Her fairy godmother looked back at her, eye to eye, and said nothing. She could see Cinderella’s heart and mind were both completely made up. So, she snuck out her magic wand, and chanted:
Hunting and ridden
The girl’s suffered wrong
By heart’s love still bidden
She’ll answer with song
One last time, the little fairy bells tinkled as Cinderella shrank from a massive horse to a snip of a bird in the wink of an eye.
Cinderella looked up at her fairy godmother, and again the sweet, old lady had grown to the size of house. Being a horse did not prepare her for her new vision, but she was getting used to it changing now. Her fairy godmother was easy to see in some ways, and fuzzy in others, but mostly she was just a rainbow of color. As a horse, she noticed only her blue shawl. As a bird Cinderella could see that her fairy godmother was wearing a hundred colors. There were shades of green and pink on her she had never distinguished before. As a bird, the whole world was a rainbow. There were even colors she had never seen before.
And none of it mattered.
Her prince was gone, and she could do nothing. She flew up to her fairy godmother’s shoulder, crying just a little. As she cried, her voice astounded even her. The nightingale is famous as the world’s most beautiful, and the saddest, singer but Cinderella’s song was sadder and more beautiful than any nightingale had ever sung. The chew, chew, chew of most nightingales was sung by Cinderella with a soaring and fading lilt. The long tweet trailed off into a sad, sweet silence no caring soul could ignore. Her fairy godmother turned her head to look at this tiny gray beauty on her shoulder, and could not stop the tears from slipping down her cheek.
Cinderella had said all she could, and she could not bear a long goodbye. She gave her fairy godmother a little peck on the check, and her fairy godmother gave her a little kiss on the head. Then she was airborne.
It took her a second to learn to fly again as a small bird. A falcon soared. A nightingale flitted. She flapped her wings a hundred times faster, and changed direction whenever she felt like it. Mostly, though, she just watched the ground below and the air above her. She needed to find a little food, and she needed to stay clear of falcons!
Eventually she found a little marshy area with some other birds her size, and found that there were quite a number of little bugs there. She dined on little insects, and berries, and wondered what it would be like to die in this little bog after years of living right next to her prince without him knowing.
Eventually, night came and all the other birds tucked themselves into quiet little places, put their heads under their wings, and went to sleep. Cinderella, though, was not even a bit sleepy. She didn’t just sing from her heart. She sang her heart out into the night. She sang her broken little song, and waited for daylight.
She never knew when the sun actually rose. One minute she was singing, and the next the sun was out, and she was ravenously hungry. Being as hungry as a raven was really funny, of course, because she was a nightingale, not a raven, but hungry is hungry. As a horse, she had stopped eating when she was so sad. As a bird, that was not possible. Her little body demanded food, and it demanded it now.
So, she rose up, and started scouring limbs and puddles near her for more of those little yum-yum bugs.
She found them and once she had eaten her fill, she went back to sleep. All day, she went back and forth between eating and sleeping, and singing in between.
If it sounds boring, it was.
As a falcon, and as a horse, she spent her days training to serve her prince. As a nightingale, there was just eating, sleeping, and singing. Life without a purpose was even worse than life as an animal. She suddenly knew if she didn’t come up with something to do, she was going to go nuts. A nightingale lives almost 4 years, and she would never survive 4 years of this!
She thought long and hard, and suddenly it came to her. She would sing for her prince. She knew where his bedroom was, and she knew he could hear everything happening outside his open window all summer long. She would spend her nights up there, and sing her prince to sleep every night.
Now that she had a plan, everything seemed brighter, and she was ready to face the rest of the day. She started playing little bird games, and followed them while they flew between the trees as fast as they could and tried to catch really quick bugs in the air.
When night came, she went to find her prince’s window. She was wrong; she didn’t know where it was. Everything looked different from outside and way up in the air, but with careful thinking, she figured out it was in the center building of the castle, up near the top of one of the small towers.
The prince did not arrive in his room until she had been practicing her singing for fully two hours. It was completely dark before he arrived, but candles had been lit for him. It had only been two days, but it seemed like a month, and her heart soared when she saw him. In the candlelight, with her newest set of eyes, the prince seemed to glow with color and life.
She was getting ready to start in on the song she had been practicing for him when she noticed she was already singing! She had probably started singing the moment she saw him, and as she listened to her song, it spoke perfectly of everything she thought about him. It soared and tittered. It was fast and happy. It was warm, just like she felt right now, as she looked at the one she loved. She poured herself into her song.
The prince chuckled, and looked at her. “Ah. Such a ray of sunshine comes to me on this bright day. First the most beautiful girl in the world gives me a second chance at her hand and at a piece of her father’s kingdom, then you come to brighten my night with song.” He went about his business, preparing himself for bed, and grinning to himself.
Cinderella’s song was broken.
He called Danielle the most beautiful girl in the world.
It was not just her song; it was her heart that had broken. She had only been gone a few weeks, and already another woman was her prince’s most beautiful in the world. That had been her a month ago. Someday that woman would be here in this room with her prince while she sung to him. It was too much to bear.
Cinderella stared out at the stars out there with her in the cold of the night. She could see so many more, and they were colored so beautifully, but like her each one was alone. They could bear being alone, though. They didn’t have hearts.
Again, Cinderella began to think about what to sing, and again she noticed she had been singing the whole time she was thinking. She thought back on what she had sung, and realized that it was even sadder than the songs she had sung yesterday.
She glanced back into the room, and her prince was sitting on the edge of his bed, with his face in his hands, sobbing gently. The song had been too much for him, and it touched his heart strings in all the softest places.
It was a sad thing, of course, for her prince to be weeping, but it cheered her heart immediately. This time, when her song cheered up along with her heart, she noticed. In a few seconds, her prince noticed too. He looked up at her, and just shook his head. Her song grew even happier. As the prince sat there on their bed, with tears on his cheeks, and goofy little grin on his face, she fell in love all over again.
He said, “Hey little one, you are going to have to warn me if you are going to sing songs that sad.”
With that, he got up, and began going about his business again. As he worked, she sang to him with all her heart. They were strange little songs happy and sad at the same time, but sometimes that’s just the way it is.
He looked up at her again, and said, “Your happy songs are the happiest I’ve ever heard, too. You can be the chirpiest little thing.” He grew quiet for a second, and so did Cinderella. The prince had always called Cinderella Chirpy when he was in a good mood.
Just as the prince was ready for bed, he came over to the window. She had seen him come to that window to pray before sleeping every night for a year, but still it scared her. She flew away, but only to the next window. She could not see him any more, but she could still hear him. As he prayed, she learned what he was really thinking. She was still in his prayers, and the witch’s woman did not have his heart yet.
Her heart was put at ease, and she flew off into the night to let her heart rest and to get some sleep.
When Cinderella awoke the next morning, the sun was already showing its face over the horizon. She flew straight up to her prince’s window, but he was long gone, and back to work. She spent the day following other nightingales around, learning new tricks about how to find the best food and water in the world of birds.
She was amazed to find some of the best treats were to be found in her own castle. There were old ladies in all corners of the castle who left out morsels for their little friends. She also learned that while you are enjoying little morsels, you had best keep your eyes open for cats! Cat lovers and bird lovers should never live next door to each other.
The woods offered different treats. Instead of little pieces of bread and cake, there were insects and berries. They were harder to find, but a little less dangerous.
She wiled the hours away in this fashion until the evening came. As soon as she could, she hurried back up to her favorite window and sang for him again, until he began to pray, then she waited and listened very closely. The things he shared with God reminded her again why she was the luckiest woman in the kingdom.
Cinderella wanted to go and see her Anna, but that was not possible. Anna’s room was in the safest room of the castle. She was in a center room, and there were no windows through which something might come and threaten her. It was hard not to see Anna, but each night she returned to her little roost, and each night she sang to her prince. Within a few days, she began to find little bits of bread on her windowsill. After a week, she quit leaving her windowsill when he came over to it to pray. She just became very quiet, and sat next to him. It distracted him at first, but it was just too fun.
One night, she hopped up on his shoulder. Her prince chuckled and became very still, because he didn’t want to frighten his new, little friend. He went ahead and prayed, just like usual, and Cinderella was very quiet, just like usual. When he was done, though, she hopped up a little, bit his ear and flew away! She flew a couple of little circles in front of him while he laughed at her and yelled, “You be careful, Chirpy! I’m a prince, you know.”
Cinderella headed off into the night to the sound of his playful laughter.
The next night the prince wore earmuffs! Cinderella tried to get her sharp little beak up under the muffs, and instead just ended up tickling her prince into a laughing fit. It was sad to only be able to share little moments like this, with her prince, and sadder still he didn’t even know who she was, but it was precious and fun for both of them.
The next day, Cinderella was flying down to one of her favorite bug-hunting bushes for a quick snack when a funny color caught her eye. It was green, but not like any of the other greens that she knew as a bird. It looked kind of like green metal, and not like a plant at all.
She flew down to see what it was, and got the shock of her life! It was a soldier. She zipped away in fear, but then she remembered she was a bird. She could land on the soldier’s shoulder, and he wouldn’t do anything. She got in closer, and sat behind him on a convenient branch. He was a an archer, and judging by the pot of oil sitting next to him, he was going to be shooting flaming arrows when the time came. The enemies of the prince were right outside his gate, and they had flaming arrows. Somebody was planning on burning down all the houses of all the prince’s people!
She flew straight up to her prince’s bedroom window, but he was not there.
She did not know what to do now. There was not much a nightingale could do to stop an army, unless she could sing them to sleep. She spent the rest of the daylight hours flying around behind enemy lines. She saw there were archers hidden behind every stand of woods. They were all hidden just far enough away that none of the castle’s guards could possibly see them, and the prince was not sending out any scouts. She had listened as the prince poured his heart out to God every night, and she knew he was not prepared to defend the castle against an attack. She was terrified, and for good reason.
The hours passed slowly. As she circled further and further scouting out the enemy, she found a place where soldiers and horses were all grouped up and waiting. This was the real army, and it was back deep in the woods. Once the attack began, it would be these men who climbed the walls, and tried to capture the castle by storm.
She had to stop many times to eat, but by nightfall, she knew there was only one battle force. The army was all gathered in that single wood. She flew up to the prince’s window, and waited.
04 July, 2006
Cinderella and the Proud Curse: Chapter 6
When his bedroom door opened, she flew straight into the room, screaming loudly. (Nightingales are famous for their beautiful song, but also for the ugly way they scream at their baby chicks. They can have the prettiest of bird songs, and the ugliest of voices at the same time.) The prince would never understand her, but if she could just make him nervous, he might be more ready when the attack began. She was shocked when she saw that the prince did not enter, but rather was opening the door for Danielle.
When Danielle saw the wild, little nightingale zipping around the room, she ducked and ran back out again, screaming.
The door shut, and Cinderella found herself alone in the room. She perched on top of the bed, and waited. She could hear the prince laughing, and explaining that this was his little pet nightingale. He told Danielle that he had named her “Chirpy,” and that she was the sweetest bird in the whole world.
When the door opened again, the prince came in first, and he searched the room until he found Cinderella. “Chirpy,” he said, “You just sit up there very quietly, OK?”
Cinderella sat very quietly.
Danielle entered the room, and looked where the prince was pointing. Satisfied that “Chirpy” was going to sit there quietly, she slowly entered.
Cinderella did not know what to do. She could not stop the battle, but she wanted to scream. Eventually, she decided that hearing what Danielle had to say would not hurt anything, so she settled in for a long night.
Danielle and the prince had been quarreling by the looks of them.
“Tonight, fair prince!” Danielle said. “Agree to marry me tonight. You have said it yourself. The kingdom is not settled without a princess on the throne beside you, and you know you have enjoyed these last few weeks. Why must we wait?”
“I do not understand,” the prince answered, “why you are doing this. Tomorrow night is as good as this one, and I have never dreamt of marrying a woman who would presume to propose to me. I cannot bear the thought, even, that you have followed me to my bedroom. These things are not done.” The prince turned and looked out the window, straight at an army he could not see, and could not know was there.
Danielle still glimmered with the faint glow of magic, but it was obvious to Cinderella why it had to happen tonight. The spell was fading. The illusion was wearing thin. That was why the army was ready to attack. Danielle was serving Lord Farris, and if she could not sit on the prince’s throne with him, Lord Farris would simply take that throne. Thinking back, Cinderella was amazed she had not seen Lord Farris out in the field while she was searching.
Danielle turned away from the prince, and pulled a little flask from a hidden pocket. She emptied the last of it onto her hand, and in a simple, smooth motion put it on her forehead. The shine of magic spread across her entire face and body, and then she turned back to him again.
“Then I am nothing to you,” Danielle said, and the tears began to well up in her eyes. “You have rejected me once for a chance meeting at a dance, and now you reject me again though I plead in your very presence.”
The magic made her tears glisten, her voice sing with a wavering lilt, and her hair radiate beauty. The prince turned from the window, and froze. A man so proper as to be offended when Danielle entered his bedroom could not turn away from a woman in tears. Her sudden beauty overwhelmed him. He flew across the room and gathered her into his arms.
“Danielle,” he said, “I cannot quite believe your kindness in offering me a second chance. Give me a moment to take it in.”
Cinderella’s heart broke. Danielle’s surprise was evident. She looked up, and joy was breaking through the clouds of her tears. A smile slowly began to brighten her teary eyes.
“Give me a few minutes alone,” the prince said, “and I will think what answer I can give you. I just cannot answer in haste. I know you understand.”
The look in Danielle’s eyes showed she did NOT understand!
Cinderella was as shocked and amazed as Danielle, but she could do nothing. Danielle could do something. She could do a lot. Her eyes opened again, she stood to her full height, she composed herself with regal grace, and she planted the most determined kiss on the prince’s lips that she could.
Cinderella shrieked with fury and screamed into the air, pumping her wings as quickly as her little nightingale heart could push them. In seconds she was in Danielle’s hair, and pecking at her evil little skull for all she was worth.
Danielle broke her kiss, and started flailing madly at her own head. Cinderella flew down and away from the giant arms tearing the air around her, then wheeled back up and into the blond windmill that was determined to kill her.
Die she might, but Cinderella was going to have blood for that stolen kiss.
She flew right over the prince’s shoulder, and took a nasty peck out of Danielle’s cheek. Danielle was too slow to stop her strike, but she was fast enough to swat her out of the air as she tried to get away again.
Cinderella tumbled through the air until she brutally bounced off the back of a chair behind her. In an instant she leaped back into the air, but it was no use. In a flash of agony, she knew her wing was broken, and she knew she was doomed.
Danielle had a book off the table and poised to strike before Cinderella could even turn to face her killer. As she smashed her hands down at the little nightingale behind her, though, there was no book in them. The prince had snatched it from her hands from behind. Danielle shot the prince one quick look of unlimited fury, and struck again at Cinderella with her bare hands. Cinderella was able to dodge that blow with one wing, and she never needed to dodge again. The prince had Danielle firmly in hand.
