So, I never blog anymore. Whatever...I'm too busy making books and taking care of kids. But, just to share, one of my books was featured on this blog. Woot!
Etsy Schmetsy: Wrapped up in Books
Shared via AddThis
Etsy Schmetsy: Wrapped up in Books
So Them
Two of my favorite people in the world asked me to take photos of them, so we had a quick shoot last night. This is one of my favorite photos from our time because it paints a brilliant picture of their relationship and personalities.
Also, it had been almost nine months since I took photography seriously and this shoot with Daniel and Megan reminded me of how much I love it.
Chapel Sermon
Hey, it's been an insanely long time since I've updated, it's true. But, just when you thought I was gone forever, here I am with a new distraction.
I preached in Miller Chapel on my birthday and if you click here, you can download the file to take a listen. It's only about ten minutes long and included my friend, Matt, reading the Scripture text. Unfortunately, the wonderful singing was not miked and is, therefore, not included.
Enjoy!
Purpose-Driven Choice?
I know I haven't posted in a while. Get over it. I also realize that I haven't followed through on my promise to write about my view of homosexuality...I'll get to it. Just let me find the words. Right now, I have something completely different on my mind.
I'm a little riled up about something; more riled up than I ever would have expected, actually. I'm rather disappointed in Obama's decision to have Rick Warren pray at his inauguration. There are many reasons why people object to this choice. Some are displeased because he has a problem with homosexual behavior. Others are upset because they don't think religion should be included in civil ceremonies. I have to admit, I agree with both of these groups a bit.
But, that's not my main objection to Senator Obama's choice. I think his choice is bland, made for political reasons and, thereby devoid of positive spiritual meaning. There's no way Obama could make a choice that would please everyone, but this choice may please too many. To my mind, Rick Warren represents pop religion. Honestly, I would be very surprised if Obama had been impacted by him in any significant way and that seems dishonest.
I am aware that Rick Warren has done charitable work in Africa and other places, but so have many other spiritual leaders that Obama could have chosen. I also realize there is something important about reaching out to and representing different demographics during the transition to a new administration, but I wonder if prayer is the proper venue through which to do so. And, if it is the proper venue, shouldn't he choose someone who would appeal to an even broader demographic than Rick Warren, such as a Catholic priest or a woman?
This morning, as I was discussing this choice with a friend and her parents and I was surprised to find that I began tearing up as I mused about why Obama hadn't chosen Jesse Jackson. Jackson wept over Obama's election, it would be a brilliant and meaningful statement to have him pray over Obama's presidency. Rick Warren just feels like the same old thing to me instead of a representative of the change our new president promised.
This doesn't seem like enough, but I think my thoughts might come together better in conversation. So, I'd love to hear what you think. Does it matter who prays? Should there even be prayer during civil ceremonies?
Are We Killing Babies
This week, in my class on Christian ethics, we've been discussing abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The reading has been interesting and compelling on both sides, but in the final analysis, I like to label myself pro-choice and anti-abortion. This means that I think abortion is a tragedy, especially when it is used as contraception by people who are simply careless, but I'm not ready to tell a woman who is impregnated by her rapist that she is bound to carry that child to term.
The questions of embryonic stem cell research have raised different questions for me, though. Several of the authors we read discussed the large number of embryos left over after fertility treatments (as many as 100,000). These embryos will never be implanted. In fact, many of them would not be viable even if they were placed in a womb that could nurture them. Since this is the case, debaters ask, shouldn't we make the most of these leftovers for research? Maybe you'd like me to discuss this question, but I'm more interested in why we have so many leftovers.
Fertility treatments are amazing, no doubt. The fact that science can "create life" is fascinating and provides the hope of having biological children to many. My question is, why are we all so intent on having genetic children? Is there really some biological imperative to spread our DNA? If there is, should we, as reasonable human beings, allow this imperative to determine our actions in such a way that we create multiple potential lives for every one that will come to fruition?
What does it say about how we think of children that so many American insist on having biological children? that so many Americans go to incredible expense to make that desire a reality? When we procreate, is it because we want to love and nurture young human beings or because we want a new accessory? If we place a priority on the former, the genetic make-up of the child we raise should carry little weight. However, if we want the 2.3 kids, kids that have mom's eyes and dad's chin, that every American is supposed to have, we might place a greater priority on genetics.
No, I haven't dealt with fertility issues, but I am getting older with no current prospects of marriage. It's possible that one day I may struggle through the pain of not being able to become pregnant. If that happens, rather than spending tens of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments and creating multiple embryos, that may or may not live, I would hope to have the presence of mind and compassion to pursue adoption, even adoption of an already fertilized egg that would otherwise be discarded.
Am I being harsh? Some might think so. But, shouldn't our views of embryos and fertility treatments and abortion be commensurate with our view of the purpose of having and raising children?
On a related note, one of my classmates made the claim that the discussion of personhood is a scientific one. I didn't get a chance to respond to this particular comment, but I would like to claim "person" as a sociological/psychological/social science term. The natural sciences might be able to determine whether a fetus is human, but beyond biological designations, I think natural science has little to say about who is and is not a person.
Too Late, My Friends
So, the whole point of blogging is to write about things when they happen rather than more than a month afterward. That's probably why I'm a failure at blogging. I like to have time to think and process, which takes a little longer for me that some people. On September 11, I began writing a post about a sign in the audience of the Republican Convention. Unfortunately, nearly six weeks have elapsed, and even though I remember what I was going to say, it doesn't seem like it would have the same power at this late date. Let's just say I think the idea of peace through power or force is a poor idea, one that will never have lasting results. Some of John McCain's supporters seem to have different ideas.
There have been a lot of things happening in my life in the past year that didn't seem appropriate blog fodder and now that there are some, I've gotten out of the habit. I'm going to try in the next few weeks to be more disciplined about the practice in an effort to determine whether I am at all interested in continuing this exercise. Maybe my first post (after this one) will fulfill my long-ago promise to write more about my views on homosexuality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
