to the fringe we deny his power over all matters. And if we deny his power over all matters how can we ask him to rescue us? Who will justify us if not God? Maybe we are more comfortable with a God on the fringe who is only responsible for the good things that happen and never injustice, but that denies the truth of this world. In a world twisted by sin sometimes the righteous ways of God (for all his ways are righteous) will appear equally twisted, but only He can (and will) make things strait again. (Maybe this example would be easier if it were not so clear that the human element is to blame. But if the human element excludes God from the situation then he is only be responsible for destruction caused by thunderstorms and hail, and I need him more than that.)
So what about Jonah? God killed the plant he caused to grow to give shade to Jonah. Maybe Jonah should blame the devil for the worm that destroyed the plant, I mean, would God really want to cause us discomfort? Yes, God appointed the worm. Why did God do this? Was it to teach Jonah compassion? Maybe. But Jonah already knew he should be compassionate. In very concise words (in the Hebrew, at least) he praises God’s qualities. “Was this not why I left to flee to Tarshish? I knew you are a gracious God, compassionate, long suffering and great in loving kindness and forgiving evil.” Jonah knew the Lord and he knew what was right. Was God teaching him here, or just exposing him? “Do you have the right to be angry about the plant?” “Yes I have the right, and I want to die.” This is the same question God asked when Jonah was mad that fire did not reign down on the people earlier in chapter 4. Jonah was mad at God’s compassion, he was mad at his discipline. Did Jonah learn his “lesson”. The book does not say.
Permalink
04.06.07
Posted in Food at 11:20 am by Adam B.
Several of my classmates are in the armed forces. They are self-sufficient, deliberate and masters of time management. I used to manage my time, I found it exhausting. I usually ignore their military banter and haircut talk but my ears perked when they began to discuss eating schedules. It makes me cringe to even write the word “schedule” next to the delight that is eating, but those were their words, not mine.
“I read a book last year that teaches you how to prepare all your meals for an entire month in one day.” Nightmares of Sunday afternoon’s “chef’s special” from my college cafeteria flashed through my mind. An entire week’s leftovers casseroled and renamed. The Horror.
“I am not quite there yet. I prepare all my food for the week on Saturdays, but a month, that would be beautiful” he says as he unwraps and bites into a cheese stick. A cheese stick for the love of all things holy! — At this point I blacked out. I vaguely recall images of a freezer and 60 containers each bearing a date and meal-time. I closed the freezer and opened the refrigerator. It is filled with cheese sticks. I awoke to the teacher calling my name asking my to translate the next verse. Sometimes our mind tries to protect us by blocking out memories of traumatic events. It took me a few weeks to piece this episode together.
For some people food is fuel. If they could eat one meal that would last them for an entire month, they would. Taking time to eat is just as annoying as stopping for gas. This fuel mentality is really just an effort in efficiency. Work and productivity are the goal and food is only a means to an end, that is, it keeps you going. Time spent making food, consuming food, etc., is time wasted. These people would be happy having nutrients fed to them through a tube, if it were socially acceptable. (In rare cases, however, the fuel mentality may be the product of an anti-establishment bent. “Only suckers need to eat!” Like I said, this is extremely rare, and usually short lived.)
I believe meal times are a heaven ordained break. No matter how much we eat for breakfast we will still be hungry for lunch. Don’t try to fight it. If you prepare your meals for the whole week at once so you can nuke it and continue to work while you eat you are missing the point. Why not take 52 Sabbaths in a row so you don’t need to be bothered with it the rest of the year? No, take a break, rest. It is meant to be this way. Some people are so driven they actually feel guilty or lazy taking time to make good food and enjoy it. I believe peace is better than productivity, and peace follows close on the heels of a meal well enjoyed. It turn, who knows, a peaceful mind and soul may yield the output you desired to begin with.
Many of us have so ordered our lives that taking time to cook/eat is either impossible or undesirable. Enter fast food. Is it any wonder that food called “fast” is likely to kill us just as fast as we can order it? Many will feel I am hypocritical here, knowing my family has a Sunday McDonalds ritual. Do not be fooled. We do not eat there because it is “fast” and we are cramped for time. It is written into the Bottig genetic code, in several important places I am sure, that no seasoning, sauce, or natural or artificial flavor can make food as savory as knowing it was a good deal. Any place can make a double cheeseburger, yes, but how many serve it with a side of dollar menu? When we gather together in the sacred halls of golden arches and red shoes we do not rush but linger for several hours in delightful conversation and reminiscing over times and friends both present and past. If church once a week isn’t enough to make a man spiritual (and you and I know it isn’t) then fast food once a week will do us little harm, I am sure.
Eating is the one thing we all have in common. As strange as we thought our parents were when we were in middle school, we still had this. Let us take advantage of this commonality. There is more in life than American Idol that can bring us together. There we days I did not want to be home for dinner, sure, but those times together shaped who I have become. I remember listening to my older brothers tell stories at the table and how my dad would laugh. “I need to learn this skill” I thought to myself. The dinner table was the first place I experimented with humor and witty conversation. Here I did not get pity laughs, but I did not get ridiculed either. I leaned my place as a member of the family, and I understood as I matured how my role changed. The way I talk to my father at McDonalds today is not the way we spoke when I was young. Our conversations have changed because we have changed. The way we converse around food has always been an accurate indicator of who I am and where I stood with him and the rest of the family. I was always accepted, loved and fed. I had things to look forward to as my brothers shared their lives and the adventures of dating, driving, and general mayhem. I learned important lessons as they were punished for revealing too much information. Through humor and casual conversation we opened the doors of our hearts to each other as we scarfed down chicken, mashed potatoes and canned corn.