The guards burst into the room. They were a little late, but it was hardly their fault.
The prince handed Danielle over to the guards, and asked that they escort her down to the kitchen, where she might be able to get a little tea and calm herself.
The prince immediately ran back to his little Chirpy, and scooped her up in his hands. He took her over to the windowsill, and put a little bird feed in front of her. He tucked her little broken wing up where it would usually rest, and left her standing quietly. Cinderella let out one sad little chirp.
“Yes, Chirpy, I agree,” the prince said. “She doesn’t seem to be the one for me.”
He was silent for a few seconds, as he stared out into the woods.
“You know, Chirpy,” he finally continued. “I think you may have saved me from a very bad mistake tonight. Danielle was so gorgeous, and without Cinderella I have been so lonely, but really – now that I think about it – I actually love you more than I love Danielle. Much more. I don’t think Danielle once let me really tell her what I was thinking, what I was dreaming, and I need that more than anything. You may not understand what I am saying, but at least you let me talk!”
Cinderella just perched there. Her wing was in a fiery pain, but she would not have moved or said anything that might break the spell of her prince’s words. Just then, nothing on earth could have sounded more beautiful.
“Yes, little Chirpy,” he went on, “I do think I love you.” And with that, her prince kissed her, right on the beak.
His wonderful face came right to hers, big as a barn and lovely as all the stars, and kissed her as warmly and as tenderly as ever she had dreamed a kiss could be. His kiss was as tender as that first one after he found that the glass slipper really did belong on her foot.
Her heart seemed to explode within her, and she wrapped her good arm around him, and kissed him right back, for all she was worth.
She opened her eyes to see the prince’s eyes as wide as saucers, and suddenly noticed she was human again. The spell was broken, and she was with her prince again!
He stepped back, gawked, smiled, and jumped back into her arms to kiss her again, this time a man kissing his long-lost wife.
The jostling was a little too much for her broken arm, and Cinderella let out a little yelp.
They separated again, and the prince yelled for a doctor.
When he looked back at her, they were both weeping, and both speechless. They just stared at each other.
The moment was broken, though, by a shout from the wall. “Archers!” came the cry of the guards. Danielle had been instructed to leave one signal lamp in her window if the prince said yes, and two if he said no. As soon as she had convinced the guards to let her go to her room, instead of the kitchen, she had put one lamp in that window, and the attack began.
“Stay here!” the prince yelled, and ran for the door.
“No, wait!” Cinderella yelled back. “I know their battle plan!”
The prince froze in his tracks, and slowly turned to face her again, a sly grin beaming from his face. “You are an amazing woman,” he said, and sat and listened to every word she had to say.
Needless to say, it was a long night. Thanks to Cinderella, though, the prince knew the attacks on the main gate and the two walls next to it were just feints. He kept his main force in reserve, and when the main attack came against the back wall, he was ready. Lord Farris’s men planned to fight a surprised enemy that could not organize a defense. The prince’s men were surprised, but the prince was able to muster them and organize them very effectively with Cinderella’s information. Within a few hours, it was obvious to everyone that no castle would be stormed that night.
Lord Farris’s men retreated.
Cinderella spent her evening well, too. All of the castle guards were at the walls with her prince, but she had the doctor work on her arm down in the kitchen instead of in the prince’s room. He put a very fine cast on it, and it only hurt a little as he worked. While she was there, Cinderella rounded up the kitchen staff, armed them, and sent them out to find Danielle and the old woman.
The women had armed themselves with knives, torches, and rolling pins, and they all went together to Danielle’s bedroom. When they got there, they were very quiet because they could hear an argument happening inside. In just a minute, they could tell there were two women in there, not just Danielle, and a man’s voice too. The women all looked at one another, not quite sure what to do.
Finally, the senior cook walked up to the door and knocked.
The room went silent.
Danielle called out, “Who’s there?”
The senior cook answered back, “There’s a few of us women, ma’am, who were asked to bring you some dinner. Would you like to open up for us?”
Her lie was not very convincing. There was a moment of silence, and suddenly the door burst open and out leaped Lord Farris, sword at the ready.
He froze.
Fifteen women, all with weapons of some sort, stood their ground. They were ready to fight. Lord Farris had a sword that would have cut them down like ripe wheat, and he looked them all in the eye, one by one. He saw there that they were all ready to die there, if they had to, and he hesitated.
Had they been men! Ah, had they only been men. There would have been a fight worthy of telling for the rest of their days. As it was, if he lifted his sword, he would forever more be known only as the man who chopped down fifteen women to save his own skin.
Lord Farris lowered his sword and allowed the women to take him, Danielle, and the old witch prisoner.
The women returned their prisoners to Cinderella, and she commanded them all placed in separate cells in the dungeon. No sense allowing them the pleasure of each other’s company, and why let them cook up a good story together.
With that accomplished, Cinderella was finally able to go and see her Anna. It had been more than a month since Anna had tried to look in that awful mirror, and that long since Cinderella had seen her. She found her awake. (It seemed like Anna was always awake. Did this baby never sleep?) She called her name, and ran across the room to her. Anna tried to stand up against the crib when she called, and fell over right away. She blubbered and made some “Blblbbbbll zzzlllbbb” noises and grinned from ear to ear.
Anna had missed her mommy, too!
For the next week, no one tried to take Anna from Cinderella – not even for diaper changes.
Morning eventually came, and when it did, the castle was still safe. Nobody slept that night, but it was the best breakfast any of them had ever had!
In three days, the prisoners were brought before the prince and Cinderella. The justice of war is simple. The penalty for treason, spying, or unjust war is death. The old woman was guilty of treason, plain and simple. Danielle was guilty of spying. The Lord Farris was guilty of starting an unjust war. All three were judged worthy of death.
The Lord Farris, however, had shown honor in not killing the women who arrested him, so the prince felt compelled to extend some mercy to him. Danielle was the daughter of a Lord. And the old woman was no guiltier than the Lord Farris, so she should receive no crueler punishment than either of the other two. The prince was capable of handing out true justice, even when it is extreme, but he decided not to do so.
The prince arranged a merciful justice for them. The Lord Farris owned a rich tract of land that separated the prince’s realm from the king’s. Lord Farris surrendered that land to the prince, and vowed that none of the three of them would ever set foot in their land again. The Lord Farris also agreed to pay the price of reconstruction on each of the houses burned down, plus enough to buy fireproof roofs for all the buildings around the edge of the castle.
The prince and Cinderella walked their enemies to the gate, and gave them letters of safe passage through the kingdom. When their enemies had gone, and the gates were shut, they turned back and looked at all their people, and a shout went up from everyone. “Hip, Hip, Hoorah!” they shouted, and everyone smiled because the kingdom was safe again, and beautiful little Anna’s mother was home.
And they lived happily ever after.
Except that Anna had spent a lot of time with her fairy godmother over the last month, and she had learned many interesting things…
The End
When Danielle saw the wild, little nightingale zipping around the room, she ducked and ran back out again, screaming.
The door shut, and Cinderella found herself alone in the room. She perched on top of the bed, and waited. She could hear the prince laughing, and explaining that this was his little pet nightingale. He told Danielle that he had named her “Chirpy,” and that she was the sweetest bird in the whole world.
When the door opened again, the prince came in first, and he searched the room until he found Cinderella. “Chirpy,” he said, “You just sit up there very quietly, OK?”
Cinderella sat very quietly.
Danielle entered the room, and looked where the prince was pointing. Satisfied that “Chirpy” was going to sit there quietly, she slowly entered.
Cinderella did not know what to do. She could not stop the battle, but she wanted to scream. Eventually, she decided that hearing what Danielle had to say would not hurt anything, so she settled in for a long night.
Danielle and the prince had been quarreling by the looks of them.
“Tonight, fair prince!” Danielle said. “Agree to marry me tonight. You have said it yourself. The kingdom is not settled without a princess on the throne beside you, and you know you have enjoyed these last few weeks. Why must we wait?”
“I do not understand,” the prince answered, “why you are doing this. Tomorrow night is as good as this one, and I have never dreamt of marrying a woman who would presume to propose to me. I cannot bear the thought, even, that you have followed me to my bedroom. These things are not done.” The prince turned and looked out the window, straight at an army he could not see, and could not know was there.
Danielle still glimmered with the faint glow of magic, but it was obvious to Cinderella why it had to happen tonight. The spell was fading. The illusion was wearing thin. That was why the army was ready to attack. Danielle was serving Lord Farris, and if she could not sit on the prince’s throne with him, Lord Farris would simply take that throne. Thinking back, Cinderella was amazed she had not seen Lord Farris out in the field while she was searching.
Danielle turned away from the prince, and pulled a little flask from a hidden pocket. She emptied the last of it onto her hand, and in a simple, smooth motion put it on her forehead. The shine of magic spread across her entire face and body, and then she turned back to him again.
“Then I am nothing to you,” Danielle said, and the tears began to well up in her eyes. “You have rejected me once for a chance meeting at a dance, and now you reject me again though I plead in your very presence.”
The magic made her tears glisten, her voice sing with a wavering lilt, and her hair radiate beauty. The prince turned from the window, and froze. A man so proper as to be offended when Danielle entered his bedroom could not turn away from a woman in tears. Her sudden beauty overwhelmed him. He flew across the room and gathered her into his arms.
“Danielle,” he said, “I cannot quite believe your kindness in offering me a second chance. Give me a moment to take it in.”
Cinderella’s heart broke. Danielle’s surprise was evident. She looked up, and joy was breaking through the clouds of her tears. A smile slowly began to brighten her teary eyes.
“Give me a few minutes alone,” the prince said, “and I will think what answer I can give you. I just cannot answer in haste. I know you understand.”
The look in Danielle’s eyes showed she did NOT understand!
Cinderella was as shocked and amazed as Danielle, but she could do nothing. Danielle could do something. She could do a lot. Her eyes opened again, she stood to her full height, she composed herself with regal grace, and she planted the most determined kiss on the prince’s lips that she could.
Cinderella shrieked with fury and screamed into the air, pumping her wings as quickly as her little nightingale heart could push them. In seconds she was in Danielle’s hair, and pecking at her evil little skull for all she was worth.
Danielle broke her kiss, and started flailing madly at her own head. Cinderella flew down and away from the giant arms tearing the air around her, then wheeled back up and into the blond windmill that was determined to kill her.
Die she might, but Cinderella was going to have blood for that stolen kiss.
She flew right over the prince’s shoulder, and took a nasty peck out of Danielle’s cheek. Danielle was too slow to stop her strike, but she was fast enough to swat her out of the air as she tried to get away again.
Cinderella tumbled through the air until she brutally bounced off the back of a chair behind her. In an instant she leaped back into the air, but it was no use. In a flash of agony, she knew her wing was broken, and she knew she was doomed.
Danielle had a book off the table and poised to strike before Cinderella could even turn to face her killer. As she smashed her hands down at the little nightingale behind her, though, there was no book in them. The prince had snatched it from her hands from behind. Danielle shot the prince one quick look of unlimited fury, and struck again at Cinderella with her bare hands. Cinderella was able to dodge that blow with one wing, and she never needed to dodge again. The prince had Danielle firmly in hand.
The guards burst into the room. They were a little late, but it was hardly their fault.
The prince handed Danielle over to the guards, and asked that they escort her down to the kitchen, where she might be able to get a little tea and calm herself.
The prince immediately ran back to his little Chirpy, and scooped her up in his hands. He took her over to the windowsill, and put a little bird feed in front of her. He tucked her little broken wing up where it would usually rest, and left her standing quietly. Cinderella let out one sad little chirp.
“Yes, Chirpy, I agree,” the prince said. “She doesn’t seem to be the one for me.”
He was silent for a few seconds, as he stared out into the woods.
“You know, Chirpy,” he finally continued. “I think you may have saved me from a very bad mistake tonight. Danielle was so gorgeous, and without Cinderella I have been so lonely, but really – now that I think about it – I actually love you more than I love Danielle. Much more. I don’t think Danielle once let me really tell her what I was thinking, what I was dreaming, and I need that more than anything. You may not understand what I am saying, but at least you let me talk!”
Cinderella just perched there. Her wing was in a fiery pain, but she would not have moved or said anything that might break the spell of her prince’s words. Just then, nothing on earth could have sounded more beautiful.
“Yes, little Chirpy,” he went on, “I do think I love you.” And with that, her prince kissed her, right on the beak.
His wonderful face came right to hers, big as a barn and lovely as all the stars, and kissed her as warmly and as tenderly as ever she had dreamed a kiss could be. His kiss was as tender as that first one after he found that the glass slipper really did belong on her foot.
Her heart seemed to explode within her, and she wrapped her good arm around him, and kissed him right back, for all she was worth.
She opened her eyes to see the prince’s eyes as wide as saucers, and suddenly noticed she was human again. The spell was broken, and she was with her prince again!
He stepped back, gawked, smiled, and jumped back into her arms to kiss her again, this time a man kissing his long-lost wife.
The jostling was a little too much for her broken arm, and Cinderella let out a little yelp.
They separated again, and the prince yelled for a doctor.
When he looked back at her, they were both weeping, and both speechless. They just stared at each other.
The moment was broken, though, by a shout from the wall. “Archers!” came the cry of the guards. Danielle had been instructed to leave one signal lamp in her window if the prince said yes, and two if he said no. As soon as she had convinced the guards to let her go to her room, instead of the kitchen, she had put one lamp in that window, and the attack began.
“Stay here!” the prince yelled, and ran for the door.
“No, wait!” Cinderella yelled back. “I know their battle plan!”
The prince froze in his tracks, and slowly turned to face her again, a sly grin beaming from his face. “You are an amazing woman,” he said, and sat and listened to every word she had to say.
Needless to say, it was a long night. Thanks to Cinderella, though, the prince knew the attacks on the main gate and the two walls next to it were just feints. He kept his main force in reserve, and when the main attack came against the back wall, he was ready. Lord Farris’s men planned to fight a surprised enemy that could not organize a defense. The prince’s men were surprised, but the prince was able to muster them and organize them very effectively with Cinderella’s information. Within a few hours, it was obvious to everyone that no castle would be stormed that night.
Lord Farris’s men retreated.
Cinderella spent her evening well, too. All of the castle guards were at the walls with her prince, but she had the doctor work on her arm down in the kitchen instead of in the prince’s room. He put a very fine cast on it, and it only hurt a little as he worked. While she was there, Cinderella rounded up the kitchen staff, armed them, and sent them out to find Danielle and the old woman.
The women had armed themselves with knives, torches, and rolling pins, and they all went together to Danielle’s bedroom. When they got there, they were very quiet because they could hear an argument happening inside. In just a minute, they could tell there were two women in there, not just Danielle, and a man’s voice too. The women all looked at one another, not quite sure what to do.
Finally, the senior cook walked up to the door and knocked.
The room went silent.
Danielle called out, “Who’s there?”
