so i'm thinking about revamping the blog, probably starting one with a different company.. i'm thinking of trying to do something i could use more openly/professionally, etc. something i could really put my name on. i'm open to suggestions though. do people like the random hodgepodgean nature of this blog? do people even read this blog?

if i did something new i'd take some suggestions too. i mean, i was thinking i could write more formally about theology when i wanted to, but also like tag my posts and stuff. i'm horribly behind the times, and don't want to be left behind, but i'm also notorious for starting these kinds of things 4 years after everyone else.

i thought it was cool to "stick with xanga". but i realized i should maybe gain some proficiency. my blog could at least be aesthetically pleasing like lainey's, which i can't even tag because i don't know how. i'm pathetic.

this is the kind of post that would NOT go on a new blog. suggestions?

this maine thing is already over. i know, i know, why am i blogging about it again, right? maybe i don't remember that the same thing happened in an even bigger, gayer state one year ago. this is like the matrix reloaded, carrie 2, bring it on again, bring it on: all or nothing, and bring it on: in it to win it. basically, the same story doesn't have the same affect without the same characters and when you already know the ending. but i'm blogging because i don't know what else to do. i have to turn the frustration i feel into some kind of action. last time we marched (nothing like a nice walk to calm the nerves), but no one's doing that this time.

i've been kind of curious about this idea i keep hearing thrown around about the injustice that occurs when we put the rights of a minority into the hands of a majority. it feels basically right (the majority sure slighted the minority in this case), but i'm not sure many folks would agree with the sentiment. after all, that's how we do things in a democracy, right? if the majority wants it, it's how it is. there's not a better system, is there? i think this deserves some attention.

i want to propose a hypothetical to help us (because i'm just working this out as i type) think about this ethically. should the will of the majority dictate the actions of the minority when in all ways the both are deemed to deserve the same dignity and societal privilege (as our conscience, not to say anything of our constitution, demand)? if nothing else, a hypothetical will help those reading this understand how it feels to be the minority in this situation.

imagine a group of people: dick, jane, jason and sue, we'll say. the four are best of friends, and every friday night for them is dinner night. on this particular night, dick, jane and jason have agreed that the four of them will go to pizza hut for dinner night (classy, right?). they could not get ahold of sue, and since sue wasn't available, they made the decision without her. not a big deal right? certainly, sue wouldn't think so, these are her friends and she trusts their judgment. when they get to pizza hut however and begin to order a pizza, sue speaks up. "sorry guys, i'll just have to get a salad. you know, i'm lactose intolerant." dick and jane didn't realize this (even though they'd been eating with her for weeks - she had always ordered non-dairy). sue had told jason, but while he didn't want salad (he wanted pizza), he knew she could order something else at pizza hut. sue loves caesar salad though, and in her estimation a caesar salad will be equally as delicious as the pizza is for dick, jane and jason. dick, jane and jason order their extra large cheese pizza.

at this point, the story is rather uneventful (maybe even boring), but imagine if at this point, dick and jane decide that, having ordered their cheese pizza, they should also order sue's salad. "excuse me" says sue "but can i order my own salad? after all, i'm the one who has to eat it". "sorry", says jane "but it's really only fair if we take a vote as to what kind of salad you get. after all, we always decide together what we'll eat when we get to the restaurant." sue objects, but dick, jane and jason decide she must eat the pizza they ordered or a plain salad (just lettuce) with only ranch dressing. although sue wanted a caesar salad with croutons, she is left with no choice but to eat either her own second-rate salad or the cheese pizza (which wouldn't be good for anyone at the table - she would likely throw up; she's tried pizza before and knows it's not her preference).

okay, a responsible blog writer would go back and clean up the metaphors, ensuring that the ones he came up with along the way were a little cleaner, but you get the idea i think. the whole thing is absolutely baffling! sue's eating salad would have slim to no effect on dick, jane and jason, but if she ate the pizza (or her second-rate salad) sue suffers from tremendous injustice (well, for a food-lover like me it's tremendous).

it seems to me that when the effects of a decision lie solely (or even primarily) on a minority, consideration of their preferences should be given. if there is no other way to resolve these issues than a popular vote, then those voting at least have the responsibility to ensure that they are considering those their votes affect. my suspicion is that many of those who voted to repeal the same-sex marriage law in maine were thinking a lot more about what their decision means for their own personal belief system, their own sense of moral assurance and their own prejudices. this is utterly a selfish act, in my opinion. at least, these people should have skipped this question at the polls.

still angry, still hurt, still looking for ways to effect change. any ideas? (don't say donate money.. i'm broke)

This story from the AP has made less of an impact in recent days than I would have thought, but I'm interested in it:

........