We can spend the rest of our lives with this burden of food and the annoying hunger that disturbers us every three to six hours, or we can accept it for the gift it is and make the most of it.
Permalink
04.03.07
Posted in Food at 12:35 am by Adam B.
Consider this question: Who enjoys their food more? Is it the man walking down the New York streets who will stop at any sidewalk stand and get any item with everything on it, or the gourmet chef who will only eat the finest foods with the best ingredients? For the first man every new food is an experience to be had. He tries things simply because anything is worth trying once. His personal motto might be be “variety is the spice of life” or “you never know what your missing until you’ve tried it”. The chef approaches food differently. Food is not an experience, it’s art. A new food is not eaten simply because it has never been eaten before but to gain a new color for his pallet, a color he might use to create a new dish in the future. The chef will not be compelled to sample every item from the sidewalk gourmet because he already knows such food has no place in his mouth, or his kitchen, whether he has tried a foot-long with all the trimmings before or not. I have to admit both men scare me when it comes to food, but if I were to entrust myself to either it would certainly be the chef. Unfortunately for me, most people are New Yorkers, not chefs.
When I frequent a restaurant I order the same dish every time. The New Yorker cannot appreciate this. “Have you tried everything else on the menu? How do you know you will not like something more?” It is human nature to assume the worst when one does not understand his fellow man. I do not know all the rotten things the New York eater thinks of me when I refuse to order a different dish, but his face says enough. Often they are compelled to change me, even rescue me from this bland life I lead. A variety of tactics are used. Typically they restate their fundamental belief in the form of a question. “How do you know you won’t like something else more?” I cannot take them seriously here because I know they do not try new things to discover the food they like most, but because they enjoy the thrill of the unknown. Some are more crafty in their approach: they offer me wisdom. “Once you have tried such and such you will increase in learning concerning what you enjoy.” A noble attempt, but no. Other times they appeal to my pride. “You not man enough to try that?” Please. Occasionally I get the hypothetical situation plea. “What if one day you are in a foreign country and all that have to eat is…” This argument can be augmented with a missionary plug. “What if you’re a missionary? You wouldn’t want to offend the people.” Suddenly I am on an island where all they serve is battered shrimp and banana cream pie and if only I would eat their food the entire tribe will convert. Forgive me if I’m not convinced.
Unlike the New Yorker I do not find it amusing to try new things, whether food or otherwise. I am broadly content wherever I am and could go the rest of my life only knowing the friends I know now, doing the things I do now and eating the foods I eat now. The New Yorker might jump down my throat and say, “well what about before you knew those people or did those things or ate those foods you presently enjoy.” They might think they have me against the ropes here, but this is only because they cannot appreciate the sincerity of my contentment. Even before I knew the friends I love so dearly now I was perfectly content with the friends I had before and felt no inclination to branch out. Even before I had tried my now favorite foods I enjoyed my former favorites just as completely. I find no thrill in the unexpected, and I rarely mourn an “opportunity” lost if all it would mean is one more experience I can check off of my “list of things I have tried”. Do I know what I am missing? No. Do I care. Not at all.
People who know me well will not be satisfied with this description of myself, however, not because they believe I want to meet new people or try new foods but because they know I am not content to keep doing these same things for the rest of my life. If they think that I would not be content to stay in school forever they are mistaken, but that is not they are thinking. They are right to believe that my life is aimed in a direction, by my own choice, that will lead somewhere I currently am not. It’s true, I am not content to remain as I am either in character or occupation. Even still, I only maintain this continual pursuit under the most severe obligation. I often feel like Moses, or possibly Jonah (I like Moses better), because I would love to stay where I am but the task has been set before me and the rod is in my hand. While I actively participate in it, it is not my choice to chase after this change, it is forced on me from above. If all of life were as meaningless as the food we eat I would be content to never change a thing and live a quite life with my wife in peace forever. I fear this is not my destiny and so I wait in hopeful dread. Dread because I do not like change, hopeful because it is not my choice.
If the New Yorker wants me to try something new he must forget his New Yorker attitude because his delight in new things will never inspire me. The chef has a better approach. “I have fine tuned this dish to perfection over time and I believe it is ready.” The dish is offered to me not as something new but something complete. I can appreciate food as art more than food as something unexplored. But do not think it will be so easy to convince me to try your “new creation” by mere semantics. If you are not a true chef I will not humor you. A casserole made with 7 types of processed meat is not art. I grew up in a family of New Yorkers and I know all their tricks. No, food does not taste better as a left-over, fresh vegetables do not taste the same as canned and yes I can taste the onions, raisins and olives you put in this, no matter how many times you tell me I can’t. When I was a kid I thought the only vegetable I liked was corn. I later discovered that corn was the only thing I could tolerate canned. I have found I like almost all fruits and vegetables when they are fresh and ripe. There was a time I thought I didn’t like meat because I was only offered cold lunch meats, and I thought I didn’t like cheese because I was only offered American singles. In a house full of New Yorkers I got “you’re picky” but in a room of chefs I hear “I don’t blame you.” I have yet to find a meat I don’t like when prepared by a chef (someone who views food as art) and a local cheese (Tillamook) has become a regular at my table in various varieties. I have a special place in my heart for the chefs who confirmed the maxim I discovered when I was young, (Steve reminded me of this in an earlier comment) “Food is supposed to taste good”. Thank you for opening my eyes, but, if its all the same to you, I would be much obliged if you do not ask me to open them any wider.
Permalink