The senior cook answered back, “There’s a few of us women, ma’am, who were asked to bring you some dinner. Would you like to open up for us?”
Her lie was not very convincing. There was a moment of silence, and suddenly the door burst open and out leaped Lord Farris, sword at the ready.
He froze.
Fifteen women, all with weapons of some sort, stood their ground. They were ready to fight. Lord Farris had a sword that would have cut them down like ripe wheat, and he looked them all in the eye, one by one. He saw there that they were all ready to die there, if they had to, and he hesitated.
Had they been men! Ah, had they only been men. There would have been a fight worthy of telling for the rest of their days. As it was, if he lifted his sword, he would forever more be known only as the man who chopped down fifteen women to save his own skin.
Lord Farris lowered his sword and allowed the women to take him, Danielle, and the old witch prisoner.
The women returned their prisoners to Cinderella, and she commanded them all placed in separate cells in the dungeon. No sense allowing them the pleasure of each other’s company, and why let them cook up a good story together.
With that accomplished, Cinderella was finally able to go and see her Anna. It had been more than a month since Anna had tried to look in that awful mirror, and that long since Cinderella had seen her. She found her awake. (It seemed like Anna was always awake. Did this baby never sleep?) She called her name, and ran across the room to her. Anna tried to stand up against the crib when she called, and fell over right away. She blubbered and made some “Blblbbbbll zzzlllbbb” noises and grinned from ear to ear.
Anna had missed her mommy, too!
For the next week, no one tried to take Anna from Cinderella – not even for diaper changes.
Morning eventually came, and when it did, the castle was still safe. Nobody slept that night, but it was the best breakfast any of them had ever had!
In three days, the prisoners were brought before the prince and Cinderella. The justice of war is simple. The penalty for treason, spying, or unjust war is death. The old woman was guilty of treason, plain and simple. Danielle was guilty of spying. The Lord Farris was guilty of starting an unjust war. All three were judged worthy of death.
The Lord Farris, however, had shown honor in not killing the women who arrested him, so the prince felt compelled to extend some mercy to him. Danielle was the daughter of a Lord. And the old woman was no guiltier than the Lord Farris, so she should receive no crueler punishment than either of the other two. The prince was capable of handing out true justice, even when it is extreme, but he decided not to do so.
The prince arranged a merciful justice for them. The Lord Farris owned a rich tract of land that separated the prince’s realm from the king’s. Lord Farris surrendered that land to the prince, and vowed that none of the three of them would ever set foot in their land again. The Lord Farris also agreed to pay the price of reconstruction on each of the houses burned down, plus enough to buy fireproof roofs for all the buildings around the edge of the castle.
The prince and Cinderella walked their enemies to the gate, and gave them letters of safe passage through the kingdom. When their enemies had gone, and the gates were shut, they turned back and looked at all their people, and a shout went up from everyone. “Hip, Hip, Hoorah!” they shouted, and everyone smiled because the kingdom was safe again, and beautiful little Anna’s mother was home.
And they lived happily ever after.
Except that Anna had spent a lot of time with her fairy godmother over the last month, and she had learned many interesting things…
The End
03 July, 2006
Posting: On Vacation
I have been posting very lightly for the past week or two. Who am I kidding? For me, this has been a full stoppage of posting.
I'm not really sure why.
It has been a pretty low week or two. Not black depression, but a little grayer than I have become accustomed to. Even tennis has felt so flat that I thought maybe it's time to give it up.
I guess we'll get to see whether one of these new-fangled "vacation-thingies" people are always talking about might help. I'm going to spend a few days lost in the woods with my son.
Lord bless ya'll.
I leave you with a fairy tale I wrote for my nieces 1 1/2 years ago now. They made it to about page 3 before they got too scared to read on. Their mom has not yet sat down to read it to them. So, it was written to little girls, but no little girl has ever read it. Hopefully, it is enjoyable.
I'm not really sure why.
It has been a pretty low week or two. Not black depression, but a little grayer than I have become accustomed to. Even tennis has felt so flat that I thought maybe it's time to give it up.
I guess we'll get to see whether one of these new-fangled "vacation-thingies" people are always talking about might help. I'm going to spend a few days lost in the woods with my son.
Lord bless ya'll.
I leave you with a fairy tale I wrote for my nieces 1 1/2 years ago now. They made it to about page 3 before they got too scared to read on. Their mom has not yet sat down to read it to them. So, it was written to little girls, but no little girl has ever read it. Hopefully, it is enjoyable.
28 June, 2006
Personal: Woo Hoo!
It's a happy night, and a wonderful relief too.
I found something fun to do with my daughter, Geocaching. We didn't have a miraculous bonding moment or anything, but it was amusing eventually, and we talked the whole time rather than sitting with our eyes focused on the big screen. She even said she had fun. Praise the Lord.
There's a $100 investment for a handheld GPS unit, but it's worth every penny.
A cache is a little tupperware container full of little toys and a logbook. It is hidden somewhere, and its position is recorded and posted up to Geocache.com with a couple of clues how to find it. As the treasure hunter, my daughter and I took off and found a cache or two. After you find it, you take a toy, and leave a toy plus a couple notes in the little log book, then move on.
From the website:
There are 281971 active caches in 222 countries. In the last 7 days, there have been 180010 new logs written by 30745 account holders.
I can very nearly guarantee that there is a little tupperware cache somewhere near you. There were 4 caches in the lake park my daughter frequents, and there are two in my immediate neighborhood. There are even hundreds in downtown Columbus. That's good, because I learned tonight that my daughter does not really enjoy walking in bug-infested woods. Our next trip will be in the Short North - the yuppie and tattoo corner of Columbus that she really enjoys. It's cool, because it lets her be where she wants to be, and gives me an excuse to be there. We can even stop for a tea or some such if she will indulge me. :-)
If you have kids or friends or spare time or just a desire to get out and walk/jog toward something more than the "turn-around" at the end of the outbound journey, I recommend geocaching. And for those of you creative types (and you know who you are,) you can start leaving cool toys and advance to making up your own caches, planting "travel bugs", and solving or making whole multi-part, all day puzzles.
I found something fun to do with my daughter, Geocaching. We didn't have a miraculous bonding moment or anything, but it was amusing eventually, and we talked the whole time rather than sitting with our eyes focused on the big screen. She even said she had fun. Praise the Lord.
There's a $100 investment for a handheld GPS unit, but it's worth every penny.
A cache is a little tupperware container full of little toys and a logbook. It is hidden somewhere, and its position is recorded and posted up to Geocache.com with a couple of clues how to find it. As the treasure hunter, my daughter and I took off and found a cache or two. After you find it, you take a toy, and leave a toy plus a couple notes in the little log book, then move on.
From the website:
There are 281971 active caches in 222 countries. In the last 7 days, there have been 180010 new logs written by 30745 account holders.
I can very nearly guarantee that there is a little tupperware cache somewhere near you. There were 4 caches in the lake park my daughter frequents, and there are two in my immediate neighborhood. There are even hundreds in downtown Columbus. That's good, because I learned tonight that my daughter does not really enjoy walking in bug-infested woods. Our next trip will be in the Short North - the yuppie and tattoo corner of Columbus that she really enjoys. It's cool, because it lets her be where she wants to be, and gives me an excuse to be there. We can even stop for a tea or some such if she will indulge me. :-)
If you have kids or friends or spare time or just a desire to get out and walk/jog toward something more than the "turn-around" at the end of the outbound journey, I recommend geocaching. And for those of you creative types (and you know who you are,) you can start leaving cool toys and advance to making up your own caches, planting "travel bugs", and solving or making whole multi-part, all day puzzles.
27 June, 2006
Further off track: What is Regeneration?
This question is niggling at my mind.
[This is not going to be an exciting post, so I sympathize with everyone who doesn't want to count angels on pinheads (or just pinheads) right now. Catch you in a later discussion!]
First, the "so what."
I believe, and have believed for a long time now, that regeneration is the implanting into a human being the very Life of the eternal God. In various discussions and readings over the past 6 months, I have finally begun to see that I am almost alone in that definition. It has taken me a long time to figure it out, but most people believe that regeneration is the restoration of human life such that it can interact with God.
If regeneration is man's nature resurrected, then man may be able to take a first step toward God. If regeneration is God's nature implanted in man, then man can only respond to God's gift after he has received it. That's no tiny matter. It strikes at the heart of the whole free-will discussion. I believe in man's free will, and I believe that fallen man always and without exception wills to place himself above God. If regeneration is man's will resurrected, then everything I believe about free will has to be reexamined.
The thing that has blown me away over the past couple weeks is that most Calvinists seem to believe that regeneration is man's nature being resurrected. I would never have guessed that. It strikes me as bizarre and self-contradictory. But then, I'm still a diesel mechanic at heart.
I would keep this whole discussion confined to the din of my own head, but I came across this quote in a pretty stodgy book, and it jazzed me. The book is, An Absolute Sort of Certainty, The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics of Jonathon Edwards.
(Personal note for those of you still reading: I really enjoy Jonathon Edwards. I just wish I had a couple more IQ points, so I could keep up with him, and some more time so I could finish some of the things he wrote. I picked up a biography of his wife nearly 20 years ago entitled, Marriage to a Difficult Man. It was my wife's favorite theology-ish book of mine. I wonder why? :-P)
Anyway, here is the quote from the book. McClymond is one of the many people who analyzed Edwards' philosophy against his theology, and the author of this book is analyzing his analysis.
McClymond's thesis might be improved if, rather than arguing that regeneration is Edwards's epistemological foundation, he argued that revelation is its basis. Regeneration then enables one to see the truth of revelation. The epistemological foundation, however, is not the perception of revelation, but revelation itself. Both revelation and the perception of it are given by the Spirit. Likewise, the basis of certainty is not the perception that one has or the new sense, but assurance or the Spirit's witness. ...
If you didn't have to read that portion of a paragraph more than once, my hat's off to you.
This paragraph says that the new birth of a Christian does not give him the ability to "know". The Spirit's revelation gives him the ability to know. But, without the new birth, the man will be unable to see the things the Spirit is revealing. So both the light that allows us to see the truth, and the eyes that can receive the light are gifts of the same Spirit.
Postmodernists seem to hold that whatever we see is truth, even if there's nothing objectively real to be seen. They actually seem to hold that there is no truth except for what is true to each person, and there is no truth except what each person perceives. Edwards argues that there is a true God Who reveals true truth about Himself and Who makes us able to receive that truth.
This caught my eye because I have focused in on regeneration as almost standing on its own in our salvation. Regeneration and revelation operate in tandem, both by the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit reveals Christ to us, and we are able to see Him because He makes us alive.
This almost threatens to put my thesis in jeopardy, that the mechanics of regeneration open or shut the door on free-will. Oh my!
So, I have something to think about for the next few months. :-)
FWIW, I have not started digging through scripture again on this yet. Nonetheless, I will share the biggest influences on me toward believing that we are given the Life of Christ when we are born again:
+ Eve was formed from Adam. It only makes sense that we would be formed from the spiritual essence of Christ, not simply by Him.
+ A wife for Christ (God and man) of another species (human only) makes no sense to me.
+ Christ Himself was planted as a Seed, and He rose again many seeds. When that happens, kind must be after its kind.
+ Verses like 2 Pet 1:4 - Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
It will probably be months before I am ready to declare one way or the other, but it was good to chat about it a bit. Thanks for listening.
[This is not going to be an exciting post, so I sympathize with everyone who doesn't want to count angels on pinheads (or just pinheads) right now. Catch you in a later discussion!]
First, the "so what."
I believe, and have believed for a long time now, that regeneration is the implanting into a human being the very Life of the eternal God. In various discussions and readings over the past 6 months, I have finally begun to see that I am almost alone in that definition. It has taken me a long time to figure it out, but most people believe that regeneration is the restoration of human life such that it can interact with God.
If regeneration is man's nature resurrected, then man may be able to take a first step toward God. If regeneration is God's nature implanted in man, then man can only respond to God's gift after he has received it. That's no tiny matter. It strikes at the heart of the whole free-will discussion. I believe in man's free will, and I believe that fallen man always and without exception wills to place himself above God. If regeneration is man's will resurrected, then everything I believe about free will has to be reexamined.
The thing that has blown me away over the past couple weeks is that most Calvinists seem to believe that regeneration is man's nature being resurrected. I would never have guessed that. It strikes me as bizarre and self-contradictory. But then, I'm still a diesel mechanic at heart.
I would keep this whole discussion confined to the din of my own head, but I came across this quote in a pretty stodgy book, and it jazzed me. The book is, An Absolute Sort of Certainty, The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics of Jonathon Edwards.
(Personal note for those of you still reading: I really enjoy Jonathon Edwards. I just wish I had a couple more IQ points, so I could keep up with him, and some more time so I could finish some of the things he wrote. I picked up a biography of his wife nearly 20 years ago entitled, Marriage to a Difficult Man. It was my wife's favorite theology-ish book of mine. I wonder why? :-P)
Anyway, here is the quote from the book. McClymond is one of the many people who analyzed Edwards' philosophy against his theology, and the author of this book is analyzing his analysis.
McClymond's thesis might be improved if, rather than arguing that regeneration is Edwards's epistemological foundation, he argued that revelation is its basis. Regeneration then enables one to see the truth of revelation. The epistemological foundation, however, is not the perception of revelation, but revelation itself. Both revelation and the perception of it are given by the Spirit. Likewise, the basis of certainty is not the perception that one has or the new sense, but assurance or the Spirit's witness. ...
If you didn't have to read that portion of a paragraph more than once, my hat's off to you.
This paragraph says that the new birth of a Christian does not give him the ability to "know". The Spirit's revelation gives him the ability to know. But, without the new birth, the man will be unable to see the things the Spirit is revealing. So both the light that allows us to see the truth, and the eyes that can receive the light are gifts of the same Spirit.
Postmodernists seem to hold that whatever we see is truth, even if there's nothing objectively real to be seen. They actually seem to hold that there is no truth except for what is true to each person, and there is no truth except what each person perceives. Edwards argues that there is a true God Who reveals true truth about Himself and Who makes us able to receive that truth.
This caught my eye because I have focused in on regeneration as almost standing on its own in our salvation. Regeneration and revelation operate in tandem, both by the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit reveals Christ to us, and we are able to see Him because He makes us alive.
This almost threatens to put my thesis in jeopardy, that the mechanics of regeneration open or shut the door on free-will. Oh my!
So, I have something to think about for the next few months. :-)
FWIW, I have not started digging through scripture again on this yet. Nonetheless, I will share the biggest influences on me toward believing that we are given the Life of Christ when we are born again:
+ Eve was formed from Adam. It only makes sense that we would be formed from the spiritual essence of Christ, not simply by Him.
+ A wife for Christ (God and man) of another species (human only) makes no sense to me.
+ Christ Himself was planted as a Seed, and He rose again many seeds. When that happens, kind must be after its kind.