Carter says Wilson's comments 'based on racism'
By GREG BLUESTEIN (AP) – 1 day ago
ATLANTA — Former President Jimmy Carter says Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama last week was an act "based on racism." Carter called Wilson's comment "dastardly" and part of an "inherent feeling" held by some in this country who feel that a black man should not be president.
The South Carolina Republican lawmaker was formally rebuked Tuesday in a House vote divided by party lines. Wilson shouted "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress last Wednesday.
Carter spoke Tuesday night at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta.
A spokesman for Wilson was not immediately available for comment.
But a former leader of the South Carolina Democratic party disagreed with Carter. Dick Harpootlian says Wilson's comment was asinine, but not racist.

........

I'm disturbed by the quick dismissals some have made over Pres. Carter's comments. As a white person from the Midwest transported into the South, I've learned quite a bit about racism, even in just two short years. It's a subject Midwesterners would rather ignore, b/c it's so uncomfortable, but around the South, it's still more undeniable. Pres. Carter is an old Southern boy, and he is speaking from experience about a place he knows deeply, not from an analysis of Rep. Wilson's words. Racism runs deep, and even after the dirt and muck of historical racism are washed away, the residue still remains deeply embedded in the persons, structures and ethos of the South. This of course, isn't unique to the South, but it's here where it's the most confrontable still. If unprovable, it is still not ABSURD (as one commentator recently wrote) to suggest that a PART of the Obama opposition comes from deeply rooted racism, which is what Carter said. It is tough not to see the angry face of Joe Wilson and not see in it the vestiges of the inexplicable, unexcusable anger of the white powerful of the past. Let's let Pres. Carter's comment serve as a warning, a suggestion, a plea to check oneself and one's culture for the vestiges of that hate. I imagine this was Carters intention, not an accusation. I don't think Carter is denying that people take issue with the substance of the proposed health care reform, but suggesting that we make sure that that is all we take issue with. The anger surrounding this issue is really confusing if we dont' consider it.

1) i think it's the funniest thing in the world when teenagish girls cry hysterically over teenage boys. i'm sure it can happen the other way around too, but when a tv show or a movie shows a teenage girl crying hysterically over a boy it reminds me of a friend in high school and a certain dixie chics song. funny, but true.

2) probably 50% of the time i write an email to a friend i end by going back through and capitalizing the names i haven't capitalized. i never really worry about capitalization when writing emails to friends, but when i'm signing my name, it always makes me think that names should be capitalized, as a show of respect or reverence for the person. then after i capitalize theirs i always think that i should afford myself the same respect and then go back and capitalize mine too. so if you ever get a capitalized name email from me when i didn't bother to capitalize anywhere else, it means i stopped to think of you as something special. weird, but it happens a lot.

Last weekend I went to mass a little further from home. The long drive was worth it, however, because during YTI I was especially impressed by the congregation we took the scholars to and I wanted to go back. I loved their enthusiastic participation in the liturgy of the word and their clear reverence and love of the liturgy of the Eucharist, as well as their commitment to social justice issues. I've been feeling a tug back to the table for awhile. I know it's kind of strange, and only can be described as a feeling, an urge, more than an intellectual revelation, but to be at the table of the communion into which I was baptized and confirmed seems important to me. I believe that the Eucharist offers a special form of grace (although I also believe God's grace to be available to all in each moment), and I desire to participate in it. This desire has been growing throughout my time at Candler, and especially during YTI. Despite the fact that I haven't taken the Eucharist in years (though I've participated as far as possible otherwise), I'm even considering going to confession (or meeting with a priest) to talk about receiving again. I don't know why this feels so important to me now, but I appreciate and love my tradition and find my casual dismissal of it as a teenager to be naive and even a bit arrogant.