+ Verses like 2 Pet 1:4 - Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
It will probably be months before I am ready to declare one way or the other, but it was good to chat about it a bit. Thanks for listening.
24 June, 2006
Sidebar: Changing our Minds - Pt. Deux
Michael Shermer offers some suggestions how to combat the problem of "Confirmation Bias." Confirmation Bias is described by Francis Bacon in his lead-in quote thusly:
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion ... draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises ... in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.
He calls science's solution to bear, and I love the scientists' answer to this question.
Peer Review
Really, I love peer review. If I could marry peer review, I would (if you don't have teenagers, that comment may sound random.)
In a scientific "double-blind" experiment, neither the subjects of the experiment nor its conductors know what is being tested for. A step-by-step process is written up, and the experimenter follows it to the letter, having no idea why. She or he collects the data requested, and reports it to the requester of the experiment. The requester evaluates whether it confirms or denies the original hypothesis. If the experiment is successful, the results are published and so are the procedures and data. Anyone can and should evaluate not just the results, but the process and the raw data. If they think the outcome warrants it, they can even reproduce the whole experiment themselves. They should get very similar results.
An example is helpful. Some scientists thought that they had found a way to make fusion happen without the heat of a sun. They ran through the whole experimental process, loved their results and published their findings. Before the published, though, they alerted the media to their awesome discovery of table-top cold fusion. They were all set to save the world.
Other scientists took their results and their procedures, and attempted to reproduce their experimental outcomes. When nobody else could make cold fusion happen, it was declared dead. Bang. Game over. If an experiment cannot be reproduced by other scientists, then it may as well never have happened. The proponents of table-top cold fusion were wrong. They fired up a media feeding frenzy in support of their ideas, everyone wanted it to be real, it even had verifiable results; but none of that made them right. Noone else could reproduce their results, and they were sent away.
Brilliant!
Just like that, the discussion was over. The only people who still believe in the type of cold fusion disproven by scientific review are crackpots, and we all recognize them as such immediately.
But what about religion?
Shermer is writing about politics, so he faces the same problems we do. He makes some suggestions that probably won't work in politics, and wouldn't even get off the ground with us religionists.
1) Call each other on selective data mining.
If we find each other ignoring some important part of scripture, we should point out the omissions.
[Yeah. We do this enough already, and it doesn't fix anything.]
2) Demand to see contradictory evidence.
If I am a Calvinist, I should publish every Arminian verse.
[Again. This is standard operating procedure, and fixes nothing.]
3) Compel debaters to make the opposite case.
If I am a Calvinist, I should be made to argue in favor of Arminianism.
[Now this is new! But it's senseless. This reduces the most significant thoughts in the world to a mere exercise in debate. I love debate, but it should not be an exercise at this level.]
He sums up his article with these words, "Skepticism is the antidote for the confirmation bias."
I don't know how we can really do better than that.
I hope that nobody was expecting that I would have any brilliant answers to this problem. It is much bigger than I am. We lost count of the number of Christian denominations a long, long time ago.
Here is my impossible dream. I wish that we could come up with a way to submit our beliefs and practices to independent, double blind review. I don't know how it could happen. Psychologists do things like that, though. They ask people seemingly random questions about normal, every day stuff and draw conclusions about personality. It might be possible. Who knows. Any trained psych people in the crowd?
My next practical solution is to put boundaries around the problem. That means including more people in it than just me, and few enough that the conversation can be controlled. I actually proposed something like this 4 months ago or so. If one church ignored every denomination, they could start over from scratch with just the Nicene Creed and build everything else up from there. In a group small enough, the command, "let the prophets be subject to the prophets," actually makes sense. I could hope that group would bring in the deep thoughts of the ages, but slowly - slowly enough that they could be assimilated rather than merely rehearsed. It would be a very small start, but a start is better than nothing.
I might suggest that this church be formed of everyone who lived within a 5 block radius. :-) [I wonder whether anyone remembers the actual purpose of this blog.]
In my own life, I combat the problem with varying degrees of success. I actually do change my mind about things every now and again, and I have a couple of possible changes in the back of my mind right now, brewing away. With no promise of value for the reader, here are the things I do:
1) I attempt to put doctrine in its right place, rather than in the highest seat (which it seems always to get these days.) The less I overvalue doctrine, the more likely I am to be objective about it, and improve mine. The less I feel that God is going to be mad at me if I get something wrong, the more likely I am to grow and change with new revelation.
I also remind myself that we tend to choose those doctrines that fit our personality, more than those that fit the facts. Fewer intellectuals choose charismaticism than Calvinism, for example, and there are very few charismatic Calvinists (double meaning not intended). It helps me to understand why I see God the way I do, and why others see Him differently than I do. And that helps me to hold my views a little more loosely.
2) Most times another believer's arguments don't really move me. Usually, that is because I have heard those arguments a dozen times. I don't bother to feel very guilty about that. But when someone's arguments do move me, and I begin to see where she or he has a point, I do a little imagining. I see myself as holding this other position, and being very happy that I made the change. I then ask myself what it is about changing that made me happy.
If Confirmation Bias is an emotional thing, then it can best by outwitted by emotions (as Andreia pointed out.) I consciously try to counter-balance my natural aversion to changing my mind by picturing it as already changed and that I am happy with the new position.
So, thank you to Michael Shermer for making me want to talk about this. And thank you to all of you for actually being interested in such esoterica. :-)
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion ... draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises ... in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.
He calls science's solution to bear, and I love the scientists' answer to this question.
Peer Review
Really, I love peer review. If I could marry peer review, I would (if you don't have teenagers, that comment may sound random.)
In a scientific "double-blind" experiment, neither the subjects of the experiment nor its conductors know what is being tested for. A step-by-step process is written up, and the experimenter follows it to the letter, having no idea why. She or he collects the data requested, and reports it to the requester of the experiment. The requester evaluates whether it confirms or denies the original hypothesis. If the experiment is successful, the results are published and so are the procedures and data. Anyone can and should evaluate not just the results, but the process and the raw data. If they think the outcome warrants it, they can even reproduce the whole experiment themselves. They should get very similar results.
An example is helpful. Some scientists thought that they had found a way to make fusion happen without the heat of a sun. They ran through the whole experimental process, loved their results and published their findings. Before the published, though, they alerted the media to their awesome discovery of table-top cold fusion. They were all set to save the world.
Other scientists took their results and their procedures, and attempted to reproduce their experimental outcomes. When nobody else could make cold fusion happen, it was declared dead. Bang. Game over. If an experiment cannot be reproduced by other scientists, then it may as well never have happened. The proponents of table-top cold fusion were wrong. They fired up a media feeding frenzy in support of their ideas, everyone wanted it to be real, it even had verifiable results; but none of that made them right. Noone else could reproduce their results, and they were sent away.
Brilliant!
Just like that, the discussion was over. The only people who still believe in the type of cold fusion disproven by scientific review are crackpots, and we all recognize them as such immediately.
But what about religion?
Shermer is writing about politics, so he faces the same problems we do. He makes some suggestions that probably won't work in politics, and wouldn't even get off the ground with us religionists.
1) Call each other on selective data mining.
If we find each other ignoring some important part of scripture, we should point out the omissions.
[Yeah. We do this enough already, and it doesn't fix anything.]
2) Demand to see contradictory evidence.
If I am a Calvinist, I should publish every Arminian verse.
[Again. This is standard operating procedure, and fixes nothing.]
3) Compel debaters to make the opposite case.
If I am a Calvinist, I should be made to argue in favor of Arminianism.
[Now this is new! But it's senseless. This reduces the most significant thoughts in the world to a mere exercise in debate. I love debate, but it should not be an exercise at this level.]
He sums up his article with these words, "Skepticism is the antidote for the confirmation bias."
I don't know how we can really do better than that.
I hope that nobody was expecting that I would have any brilliant answers to this problem. It is much bigger than I am. We lost count of the number of Christian denominations a long, long time ago.
Here is my impossible dream. I wish that we could come up with a way to submit our beliefs and practices to independent, double blind review. I don't know how it could happen. Psychologists do things like that, though. They ask people seemingly random questions about normal, every day stuff and draw conclusions about personality. It might be possible. Who knows. Any trained psych people in the crowd?
My next practical solution is to put boundaries around the problem. That means including more people in it than just me, and few enough that the conversation can be controlled. I actually proposed something like this 4 months ago or so. If one church ignored every denomination, they could start over from scratch with just the Nicene Creed and build everything else up from there. In a group small enough, the command, "let the prophets be subject to the prophets," actually makes sense. I could hope that group would bring in the deep thoughts of the ages, but slowly - slowly enough that they could be assimilated rather than merely rehearsed. It would be a very small start, but a start is better than nothing.
I might suggest that this church be formed of everyone who lived within a 5 block radius. :-) [I wonder whether anyone remembers the actual purpose of this blog.]
In my own life, I combat the problem with varying degrees of success. I actually do change my mind about things every now and again, and I have a couple of possible changes in the back of my mind right now, brewing away. With no promise of value for the reader, here are the things I do:
1) I attempt to put doctrine in its right place, rather than in the highest seat (which it seems always to get these days.) The less I overvalue doctrine, the more likely I am to be objective about it, and improve mine. The less I feel that God is going to be mad at me if I get something wrong, the more likely I am to grow and change with new revelation.
I also remind myself that we tend to choose those doctrines that fit our personality, more than those that fit the facts. Fewer intellectuals choose charismaticism than Calvinism, for example, and there are very few charismatic Calvinists (double meaning not intended). It helps me to understand why I see God the way I do, and why others see Him differently than I do. And that helps me to hold my views a little more loosely.
2) Most times another believer's arguments don't really move me. Usually, that is because I have heard those arguments a dozen times. I don't bother to feel very guilty about that. But when someone's arguments do move me, and I begin to see where she or he has a point, I do a little imagining. I see myself as holding this other position, and being very happy that I made the change. I then ask myself what it is about changing that made me happy.
If Confirmation Bias is an emotional thing, then it can best by outwitted by emotions (as Andreia pointed out.) I consciously try to counter-balance my natural aversion to changing my mind by picturing it as already changed and that I am happy with the new position.
So, thank you to Michael Shermer for making me want to talk about this. And thank you to all of you for actually being interested in such esoterica. :-)
22 June, 2006
Sidebar: Changing our Minds
Michael Shermer is a man of strong atheistic convictions. I appreciate and respect that. He is brilliant, but even beyond brilliancy he thinks clearly and clarity is a treasure. Of course, some of his stuff can be hard to read, since he takes Christianity on by name, and pretty aggressively, but that's OK with me. I enjoy his piece every month, and usually learn quite a bit from it.
In his latest Skeptic article for Scientific American, Shermer talks about what it takes to change our minds. (The article will be available at the supplied links about a month from now, I think. They keep their site intentionally behind the paper version for obvious if misguided reasons.)
It is an article about "Confirmation Bias".
[Before I go any further, I am not writing this because I am unhappy with anyone who might not have changed their minds on any subject due to this blog or on any other blog. :-) I am delighted with everyone's comments and input here and everywhere else I frequent. I just want to talk about why we don't change our minds.]
Confirmation Bias is the habit of the human mind to seek and retain facts that confirm what we already believe, and to explain away facts that unsettle that belief. I am a Calvinist, so verses that are clearly anti-Calvinist get the "what he really means is..." treatment from me. We all do this, and I think most of us know that we do it. What we don't know is why we do it.
Shermer's article recounts a scientific experiment that measured the brains of 10 or 20 avid political junkies - half Republican, half Democratic. Both groups were exposed to Bush and Kerry making erroneous statements. The results were as expected. Each agreed with his man, and rejected the other. Boring.
The "man bites dog" part of the story was what the instruments connected to their brains found.
As these junkies listened to their hero and enemy speak, and as they objectively analyzed their gaffs the logical portion of their brains stayed dormant. It was three other systems that were lighting up like Christmas trees. The emotional, conflict resolution, and moral judgement portions were firing on all cylinders. As they logically analyzed the arguments, they never employed logic. They were not deciding between facts, but between 1) feelings, 2) fighting, and 3) whether changing their minds would be immoral.
Doggone, but I recognize those feelings!
Even more, once they reached a conclusion that made them comfortable, their pleasure/reward brain center lit up. They got happy juice from their own brains for confirming what they already believed!
I'm not saying this is something broken in us. God made us this way. I would bet we were this way before the fall, and that we will be this way after the redemption of all things. Confirmation Bias is a good psychological strategy. It keeps you from having to rehash all your beliefs every time some huckster comes along with a good sales pitch. Once you have a truth in your heart, it is going to take some genuine force to get you to abandon it. Confirmation Bias will keep us from following every whim of doctrine.
Still, we are not right about everything, so we need to think about how our minds should change. One thing I note is that the closer we get to the truth, the harder it is for us to make further changes.
Sure, if we believe that God hates poor people, it's easy enough for the facts to overcome our Confirmation Bias. But when you get to things like Calvinism versus Arminianism versus "The Unnamed Truth," you can see how hard a time simple facts can have. Everyone believes a portion of the opponent's arguments, but redefines them by the smallest degree - and the argument is lost.
So, what do we do about it?
It's a little too late for me to give my opinion on that tonight, but I'll hang the question out here for a day or two and look forward to everyone's ideas.
For now, I have to go pay some bills. See ya'll tomorrow!
(Was this post broken last night?)
In his latest Skeptic article for Scientific American, Shermer talks about what it takes to change our minds. (The article will be available at the supplied links about a month from now, I think. They keep their site intentionally behind the paper version for obvious if misguided reasons.)
It is an article about "Confirmation Bias".
[Before I go any further, I am not writing this because I am unhappy with anyone who might not have changed their minds on any subject due to this blog or on any other blog. :-) I am delighted with everyone's comments and input here and everywhere else I frequent. I just want to talk about why we don't change our minds.]
Confirmation Bias is the habit of the human mind to seek and retain facts that confirm what we already believe, and to explain away facts that unsettle that belief. I am a Calvinist, so verses that are clearly anti-Calvinist get the "what he really means is..." treatment from me. We all do this, and I think most of us know that we do it. What we don't know is why we do it.
Shermer's article recounts a scientific experiment that measured the brains of 10 or 20 avid political junkies - half Republican, half Democratic. Both groups were exposed to Bush and Kerry making erroneous statements. The results were as expected. Each agreed with his man, and rejected the other. Boring.
The "man bites dog" part of the story was what the instruments connected to their brains found.
As these junkies listened to their hero and enemy speak, and as they objectively analyzed their gaffs the logical portion of their brains stayed dormant. It was three other systems that were lighting up like Christmas trees. The emotional, conflict resolution, and moral judgement portions were firing on all cylinders. As they logically analyzed the arguments, they never employed logic. They were not deciding between facts, but between 1) feelings, 2) fighting, and 3) whether changing their minds would be immoral.
Doggone, but I recognize those feelings!
Even more, once they reached a conclusion that made them comfortable, their pleasure/reward brain center lit up. They got happy juice from their own brains for confirming what they already believed!
I'm not saying this is something broken in us. God made us this way. I would bet we were this way before the fall, and that we will be this way after the redemption of all things. Confirmation Bias is a good psychological strategy. It keeps you from having to rehash all your beliefs every time some huckster comes along with a good sales pitch. Once you have a truth in your heart, it is going to take some genuine force to get you to abandon it. Confirmation Bias will keep us from following every whim of doctrine.
Still, we are not right about everything, so we need to think about how our minds should change. One thing I note is that the closer we get to the truth, the harder it is for us to make further changes.
Sure, if we believe that God hates poor people, it's easy enough for the facts to overcome our Confirmation Bias. But when you get to things like Calvinism versus Arminianism versus "The Unnamed Truth," you can see how hard a time simple facts can have. Everyone believes a portion of the opponent's arguments, but redefines them by the smallest degree - and the argument is lost.
So, what do we do about it?
It's a little too late for me to give my opinion on that tonight, but I'll hang the question out here for a day or two and look forward to everyone's ideas.
For now, I have to go pay some bills. See ya'll tomorrow!
(Was this post broken last night?)
17 June, 2006
Programming: Bill Gates - the opinions
Most of ya'll are not programmers.
As such, an image like this may not send thrills of terror down your spine. Please understand that for those of us whose very livelihoods depend upon the whims of this man, our reactions may not always be predictable.
Which makes the fact that he is retiring to do charity work a big, big deal. Big enough, even, to make this blog!
Not that I have an actual, meaningful opinion.
Bill leaving is not going to change my life one little bit. Microsoft can hardly become more dominant, and their demise would probably not make anyone's life better, really.
But, if you do have any interest, Joel Spolsky (whom I respect as highly as Steve McConnell, and that is HIGHLY) does have an opinion on the subject. He entitled it, My First BillG Review.
He has this to say about his first meeting directly with the man himself, after having given him a 500 page technical specification the night before.
He was asking questions. I was answering them. They were pretty easy, but I can't for the life of me remember what they were, because I couldn't stop noticing that he was flipping through the spec...
He was flipping through the spec! [Calm down, what are you a little girl?]
... and THERE WERE NOTES IN ALL THE MARGINS. ON EVERY PAGE OF THE SPEC. HE HAD READ THE WHOLE GODDAMNED THING AND WRITTEN NOTES IN THE MARGINS.
He Read The Whole Thing! [OMG SQUEEE!]
Believe me, to do that (and the other things in the article) Mr. Gates had to be a true genius. And in order to make that story interesting, Mr. Spolsky has to be a pretty good author. The whole post is a pretty fun read, if you can enjoy that kind of stuff.
Spolsky has this to say about what Bill really proved in that meeting.
It was a good point. Bill Gates was amazingly technical. He understood Variants, and COM objects, and IDispatch and why Automation is different than vtables and why this might lead to dual interfaces. He worried about date functions. He didn't meddle in software if he trusted the people who were working on it, but you couldn't bullshit him for a minute because he was a programmer. A real, actual, programmer.
My first work as a programmer was freelancing with Java on Netscape on MacIntosh. At the time that I was making a little bit of money to justify the hours I was spending bawling out the screen until it did what I wanted, Mr. Gates was saying, "I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least ten years." Yeah, and while he was saying that, he single-handedly attempted to crush all three of my tools. He succeeded on two of them. (The third one seems to be doing a pretty good job of crushing itself all on its own. ;-)
Mr. Gates was not my favorite person.
Over the years, I have learned to respect him, but I doubt I will miss him much.
As such, an image like this may not send thrills of terror down your spine. Please understand that for those of us whose very livelihoods depend upon the whims of this man, our reactions may not always be predictable.
Which makes the fact that he is retiring to do charity work a big, big deal. Big enough, even, to make this blog!Not that I have an actual, meaningful opinion.
Bill leaving is not going to change my life one little bit. Microsoft can hardly become more dominant, and their demise would probably not make anyone's life better, really.
But, if you do have any interest, Joel Spolsky (whom I respect as highly as Steve McConnell, and that is HIGHLY) does have an opinion on the subject. He entitled it, My First BillG Review.
He has this to say about his first meeting directly with the man himself, after having given him a 500 page technical specification the night before.
He was asking questions. I was answering them. They were pretty easy, but I can't for the life of me remember what they were, because I couldn't stop noticing that he was flipping through the spec...
He was flipping through the spec! [Calm down, what are you a little girl?]
... and THERE WERE NOTES IN ALL THE MARGINS. ON EVERY PAGE OF THE SPEC. HE HAD READ THE WHOLE GODDAMNED THING AND WRITTEN NOTES IN THE MARGINS.
He Read The Whole Thing! [OMG SQUEEE!]
Believe me, to do that (and the other things in the article) Mr. Gates had to be a true genius. And in order to make that story interesting, Mr. Spolsky has to be a pretty good author. The whole post is a pretty fun read, if you can enjoy that kind of stuff.
Spolsky has this to say about what Bill really proved in that meeting.
It was a good point. Bill Gates was amazingly technical. He understood Variants, and COM objects, and IDispatch and why Automation is different than vtables and why this might lead to dual interfaces. He worried about date functions. He didn't meddle in software if he trusted the people who were working on it, but you couldn't bullshit him for a minute because he was a programmer. A real, actual, programmer.
My first work as a programmer was freelancing with Java on Netscape on MacIntosh. At the time that I was making a little bit of money to justify the hours I was spending bawling out the screen until it did what I wanted, Mr. Gates was saying, "I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least ten years." Yeah, and while he was saying that, he single-handedly attempted to crush all three of my tools. He succeeded on two of them. (The third one seems to be doing a pretty good job of crushing itself all on its own. ;-)
Mr. Gates was not my favorite person.
Over the years, I have learned to respect him, but I doubt I will miss him much.
Humor: In every committee...
... there are different jobs that simply must be done.
It's a good thing everyone does their little part so well.
It's a good thing everyone does their little part so well.
The captions are (since they are hard to read, even at full size)
- How the customer explained it.
- How the project manager understood it.
- How the analyst designed it.
- How the programmer wrote it.
- How the Business Consultant described it. (Hehe. The shorthand for Business Consultant is "BS Ksltnt")
- (row 2)
- How the project was documented.
- What operations installed (My job is supervisor of operations, BTW)
- How the customer was billed.
- How is it was supported.
- and finally....
- What the customer really wanted.
It's been around a couple years, but I stumbled across it again, and figured someone else might like it.
15 June, 2006
Father's Day: Disciplining children
OK. This post is opinion-based advice. I wrote it yesterday, but did not hit "Post" until today. There is no science, no scripture, and no rigorous double blind trial to back it up. If it is of some benefit to the reader I'm tickled, but I offer no guarantees of any nature, nor condemnation for those who disagree. I can certify that I am still happy with the way my kids turned out, even after one turned from the Lord immediately following the divorce, and the other has not truly turned toward Him. They are great kids to be around. So, this seems to have worked for me.
---
I sat in a restaurant the other day, with my whole divorced family, and one other family who are friends of my ex. The other family were sweethearts, and being a young couple, they had a 4 year old child. The young man was precocious and charming, and at age 4, quite capable. He had gigantic brown eyes, a cherub's face, and an inquisitive nature. He was a natural delight to be around.
The parents were both quite pleasant as well. I enjoy them both, and enjoyed them that day. When we left the restaurant, though, that little boy was the subject of conversation for a minute between my son and I. I turned our chat quickly to the parents. The boy was fine, but the parents were in need of some verbal kaopectate. Here was the restaurant conversation. We all recognize it:
Quit banging the table. Don't spin your chair like that, it bangs the table. The chair is bothering everyone, son, so don't swing like that. Let's get a chair that doesn't spin. There, isn't that better? You're doing so good! No, you won't like your father's margarita. No, you won't like it. Just put your finger in and see whether you like it. Don't you put your fingers in my drink! Here try it. Don't let him try it! Take a sip. See you don't like it do you. Quick, get your sippy cup and get a drink. Food will be here in a minute. Yes, I know you're hungry. Food will be here in a minute. Take a bite of your hamburger. Let me cut it up. Let me put on ketchup. Take a bite. Yes, it's just how you like it. Yes, you can eat a french fry. Don't just suck the ketchup with your finger. You have to eat the french fries too. There's ketchup on your hamburger. Don't you want your hamburger? If you don't eat your dinner, you won't get any cake. If you don't eat your french fries you won't get any cake. If you don't eat a french fry, you won't get any cake. Yes, that french fry will be enough. You did so good! You ate your french fry. You get to have some cake! ....
I will let you insert the mental pictures and tones as appropriate.
That doesn't bother me. Really. It's been years since I have heard the sounds of children, and I enjoyed watching the show. Sure, I tired of it by the beginning of the second hour, but I tire of watching tennis sometimes too. It's their kid, and their business. If it were my kid I would be a shame laden mess, but it wasn't. All three of them were sweet natured and fun. (I did get anxious when the poor little boy began running laps around the 12 tables closest to us. It was not fair of them to force the other patrons of the restaurant to appreciate their little darling. I made sure we left a 40% tip.)
Some young parents don't want their kids to act like that. If I am ever asked I will give this answer, so I am going to practice it first here in blogland.
The cure is simple, and all you need to remember is one statement.
Don't work to make your children to obey you. Work to make them pay attention to you.
If they are paying true attention to you, the rest will take care of itself. By concentrating on obedience, we make the wrong things our focus.
1) You pay attention to people who surprise you. So will your children.
If they know everything you are going to do and say, they don't really pay attention to you. They are just marking you to make sure you are staying close to expected behavior. Everything this boy's parents said did go in one ear, but it was not really relevant to his desires, so it went right out the other. Instead, he obsessed with his boredom. I think he was really hungry, but he even forgot to eat. Nothing they said or did surprised him, so he just kept playing his self-destructive game.
2) You pay attention to people who say things that matter. So will your children.
I do not advocate punishment, per se. I advocate the natural consequences of decisions. "Oh, if you are not feeling well enough to finish your dinner, then you must need some extra rest. Are you sure you cannot finish dinner? Yes? OK. I will save it for your breakfast, and you can go to bed now. What? You changed your mind? Hmmm. No, you said you were sure. Let's go brush your teeth, and I'll read you a bedtime story." Done this way, Daddy does not have to get angry, so it's a lightweight event that the child will remember for a long, long time. It's a natural consequence of the child's own decision. The cool thing is that I don't need to lecture anyone about how important it is to finish dinner. And I probably won't have to send the child to bed a second time (but if I do it's hardly unpleasant.)
(BTW: The natural consequence of some behaviors is spanking, but those behaviors are rebellious, not simply selfish. Spanking happened, but not terribly often.)
3) You need to have a chance at success. So do your children.
Give them a fair chance! The little buggers still cannot tie their shoes. Acting right in public is much harder for them than tying shoes. Don't ask them to succeed in public situations without real training. Setting the child, and yourself, up for failure is not wise and not profitable.
So, how do you surprise your child, say things that matter to him, and give him a chance to succeed?
Script the training of hard lessons.
It probably won't be too hard to train this precocious little cherub with the bad eating habits. It might be a little more difficult to train the parents. This boy has been taught a lot of unprofitable lessons already, and it's the parents who have been doing the teaching. That's OK. We can overcome that. They can script a situation in which he will succeed, and another in which he will fail.
Our restaurant example is straightforward. The real-world effect of unruly behavior is that wonderful conversations are interrupted, and dinner is not enjoyable. The consequence for causing these bad things should be along the same lines.
First, script a situation in which the child will succeed. Cook his favorite dinner at home, make sure the TV and other distractions are off, and that it's just the three of them at home. Give him a small portion of dinner, and explain that this is a "talking dinner", but that everyone has to take turns. Talk about things that interest him. If he makes it through dinner, then it's time for a talking dessert. If he succeeds at that, then some praise is in order. Overly much praise is a bad thing if they want polite dinners to be a normal thing. They should definitely point out that they saw him succeed, and that they are happy for him, but not gush about it.
Should he fail, then the parents did not set up a careful enough first experience. But, that's OK. The consequence is simple. No more talking. No more favorite dinner. No dessert. The scenario was set up at home, so there's no pressure from the public gaze to worry about. He doesn't have to go to bed, or be in trouble. He simply must excuse himself from the table, and find something else to do.
This will come as a very unpleasant surprise to this child. This has never happened to him before. If there is a lot of talking and explaining before or after the event, then all the work is wasted. The point here is not about eating dinner politely, nor to explain a deep lesson about public meal-sharing to the child. The point is to unsettle him. The point is to show - not tell - that a single instruction given once matters and cannot be ignored.
Most of the time, when a child fails the parents want to pretend that he is "about to fail", and try to coach him through it. This is a mistake. Coach a tiny bit ahead of time, then let the child perform and experience the consequences of his performance. Should he succeed, acknowledge that success. Should he fail, do not lecture. Just quietly, happily enforce the consequences of his decision. Try again tomorrow, and briefly coach again if necessary.
When he has proven that he can succeed, then they must give him the opportunity to fail. The parents should invite some friends over. Talk about things that interest them, and not him. Make the food a little less exciting. He will fail, and they should remind him that he knows how to do this, because he did it the last time and correct him.
If the parents succeed at giving clear instructions, not repeating them, and allowing consequences to happen kindly but immediately, they will notice something truly gratifying. Their child is paying attention to them. The point is not to be harsh or strict, but to say things that matter and to be a little bit surprising. The child will pay attention, or risk missing important matters.
It's easy to be overwhelmed by parenting. It's easy to be pushed beyond our capabilities. It helps, once in a while, to take control of the situation and to work to a known objective, to act instead of react. Have fun!
---
I sat in a restaurant the other day, with my whole divorced family, and one other family who are friends of my ex. The other family were sweethearts, and being a young couple, they had a 4 year old child. The young man was precocious and charming, and at age 4, quite capable. He had gigantic brown eyes, a cherub's face, and an inquisitive nature. He was a natural delight to be around.
The parents were both quite pleasant as well. I enjoy them both, and enjoyed them that day. When we left the restaurant, though, that little boy was the subject of conversation for a minute between my son and I. I turned our chat quickly to the parents. The boy was fine, but the parents were in need of some verbal kaopectate. Here was the restaurant conversation. We all recognize it:
Quit banging the table. Don't spin your chair like that, it bangs the table. The chair is bothering everyone, son, so don't swing like that. Let's get a chair that doesn't spin. There, isn't that better? You're doing so good! No, you won't like your father's margarita. No, you won't like it. Just put your finger in and see whether you like it. Don't you put your fingers in my drink! Here try it. Don't let him try it! Take a sip. See you don't like it do you. Quick, get your sippy cup and get a drink. Food will be here in a minute. Yes, I know you're hungry. Food will be here in a minute. Take a bite of your hamburger. Let me cut it up. Let me put on ketchup. Take a bite. Yes, it's just how you like it. Yes, you can eat a french fry. Don't just suck the ketchup with your finger. You have to eat the french fries too. There's ketchup on your hamburger. Don't you want your hamburger? If you don't eat your dinner, you won't get any cake. If you don't eat your french fries you won't get any cake. If you don't eat a french fry, you won't get any cake. Yes, that french fry will be enough. You did so good! You ate your french fry. You get to have some cake! ....