Yet I can't help feeling as though my church, my "family", my own "body", would make a fool of me. Today I read that the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland, Maine was the second largest donor (after the Evangelicalish National Organization for Marriage) to the Proposition 1 campaign, a campaign like California's Prop 8, which will go on the ballots in Maine to take away the right to marry from same-sex couples in Maine. They spent $100,000 to see that the legislative action Maine congresspersons took would be overturned. AAAaaaarrrgggg!

Why would I desire to be at a table where I am fed with one hand and harmed with another? I've wondered if when I speak to a priest about my life and my desire to come to the table, if I will be encouraged to come, as I am. I'm not sure I could be satisfied with that. How can I come to this common table to receive the Body of Christ which transforms us into the Body of Christ? Should I be melded with those who would harm me? Should I become this Body which would harm itself? Can I believe that THAT is Christ's Body? Why am I so enticed and so repulsed?

i'm taking a break from packing up the house and moving to the new one to take some time reflecting on the thoughts running through my head post-yti. i had such a powerful experience, that it is going to take months/years/a lifetime to examine what they mean for my theological outlook, what they say about who God is and who we are in relation to God.

a recurring theme that popped up again and again was the Body of Christ at YTI. i've got to say, i can't ever remember being so consciously and thoroughly wrapped up in a theological concept. the Body of Christ is a living concept, a reality with far more meaning than ever it did when i studied it in systematic theology (don't get me wrong, i LOVE systematics.. it's just limited in its distance).

to consider myself a member of the Body of Christ, to find myself in a community where the image is so central, and then to find that by a member of the community i was NOT considered one tore me apart. the first week at YTI was emotionally exhausting and spiritually confusing. how could i stand in a circle and sing "we're all a part of God's body... I won't harm you, with words from my mouth" when it wasn't true to all standing there? to hear that God hates mine and David's relationship in the form it exists (when it is the most redemptive and love-built relationship I know) and that I am not a member of that Body (which is my family, my life, my being) broke me.

during testimony time during our final worship, I told the scholars that at a camp that was in many ways different than YTI when i was about their age I had made a commitment to Jesus Christ, to follow him. what i may have failed to mention was that i have learned SINCE then that following Christ means participating in his Body (the Church) and working for the coming of his Kingdom on earth (the pursuit of goodness, the fulfillment of the capacities for humans and the world to flourish).

i also mentioned at that time, that the people at YTI had given me hope in the Church, that our divisions could be healed, that Christ's Kingdom could come on earth, because of the sparks I had seen ignited by and in them. i failed to mention to those in our community who did not identify as Christian (or care to be labeled parts of the Body of Christ) that I believe that they too participate in the advancement of that Kingdom when and if they seek goodness for people and the world.

i won't ever accept again that Christ's body (the Body of Christ) looks like those we know. it is not a separate, distinct entity. i imagine that like God, it is not an object to be compared to other objects, or defined in its opposition to others. the lines are not distinct. attempts to draw the lines of its membership have always either failed, or turned into deluded, arrogant presumption. Christ's body cannot be defined by correct belief, or participation in certain communities, or right action. after all, Christ's body raised from the dead. who are we to call its borders defined? have we not met the Christ? have we not learned the great humility that comes from standing in Christ's presence? can we participate in a body that is both human and divine?

okay, in the four years i've kept this blog, i've missed never more than 3 weeks. this, however, will certainly be my last post for 3 weeks or so, as YTI starts tomorrow. tonight, i'm in the dorm. i just posted the words "literary lounge" on the door of said room, and now i'm falling asleep on my two twin beds pushed together, ready to greet 46 enthusiastic, excited and theology-hungry youths as they arrive tomorrow starting at 7:30 am. it feels good to do good work, but i'd rather be sleeping in tomorrow. don't fret, i'll be back in 3 weeks, with plenty of stories.

God's peace and healing to you all.

tonight David was reading the above book in preparation for his induction into the world of comic book nerd-dom!! my life is great.

Biz and Boone's wedding was amazing!

i love this story. the questions and concerns it raises about human nature are so important. it's theological reading that's way more fun than the stuff i read during the semester. you are a theologian.