I will let you insert the mental pictures and tones as appropriate.
That doesn't bother me. Really. It's been years since I have heard the sounds of children, and I enjoyed watching the show. Sure, I tired of it by the beginning of the second hour, but I tire of watching tennis sometimes too. It's their kid, and their business. If it were my kid I would be a shame laden mess, but it wasn't. All three of them were sweet natured and fun. (I did get anxious when the poor little boy began running laps around the 12 tables closest to us. It was not fair of them to force the other patrons of the restaurant to appreciate their little darling. I made sure we left a 40% tip.)
Some young parents don't want their kids to act like that. If I am ever asked I will give this answer, so I am going to practice it first here in blogland.
The cure is simple, and all you need to remember is one statement.
Don't work to make your children to obey you. Work to make them pay attention to you.
If they are paying true attention to you, the rest will take care of itself. By concentrating on obedience, we make the wrong things our focus.
1) You pay attention to people who surprise you. So will your children.
If they know everything you are going to do and say, they don't really pay attention to you. They are just marking you to make sure you are staying close to expected behavior. Everything this boy's parents said did go in one ear, but it was not really relevant to his desires, so it went right out the other. Instead, he obsessed with his boredom. I think he was really hungry, but he even forgot to eat. Nothing they said or did surprised him, so he just kept playing his self-destructive game.
2) You pay attention to people who say things that matter. So will your children.
I do not advocate punishment, per se. I advocate the natural consequences of decisions. "Oh, if you are not feeling well enough to finish your dinner, then you must need some extra rest. Are you sure you cannot finish dinner? Yes? OK. I will save it for your breakfast, and you can go to bed now. What? You changed your mind? Hmmm. No, you said you were sure. Let's go brush your teeth, and I'll read you a bedtime story." Done this way, Daddy does not have to get angry, so it's a lightweight event that the child will remember for a long, long time. It's a natural consequence of the child's own decision. The cool thing is that I don't need to lecture anyone about how important it is to finish dinner. And I probably won't have to send the child to bed a second time (but if I do it's hardly unpleasant.)
(BTW: The natural consequence of some behaviors is spanking, but those behaviors are rebellious, not simply selfish. Spanking happened, but not terribly often.)
3) You need to have a chance at success. So do your children.
Give them a fair chance! The little buggers still cannot tie their shoes. Acting right in public is much harder for them than tying shoes. Don't ask them to succeed in public situations without real training. Setting the child, and yourself, up for failure is not wise and not profitable.
So, how do you surprise your child, say things that matter to him, and give him a chance to succeed?
Script the training of hard lessons.
It probably won't be too hard to train this precocious little cherub with the bad eating habits. It might be a little more difficult to train the parents. This boy has been taught a lot of unprofitable lessons already, and it's the parents who have been doing the teaching. That's OK. We can overcome that. They can script a situation in which he will succeed, and another in which he will fail.
Our restaurant example is straightforward. The real-world effect of unruly behavior is that wonderful conversations are interrupted, and dinner is not enjoyable. The consequence for causing these bad things should be along the same lines.
First, script a situation in which the child will succeed. Cook his favorite dinner at home, make sure the TV and other distractions are off, and that it's just the three of them at home. Give him a small portion of dinner, and explain that this is a "talking dinner", but that everyone has to take turns. Talk about things that interest him. If he makes it through dinner, then it's time for a talking dessert. If he succeeds at that, then some praise is in order. Overly much praise is a bad thing if they want polite dinners to be a normal thing. They should definitely point out that they saw him succeed, and that they are happy for him, but not gush about it.
Should he fail, then the parents did not set up a careful enough first experience. But, that's OK. The consequence is simple. No more talking. No more favorite dinner. No dessert. The scenario was set up at home, so there's no pressure from the public gaze to worry about. He doesn't have to go to bed, or be in trouble. He simply must excuse himself from the table, and find something else to do.
This will come as a very unpleasant surprise to this child. This has never happened to him before. If there is a lot of talking and explaining before or after the event, then all the work is wasted. The point here is not about eating dinner politely, nor to explain a deep lesson about public meal-sharing to the child. The point is to unsettle him. The point is to show - not tell - that a single instruction given once matters and cannot be ignored.
Most of the time, when a child fails the parents want to pretend that he is "about to fail", and try to coach him through it. This is a mistake. Coach a tiny bit ahead of time, then let the child perform and experience the consequences of his performance. Should he succeed, acknowledge that success. Should he fail, do not lecture. Just quietly, happily enforce the consequences of his decision. Try again tomorrow, and briefly coach again if necessary.
When he has proven that he can succeed, then they must give him the opportunity to fail. The parents should invite some friends over. Talk about things that interest them, and not him. Make the food a little less exciting. He will fail, and they should remind him that he knows how to do this, because he did it the last time and correct him.
If the parents succeed at giving clear instructions, not repeating them, and allowing consequences to happen kindly but immediately, they will notice something truly gratifying. Their child is paying attention to them. The point is not to be harsh or strict, but to say things that matter and to be a little bit surprising. The child will pay attention, or risk missing important matters.
It's easy to be overwhelmed by parenting. It's easy to be pushed beyond our capabilities. It helps, once in a while, to take control of the situation and to work to a known objective, to act instead of react. Have fun!
14 June, 2006
Leadership: The Revenge of the Gifts
Corinth had problems.
Corinth had real problems. Sex, eating, legalism, suing each other, messing up the Lord's Supper(!), unintelligible meetings, and some seriously funky doctrines. This was one troubled church!
Paul puts all that off.
From verse 1:2 on, Paul attacks one problem alone. Even as he addresses every other problem, he is really focusing on this one problem. It is first clearly stated in 1:10
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.
What caused the Corinthian church to be divided? For that we go back to verse 7
7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.
And what was the sign of their division?
12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas [Peter]"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Corinth was suffering from gifts poisoning.
I want to focus in on Apollos. Apollos was at the center of this controversy, and Apollos is the only one who could have nipped it in the bud. He failed.
Christ, Paul, and Peter were all gone while this was brewing. The problem was ongoing, so it must have been someone who was still there who was causing it. Knowledge is a huge part of the problem, according to Paul, and that was surely not brought by Peter. We know, though that Apollos was a knowledgeable and eloquent speaker. Apollos was there in Corinth, and preaching away.
By process of clue elimination, we conclude the crime was committed by Apollos, with the candlestick of knowledge, in the parlour of Corinth.
Why?
This is a guess, but I think there is some value to commend it.
Apollos was young. I think he simply made rookie errors. I will concede that the problem is not his youth per se, but that he made youthful errors because he was young. There are definitely some young men who don't make youthful errors, but not more than a couple per generation.
My evidence is scant, but here it is.
1) He was willing to sit and listen under Priscilla. That would be unheard of for the average man (especially one who knew rabinnical tradition), but probably easier for a young man than for an old.
2) When Paul is writing to Titus, Apollos is traveling with Zenas. I get the feeling he is traveling as much as the young men Paul taught in Ephesus. So, I imagine Apollos as maybe 5 years older than Timothy, Titus, and the rest.
3) In chapter 4 of 1 Cor., Paul positions himself as the father of the Corinthian church. This would be hard to do if the person causing the problem were as old as he was. He cannot bring up the fact that Apollos is young, because he is about to send Timothy to help them.
4) The errors made in Corinth by Apollos just seem like those of a man trying to prove himself.
5) Paul does not come down hard on Apollos. He is gracious, as one might be with a young man who had tripped himself up a little bit.
Paul tells us in this book that the gifts are helpful to the church, but potentially dangerous too. Through the gifts we become puffed up, feed our carnality, and forget how weak we were when the Lord found us.
1 Cor 8:1 ... We all possess knowledge. But knowledge puffs up while love builds up.
Paul set an incredible standard in Corinth. He came in weakness, and laid aside great knowledge he could have flaunted. He brought, instead, wisdom and the power of the Spirit. Peter may have done the same. It's impossible to know. But someone was flaunting his knowledge, or Paul would not have made such a big deal of correcting the mistake.
1 Cor 3
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person's work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
(I know a lot of people assume that this passage is talking about the judgement seat of Christ, but it makes gobs more sense if Paul is talking about the building of the church, and the "fire" is the trial of division.)
When we connect the knowledge problem back to this passage, we see knowledge in the wood, hay, and stubble. Brilliant persuasion is just so much straw, ready to be burnt when the fire of trial comes. Building with knowledge is especially an error of youth, too. Haven't you ever seen children build? They want to build with whatever is quickest. They build with sand, because it takes forever to find good clay. They build with twigs because lumber can only be cut to size with a saw. You can just break a stick, and get on with it.
The young worker in the gospel tells people what they ought to do, because that is so much quicker than going through the suffering alongside them. He gives great advice, because that way he doesn't have to get involved, and "They need to find the answer for themselves anyway." The older worker sits down quietly and suffers with a brother, for years if necessary.
I believe Paul had respect for Apollos, and that Apollos went on to be a profitable worker for the gospel. If this were not true, Paul would not have been calling for him in his old age. Here, though, Apollos was the young, gifted worker bringing destruction along with all his gifts.
---
Now, to tie all this back to the good ol' leadership posts of May (has it really been that long :-? )
The things that matter in the church are the matters of real life. Caring for each other, for widows, orphans, single moms, and children with one parent. Living life with sound faith, love and endurance. To that end, wisdom is needed. The old cowboys say that judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from a lack of judgement. Just so, it takes some years to get wisdom.
So, our leaders need to have some years behind them.
The gifts are given to the young and old alike, and it is tempting to let the young exercise their gifts for the Lord. It is tempting, but its not wise. Let them exercise their gifts in small ways until they have proven themselves in the teenage years of their kids, or in some equivalent way. Hand the church to them later. It will still be there.
We have enough seminary grads. Praise the Lord for the knowledge to be gained from seminary, but we need something much, much, much more badly.
The church needs men who know how to love their wives and children through the hard times. Men who know how to build relationships and bridges when those relationships are dying. Men who know that the sister weeping in the back row is more important than whether she believes that the Trinity is three persons in one nature.
Apollos was well and truly gifted. His heart was right. He grew into a profitable servant. He may even have been sent by Paul to Corinth for the particular of ministering to Corinth's needs. But something betrayed him, and youth is the best candidate.
Let your young men get a job and raise a family.
(Oh, I said I would mention apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers:
Apostles teach groups of people to be churches.
Prophets teach churches what God is saying.
Evangelists teach those who don't know Him Who the Lord is.
Pastors teach saints how to survive the lean winters and droughts.
and
Teachers teach everything else.
It's all just teaching to me.)
Corinth had real problems. Sex, eating, legalism, suing each other, messing up the Lord's Supper(!), unintelligible meetings, and some seriously funky doctrines. This was one troubled church!
Paul puts all that off.
From verse 1:2 on, Paul attacks one problem alone. Even as he addresses every other problem, he is really focusing on this one problem. It is first clearly stated in 1:10
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.
What caused the Corinthian church to be divided? For that we go back to verse 7
7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.
And what was the sign of their division?
12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas [Peter]"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Corinth was suffering from gifts poisoning.
I want to focus in on Apollos. Apollos was at the center of this controversy, and Apollos is the only one who could have nipped it in the bud. He failed.
Christ, Paul, and Peter were all gone while this was brewing. The problem was ongoing, so it must have been someone who was still there who was causing it. Knowledge is a huge part of the problem, according to Paul, and that was surely not brought by Peter. We know, though that Apollos was a knowledgeable and eloquent speaker. Apollos was there in Corinth, and preaching away.
By process of clue elimination, we conclude the crime was committed by Apollos, with the candlestick of knowledge, in the parlour of Corinth.
Why?
This is a guess, but I think there is some value to commend it.
Apollos was young. I think he simply made rookie errors. I will concede that the problem is not his youth per se, but that he made youthful errors because he was young. There are definitely some young men who don't make youthful errors, but not more than a couple per generation.
My evidence is scant, but here it is.
1) He was willing to sit and listen under Priscilla. That would be unheard of for the average man (especially one who knew rabinnical tradition), but probably easier for a young man than for an old.
2) When Paul is writing to Titus, Apollos is traveling with Zenas. I get the feeling he is traveling as much as the young men Paul taught in Ephesus. So, I imagine Apollos as maybe 5 years older than Timothy, Titus, and the rest.
3) In chapter 4 of 1 Cor., Paul positions himself as the father of the Corinthian church. This would be hard to do if the person causing the problem were as old as he was. He cannot bring up the fact that Apollos is young, because he is about to send Timothy to help them.
4) The errors made in Corinth by Apollos just seem like those of a man trying to prove himself.
5) Paul does not come down hard on Apollos. He is gracious, as one might be with a young man who had tripped himself up a little bit.
Paul tells us in this book that the gifts are helpful to the church, but potentially dangerous too. Through the gifts we become puffed up, feed our carnality, and forget how weak we were when the Lord found us.
1 Cor 8:1 ... We all possess knowledge. But knowledge puffs up while love builds up.
Paul set an incredible standard in Corinth. He came in weakness, and laid aside great knowledge he could have flaunted. He brought, instead, wisdom and the power of the Spirit. Peter may have done the same. It's impossible to know. But someone was flaunting his knowledge, or Paul would not have made such a big deal of correcting the mistake.
1 Cor 3
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person's work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
(I know a lot of people assume that this passage is talking about the judgement seat of Christ, but it makes gobs more sense if Paul is talking about the building of the church, and the "fire" is the trial of division.)
When we connect the knowledge problem back to this passage, we see knowledge in the wood, hay, and stubble. Brilliant persuasion is just so much straw, ready to be burnt when the fire of trial comes. Building with knowledge is especially an error of youth, too. Haven't you ever seen children build? They want to build with whatever is quickest. They build with sand, because it takes forever to find good clay. They build with twigs because lumber can only be cut to size with a saw. You can just break a stick, and get on with it.
The young worker in the gospel tells people what they ought to do, because that is so much quicker than going through the suffering alongside them. He gives great advice, because that way he doesn't have to get involved, and "They need to find the answer for themselves anyway." The older worker sits down quietly and suffers with a brother, for years if necessary.
I believe Paul had respect for Apollos, and that Apollos went on to be a profitable worker for the gospel. If this were not true, Paul would not have been calling for him in his old age. Here, though, Apollos was the young, gifted worker bringing destruction along with all his gifts.
---
Now, to tie all this back to the good ol' leadership posts of May (has it really been that long :-? )
The things that matter in the church are the matters of real life. Caring for each other, for widows, orphans, single moms, and children with one parent. Living life with sound faith, love and endurance. To that end, wisdom is needed. The old cowboys say that judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from a lack of judgement. Just so, it takes some years to get wisdom.
So, our leaders need to have some years behind them.
The gifts are given to the young and old alike, and it is tempting to let the young exercise their gifts for the Lord. It is tempting, but its not wise. Let them exercise their gifts in small ways until they have proven themselves in the teenage years of their kids, or in some equivalent way. Hand the church to them later. It will still be there.
We have enough seminary grads. Praise the Lord for the knowledge to be gained from seminary, but we need something much, much, much more badly.
The church needs men who know how to love their wives and children through the hard times. Men who know how to build relationships and bridges when those relationships are dying. Men who know that the sister weeping in the back row is more important than whether she believes that the Trinity is three persons in one nature.
Apollos was well and truly gifted. His heart was right. He grew into a profitable servant. He may even have been sent by Paul to Corinth for the particular of ministering to Corinth's needs. But something betrayed him, and youth is the best candidate.
Let your young men get a job and raise a family.
(Oh, I said I would mention apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers:
Apostles teach groups of people to be churches.
Prophets teach churches what God is saying.
Evangelists teach those who don't know Him Who the Lord is.
Pastors teach saints how to survive the lean winters and droughts.
and
Teachers teach everything else.
It's all just teaching to me.)
13 June, 2006
DVC: The Role of Women in the Church
It's funny how things work out.
Our pastor is our small group leader. He is taking us through the Da Vinci Code rebuttal by Josh McDowell and some other guy. He is on vacation this week, but the group decided to go on with the class in his absence, and to have me lead it. That's all pleasant, if surprising.
The funny thing is that for the week the pastor is out, we are covering the chapter on the role of women in the church according to Dan Brown.
The pastor knows I am an egalitarian, so there's no ambush in the works. It's just odd, because this is one of the two subjects in DVC with which I have some sympathy. I think Dan Brown hit on a couple of valid points, and this is one of them. He twists it beyond any profitable level, but that's not a surprise.
---
I think that one of the reasons the DVC discussions in most churches are kind of flat is that we don't see them as pertinent to our situation. To that end, I intend to bring a little "currentness" to the subject with these quotes, then let Josh McDowell take over.
Tertullian is known as the first of the Latin church fathers. I know precious little about him, but he did have this to say about women:
Do you not know that each of you is an Eve? God's sentence on your gender lives even in our times, and so it is necessary that the guilt must also continue. You are the one who opened the devil's door; you unseated the forbidden tree; you first betrayed the divine law; you are the one who enticed him whom the devil was too weak to attack. How easily you destroyed man, the image of God! Because of the death which you brought upon us, even the Son of God had to die.
The old church fathers are not alone in their views that women should have a limited role in the church:
Together for the Gospel conference Article XVI
We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical distinction of roles excludes women from meaningful minstry in Christ's kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.
I don't imagine you can have been a blog reader for long, and not know Grudem and Piper. Here is a statement of theirs answering the question in bold:
Are men and women equally in the image of God?
Some have answered in the negative because of Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 11:7, "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."
I agree with C. K. Barrett that "in this context Paul values the term image only as leading to the term glory." The reference to "image" is incidental to Paul's purpose, and therefore not mentioned with respect to woman; but it notifies his readers of the Old Testament basis for saying that man is the glory of God, "glory" and "image" being roughly, but not entirely, synonymous.
I have not searched out harsh statements, but only the limits that are currently being discussed.
But, lest it appear that the church fathers all believed women should be relegated to the confessional, let me quote this from Jerome (HT: Suzanne's Bookshelf.) He is writing to Paula, who has been his comfort, friend and muse in the Lord for many, many years. She was the driving force behind many or all of his works, and he dedicates many of them to her.
There are people, O Paula and Eustochium, who take offence at seeing your names at the beginning of my works. These people do not know that Olda [Huldah] prophesied when the men were mute, that while Barak trembled, Deborah saved Israel, that Judith and Esther delivered from supreme peril the children of God. I pass over in silence Anna and Elizabeth and the other holy women of the Gospel, but humble stars when compared with the great luminary, Mary.
Shall I speak now of the illustrious women among the heathen? Does not Plato have Aspasia speak in his dialogues? Does not Sappho hold the lyre at the same time as Alcaeus and Pindar? Did not Themista philosophize with the sages of Greece? And the mother of the Gracchi, your Cornelia, daughter of Cato, wife of Brutus, before whom pale the austere virtue of the father and the courage of the husband --are they not the pride of the whole of Rome? I shall add but one word more. Was it not to women that Our Lord appeared after His resurrection? Yes, and the men could then blush for not having sought what women had found
---
Hopefully, after those quotes, everyone will be a little more interested in what McDowell has to say on the subject.
Our pastor is our small group leader. He is taking us through the Da Vinci Code rebuttal by Josh McDowell and some other guy. He is on vacation this week, but the group decided to go on with the class in his absence, and to have me lead it. That's all pleasant, if surprising.
The funny thing is that for the week the pastor is out, we are covering the chapter on the role of women in the church according to Dan Brown.
The pastor knows I am an egalitarian, so there's no ambush in the works. It's just odd, because this is one of the two subjects in DVC with which I have some sympathy. I think Dan Brown hit on a couple of valid points, and this is one of them. He twists it beyond any profitable level, but that's not a surprise.
---
I think that one of the reasons the DVC discussions in most churches are kind of flat is that we don't see them as pertinent to our situation. To that end, I intend to bring a little "currentness" to the subject with these quotes, then let Josh McDowell take over.
Tertullian is known as the first of the Latin church fathers. I know precious little about him, but he did have this to say about women:
Do you not know that each of you is an Eve? God's sentence on your gender lives even in our times, and so it is necessary that the guilt must also continue. You are the one who opened the devil's door; you unseated the forbidden tree; you first betrayed the divine law; you are the one who enticed him whom the devil was too weak to attack. How easily you destroyed man, the image of God! Because of the death which you brought upon us, even the Son of God had to die.
The old church fathers are not alone in their views that women should have a limited role in the church:
Together for the Gospel conference Article XVI
We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical distinction of roles excludes women from meaningful minstry in Christ's kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.
I don't imagine you can have been a blog reader for long, and not know Grudem and Piper. Here is a statement of theirs answering the question in bold:
Are men and women equally in the image of God?
Some have answered in the negative because of Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 11:7, "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."
I agree with C. K. Barrett that "in this context Paul values the term image only as leading to the term glory." The reference to "image" is incidental to Paul's purpose, and therefore not mentioned with respect to woman; but it notifies his readers of the Old Testament basis for saying that man is the glory of God, "glory" and "image" being roughly, but not entirely, synonymous.
I have not searched out harsh statements, but only the limits that are currently being discussed.
But, lest it appear that the church fathers all believed women should be relegated to the confessional, let me quote this from Jerome (HT: Suzanne's Bookshelf.) He is writing to Paula, who has been his comfort, friend and muse in the Lord for many, many years. She was the driving force behind many or all of his works, and he dedicates many of them to her.
There are people, O Paula and Eustochium, who take offence at seeing your names at the beginning of my works. These people do not know that Olda [Huldah] prophesied when the men were mute, that while Barak trembled, Deborah saved Israel, that Judith and Esther delivered from supreme peril the children of God. I pass over in silence Anna and Elizabeth and the other holy women of the Gospel, but humble stars when compared with the great luminary, Mary.
Shall I speak now of the illustrious women among the heathen? Does not Plato have Aspasia speak in his dialogues? Does not Sappho hold the lyre at the same time as Alcaeus and Pindar? Did not Themista philosophize with the sages of Greece? And the mother of the Gracchi, your Cornelia, daughter of Cato, wife of Brutus, before whom pale the austere virtue of the father and the courage of the husband --are they not the pride of the whole of Rome? I shall add but one word more. Was it not to women that Our Lord appeared after His resurrection? Yes, and the men could then blush for not having sought what women had found
---
Hopefully, after those quotes, everyone will be a little more interested in what McDowell has to say on the subject.
11 June, 2006
Tennis: Nadal prevails
That will be the headline all over the world. If you believe that headline, you either did not see the match, or you have never played tennis.
Federer crumbled.
Go back with me to the second game of the second set. The score is 6-1, 0-1, 40-Love - Federer. When Federer wins the next point, he will be on serve and still rolling. His serve is brilliant, and it takes Nadal by surprise. Nadal hits back a stab return - it's a deep floater, a great defensive return. The ball lands somewhere near the baseline. The back line judge calls it out, giving Federer the game. Federer looks at the mark, and has the point taken back off the scoreboard. The ball did touch the back of the baseline, and Federer has the point replayed. It was not clear to me whether Federer initiated the overrule, or whether he merely graciously conceded it, but he was at the baseline ready to serve again immediately. No argument.
He lost the next 5 points, lost the game, and lost the match.
How did that happen, you ask?
A mind is a funny, fragile thing, even Roger's. At 40-Love (do over) he shanked a backhand or some such. At 40-15, he tossed in a brilliant serve, followed it to the net, and netted a gimme volley from 5 feet away. I said it, and then MacEnroe said it. Lacadaisical, lazy, loose. Federer was playing the game as if it were already over, and waiting for Nadal to hand it to him. That is always a huge mistake, but against Nadal it is - and was - fatal.
So, he got a little frustrated with himself.
He hit a forehand long.
Suddenly, Nadal smelled blood, and Federer watched him hit a true winner. The game ended on a Federer error. I may be wrong about details regarding everything except the volley at 40-15. He was playing a game that he had already won once, and waiting for it to fall into his lap. He never expected the first set to be so easy, and the second set seemed well in hand. He got complacent.
Suddenly, (I keep saying that word, because that's how it is, and that's how it was) Federer had more unforced errors than winners, and then suddenly he had twice as many unforced winners as errors.
Suddenly, his backhand was gone.
The whole left side of his game came undone. For the next two sets, everything hit to his backhand was either hit safely down the middle of the court, or it missed. The man has hit millions of backhands. This is not an issue of training or skill. In the first set (of which I only saw the last game) Federer was punishing Nadal with that backhand. It was the center of his strategy. In the second set, after giving that point back, his backhand was unreliable.
---
And a word to MacEnroe here. "Shut up you moron!"
OK. That's overstated. But MacEnroe seemed to have no idea that Federer was really doing exactly what he should be doing. Mac wanted Federer to start slicing his backhand (a safer shot) and playing closer to the baseline. Yeah. No duh. If his hands were still connected to his brain, Federer could do that very thing. But when his mind has checked out, he needs to actually play the points. Federer's strategy was a winning one. Changing it to a losing strategy was not really the right answer. Slicing the ball back worked on Nalbandian, because Nalbandian is not Nadal. Nadal drools when he sees spins that would mess up Nalbandian's timing. Federer did eventually start doing the Johnny Mac thing, and it didn't help a bit. I did not see the end of the match, but I hope John repented of his bad advice. (Speaking of which, I did not hear the final summaries of the action from any of the announcers. If anyone did, let me know what they thought of the match. If they don't agree with me, they are wrong, but it would be interesting. :-)
I will now resume loving Johnny Mac again. He usually gives a great commentary, and at least he offers real opinions.
---
When the throttle has closed inside your throat, and you are deep in a full-blown choke, your hands do things that they should never do. On one particular point last week, I had single-handedly hit three brilliant shots that ended up lining my opponents up on their left side of their court. Out of desparation, they hit the ball straight at me, but my ball was low and slow, so they could not do enough with it. I had a sitter in my wheelhouse, and about 300 square feet of open court to hit. I 8 inches wide. 8 inches. My hand was just disconnected from my brain. The signals were getting messed up somewhere along the way. My form was good. My strategy was good. My reflexes were good. My contact point was good. But my hand aimed 8 inches wide, instead of 5 feet in.
And that is why I love tennis.
There is no other sport that appeals to me like tennis. It is the perfect blend of physical, mental, and emotional. There were 230 points in today's match, so maybe each player struck the ball 800 times over the course of about 3 hours. 800 times you must react to your opponent's shot, control your emotions, choose a strategy in a split second, alter it to account for your current level of fear, then execute it with as much precision as you dare. And any one swing of the racket can turn the match either way. The pressure is astounding. It plays into every strength and weakness of my personality, and I love everything about it.
They said today that Federer could successfully play ping-pong ball before he could see over the table. When a man like that can make the same mistakes I make, it makes it easier for me to forgive myself.
So, thank you, Roger. If you can come back from this, and storm Wimbledon, you will give us all hope.
My prediction:
This is not the first match Roger Federer has ever lost. He knows what went wrong, and he will train against it for another year. He will take Nadal at the French next year.
Federer crumbled.
Go back with me to the second game of the second set. The score is 6-1, 0-1, 40-Love - Federer. When Federer wins the next point, he will be on serve and still rolling. His serve is brilliant, and it takes Nadal by surprise. Nadal hits back a stab return - it's a deep floater, a great defensive return. The ball lands somewhere near the baseline. The back line judge calls it out, giving Federer the game. Federer looks at the mark, and has the point taken back off the scoreboard. The ball did touch the back of the baseline, and Federer has the point replayed. It was not clear to me whether Federer initiated the overrule, or whether he merely graciously conceded it, but he was at the baseline ready to serve again immediately. No argument.
He lost the next 5 points, lost the game, and lost the match.
How did that happen, you ask?
A mind is a funny, fragile thing, even Roger's. At 40-Love (do over) he shanked a backhand or some such. At 40-15, he tossed in a brilliant serve, followed it to the net, and netted a gimme volley from 5 feet away. I said it, and then MacEnroe said it. Lacadaisical, lazy, loose. Federer was playing the game as if it were already over, and waiting for Nadal to hand it to him. That is always a huge mistake, but against Nadal it is - and was - fatal.
So, he got a little frustrated with himself.
He hit a forehand long.
Suddenly, Nadal smelled blood, and Federer watched him hit a true winner. The game ended on a Federer error. I may be wrong about details regarding everything except the volley at 40-15. He was playing a game that he had already won once, and waiting for it to fall into his lap. He never expected the first set to be so easy, and the second set seemed well in hand. He got complacent.
Suddenly, (I keep saying that word, because that's how it is, and that's how it was) Federer had more unforced errors than winners, and then suddenly he had twice as many unforced winners as errors.
Suddenly, his backhand was gone.
The whole left side of his game came undone. For the next two sets, everything hit to his backhand was either hit safely down the middle of the court, or it missed. The man has hit millions of backhands. This is not an issue of training or skill. In the first set (of which I only saw the last game) Federer was punishing Nadal with that backhand. It was the center of his strategy. In the second set, after giving that point back, his backhand was unreliable.
---
And a word to MacEnroe here. "Shut up you moron!"
OK. That's overstated. But MacEnroe seemed to have no idea that Federer was really doing exactly what he should be doing. Mac wanted Federer to start slicing his backhand (a safer shot) and playing closer to the baseline. Yeah. No duh. If his hands were still connected to his brain, Federer could do that very thing. But when his mind has checked out, he needs to actually play the points. Federer's strategy was a winning one. Changing it to a losing strategy was not really the right answer. Slicing the ball back worked on Nalbandian, because Nalbandian is not Nadal. Nadal drools when he sees spins that would mess up Nalbandian's timing. Federer did eventually start doing the Johnny Mac thing, and it didn't help a bit. I did not see the end of the match, but I hope John repented of his bad advice. (Speaking of which, I did not hear the final summaries of the action from any of the announcers. If anyone did, let me know what they thought of the match. If they don't agree with me, they are wrong, but it would be interesting. :-)
I will now resume loving Johnny Mac again. He usually gives a great commentary, and at least he offers real opinions.
---
When the throttle has closed inside your throat, and you are deep in a full-blown choke, your hands do things that they should never do. On one particular point last week, I had single-handedly hit three brilliant shots that ended up lining my opponents up on their left side of their court. Out of desparation, they hit the ball straight at me, but my ball was low and slow, so they could not do enough with it. I had a sitter in my wheelhouse, and about 300 square feet of open court to hit. I 8 inches wide. 8 inches. My hand was just disconnected from my brain. The signals were getting messed up somewhere along the way. My form was good. My strategy was good. My reflexes were good. My contact point was good. But my hand aimed 8 inches wide, instead of 5 feet in.
And that is why I love tennis.
There is no other sport that appeals to me like tennis. It is the perfect blend of physical, mental, and emotional. There were 230 points in today's match, so maybe each player struck the ball 800 times over the course of about 3 hours. 800 times you must react to your opponent's shot, control your emotions, choose a strategy in a split second, alter it to account for your current level of fear, then execute it with as much precision as you dare. And any one swing of the racket can turn the match either way. The pressure is astounding. It plays into every strength and weakness of my personality, and I love everything about it.
They said today that Federer could successfully play ping-pong ball before he could see over the table. When a man like that can make the same mistakes I make, it makes it easier for me to forgive myself.
So, thank you, Roger. If you can come back from this, and storm Wimbledon, you will give us all hope.
My prediction:
This is not the first match Roger Federer has ever lost. He knows what went wrong, and he will train against it for another year. He will take Nadal at the French next year.
Church: Which 1st Century Church
I offer you 2 visions of the early church. Which do you think is closer to the truth?
Small beginnings
In this view, the apostles planted the first few, primitive churches as seeds from which the kingdom of God could grow. Those churches were just like a seed. In them was the miracle of life, and all the stuff of the full grown tree, but they didn't look like the tree at all.
Expect huge changes between the early church, and the church in our age. God planned it that way.
Highest expression
In this view, the apostles were given third-heaven visions of the core pattern of the church, and they replicated it on earth. They brought to earth an eternal pattern, and implemented the body of Christ in a way that could never before have been imagined. Furthermore, they implemented it in a way that has been lost. All the things the apostles built into the church were lost over the next 200 years by the men who followed after them. Those were good men, but they lacked the vision of the church that men like Paul received from directly from God. The next 20 centuries have been spent trying to regain the beauty and glory of those first few decades.
Expect to see the church experience a big decline over the first couple centuries after the deaths of the apostles, then a slow climb back up to the original glory.
What do you think?
Is the church growing and expanding from a seed, or attempting to restore itself to the heights of 60 AD?
Small beginnings
In this view, the apostles planted the first few, primitive churches as seeds from which the kingdom of God could grow. Those churches were just like a seed. In them was the miracle of life, and all the stuff of the full grown tree, but they didn't look like the tree at all.
Expect huge changes between the early church, and the church in our age. God planned it that way.
Highest expression
In this view, the apostles were given third-heaven visions of the core pattern of the church, and they replicated it on earth. They brought to earth an eternal pattern, and implemented the body of Christ in a way that could never before have been imagined. Furthermore, they implemented it in a way that has been lost. All the things the apostles built into the church were lost over the next 200 years by the men who followed after them. Those were good men, but they lacked the vision of the church that men like Paul received from directly from God. The next 20 centuries have been spent trying to regain the beauty and glory of those first few decades.
Expect to see the church experience a big decline over the first couple centuries after the deaths of the apostles, then a slow climb back up to the original glory.
What do you think?
Is the church growing and expanding from a seed, or attempting to restore itself to the heights of 60 AD?
10 June, 2006
Tennis: Things are good
Federer v. Nadal 2006 - Episode 3
Tennis fans everywhere got the dream match of all time. Federer is through after an ugly first set against Nalbandian, and only playing 3. So he is fresh and angry. Nadal took his match in 3 outright, so he is fresh and hungry. Will Federer consolidate all 4 Grand Slam cups in one trophy room, or will Nadal keep a perfect lifetime record at Roland Garros, a perfect year on clay, extend his winning streak on clay to 60, and his record in clay finals against the #1 player in the world to 3.
Federer in 4. It will never really be close.
Federer was probing Nadal, looking for how to beat him. The probing is over. This is a major. He comes out angry and firing. Paul Henri Matthieu showed us all how to beat Nadal. Pin him to his backhand with shallow, wicked angles, come in every chance you get, and hit your put-aways to his forehand wing.
Nadal is talking about staying back against the Federer forehand. I don't know if I believe him. But, either way, Federer will creep in as close as he can to the baseline, attack the shortest, harshest angles he can, and keep the heat on.
As for me, I exercised my demons from last week.
Last week we were up 6-4, 4-0 when my partner pulled a calf muscle. I think I already told the story, so I'll hush up about it. But the bottom line is that my mental fragility took me hostage again. I did the opposite of elevate my game - suckify? Putridate? Whatever, it was painful.
This week it was 6-0, 6-0, and in the bonus sets since we had some free time it was 6-1, 6-0. I could apologize that these opponents were not as good as the first ones, but I can lose against anyone. A choker can always lose. It didn't happen.
I love playing grimly. It's my favorite feeling out there. Today was grimmmmmmmm.
We'll see what next week holds,
...and tomorrow.
Tennis fans everywhere got the dream match of all time. Federer is through after an ugly first set against Nalbandian, and only playing 3. So he is fresh and angry. Nadal took his match in 3 outright, so he is fresh and hungry. Will Federer consolidate all 4 Grand Slam cups in one trophy room, or will Nadal keep a perfect lifetime record at Roland Garros, a perfect year on clay, extend his winning streak on clay to 60, and his record in clay finals against the #1 player in the world to 3.
Federer in 4. It will never really be close.
Federer was probing Nadal, looking for how to beat him. The probing is over. This is a major. He comes out angry and firing. Paul Henri Matthieu showed us all how to beat Nadal. Pin him to his backhand with shallow, wicked angles, come in every chance you get, and hit your put-aways to his forehand wing.
Nadal is talking about staying back against the Federer forehand. I don't know if I believe him. But, either way, Federer will creep in as close as he can to the baseline, attack the shortest, harshest angles he can, and keep the heat on.
As for me, I exercised my demons from last week.
Last week we were up 6-4, 4-0 when my partner pulled a calf muscle. I think I already told the story, so I'll hush up about it. But the bottom line is that my mental fragility took me hostage again. I did the opposite of elevate my game - suckify? Putridate? Whatever, it was painful.
This week it was 6-0, 6-0, and in the bonus sets since we had some free time it was 6-1, 6-0. I could apologize that these opponents were not as good as the first ones, but I can lose against anyone. A choker can always lose. It didn't happen.
I love playing grimly. It's my favorite feeling out there. Today was grimmmmmmmm.
We'll see what next week holds,
...and tomorrow.
09 June, 2006
Sidebar: Feelings at church
A couple of things conspired to bring a question to the top of my mind.
The first is that I lost the first tennis match of the season on Saturday. I think I lost because I tried to control my feelings. When you are as emotional a person as I am, that is usually a recipe for disaster. Every single time I try to "control" my feelings, I end up submerging most of "me". I played horribly, and I think it is because I was trying to be a Borg (I'll let you decide which Borg I mean.)
As I cogitated on this, I inevitably drifted back to society and church. I will make two blanket statements, and ignore the exceptions. In society, the accepted public emotion is laughter. We are Americans, and we enjoy people who are entertained and entertaining. In the church, the accepted public emotion is joy.
In either society or church, you are only narrowly allowed to express other feelings, as long as you narrarate the feeling, rather than feel it. The accepted emotions are allowed to come out and play, but the other emotions have to be seen through the window. (Picture a family with 8 kids. One of them is on the front lawn, playing with friends, while the others are in the house staring out the front window.) You can tell about feeling anger, or desire, or fear, or love, or despair, or daring but you cannot actually feel them with your brothers and sisters.
What do you think? Do I have a point here, and if so is it, good or bad?
The first is that I lost the first tennis match of the season on Saturday. I think I lost because I tried to control my feelings. When you are as emotional a person as I am, that is usually a recipe for disaster. Every single time I try to "control" my feelings, I end up submerging most of "me". I played horribly, and I think it is because I was trying to be a Borg (I'll let you decide which Borg I mean.)
As I cogitated on this, I inevitably drifted back to society and church. I will make two blanket statements, and ignore the exceptions. In society, the accepted public emotion is laughter. We are Americans, and we enjoy people who are entertained and entertaining. In the church, the accepted public emotion is joy.
In either society or church, you are only narrowly allowed to express other feelings, as long as you narrarate the feeling, rather than feel it. The accepted emotions are allowed to come out and play, but the other emotions have to be seen through the window. (Picture a family with 8 kids. One of them is on the front lawn, playing with friends, while the others are in the house staring out the front window.) You can tell about feeling anger, or desire, or fear, or love, or despair, or daring but you cannot actually feel them with your brothers and sisters.
What do you think? Do I have a point here, and if so is it, good or bad?
08 June, 2006
Tennis: Tomorrow
Nadal blows through Ljubicic. Ljubicic is good, but Nadal is a clay court monster.
Federer has a harder time with Nalbandian. He actually has a losing record against Nalbandian, so this is no stretch. But I have to believe that he is able to master himself and make it through to Sunday.
Federer has a harder time with Nalbandian. He actually has a losing record against Nalbandian, so this is no stretch. But I have to believe that he is able to master himself and make it through to Sunday.
Tennis: Henin is through :-(
Cljisters is out.
Henin-Hardenne will now play Kuznetsova. Nobody expects a match, and I have to agree. Kuznetsova has a very tight, compact game. She hits everything close and hard. Henin should be able to stretch her out, pull her from her comfort zone, and dissect her.
I saw the end of the second set of the Cljisters match, and she was just overplayed. She was hitting the ball like a noble warrior who knows it's over.
Saturday, Kuznetsova will need to do the same thing Cljisters did, but without flinching. Cljisters was striking the ball hard and aggresively, but she was tentative at the wrong moments. That is a result of Henin's mixing up of every point, and her great defensive skills. On one point Cljisters pounded a ball deep to Henin's forehand, and she got to it. She barely got to it, but it was a clay court so she got that extra half-second that made it possible to get there. Cljisters could not have hit the ball any deeper, and harder, or any wider and it was still not enough. So, on her next shot she pulled off a little bit. That's all it takes.
Kuznetsova will need to have nerves of steel to keep striking the ball violently, even after Henin barely gets to them and wins points. If she has a day with those kinds of nerves, she might can maybe win but the odds are not with her.
A good all-court game beats a power hitter more times than not.
I know, I know. If that's so true, then where's Hingis? Hingis has not spent the time in the weight room that Henin has. The power hitters cannot blow Henin off the court like they can Hingis. (Remember, I said a "good" all court game.) Hingis has a definite weakness against power, and it keeps on costing her - dangit.
Henin should win. Henin deserves to win. I like Henin's game much, much better than anyone else's on the tour. I hope Kuznetsova demolishes her.
Henin-Hardenne will now play Kuznetsova. Nobody expects a match, and I have to agree. Kuznetsova has a very tight, compact game. She hits everything close and hard. Henin should be able to stretch her out, pull her from her comfort zone, and dissect her.
I saw the end of the second set of the Cljisters match, and she was just overplayed. She was hitting the ball like a noble warrior who knows it's over.
Saturday, Kuznetsova will need to do the same thing Cljisters did, but without flinching. Cljisters was striking the ball hard and aggresively, but she was tentative at the wrong moments. That is a result of Henin's mixing up of every point, and her great defensive skills. On one point Cljisters pounded a ball deep to Henin's forehand, and she got to it. She barely got to it, but it was a clay court so she got that extra half-second that made it possible to get there. Cljisters could not have hit the ball any deeper, and harder, or any wider and it was still not enough. So, on her next shot she pulled off a little bit. That's all it takes.
Kuznetsova will need to have nerves of steel to keep striking the ball violently, even after Henin barely gets to them and wins points. If she has a day with those kinds of nerves, she might can maybe win but the odds are not with her.
A good all-court game beats a power hitter more times than not.
I know, I know. If that's so true, then where's Hingis? Hingis has not spent the time in the weight room that Henin has. The power hitters cannot blow Henin off the court like they can Hingis. (Remember, I said a "good" all court game.) Hingis has a definite weakness against power, and it keeps on costing her - dangit.
Henin should win. Henin deserves to win. I like Henin's game much, much better than anyone else's on the tour. I hope Kuznetsova demolishes her.
07 June, 2006
Reflection: Psalm 118 - "This is the Day" revisited
That Very Day
That very day
That very day
Christ rose from the grave
Christ rose from the grave
We will rejoice
We will rejoice and be glad in it
And be glad in it
Just for that day our Friend was sent
He ushered us into His presence
That very day
That very day
That the Lord has made
He took our side
He took our side
And He stood with us
And He stood with us
He is our Strength
He is our Strength and Deliverer
Our Deliverer
Our enemies gathered 'round to scoff
His Name prevailed and we cut them off
He took our side
He took our side
And delivered us
Shout out for joy
Shout out for joy
In His victory
In His victory
Praise His right hand
Praise His right hand, raised to set us free
Raised to set us free
Praise His right hand though He chastised us
In Him we cross gates of righteousness
We here proclaim
We here proclaim
What the Lord has done
That very day
That very day
Christ rose from the grave
Christ rose from the grave
We will rejoice
We will rejoice and be glad in it
And be glad in it
Just for that day our Friend was sent
He ushered us into His presence
That very day
That very day
That the Lord has made
He took our side
He took our side
And He stood with us
And He stood with us
He is our Strength
He is our Strength and Deliverer
Our Deliverer
Our enemies gathered 'round to scoff
His Name prevailed and we cut them off
He took our side
He took our side
And delivered us
Shout out for joy
Shout out for joy
In His victory
In His victory
Praise His right hand
Praise His right hand, raised to set us free
Raised to set us free
Praise His right hand though He chastised us
In Him we cross gates of righteousness
We here proclaim
We here proclaim
What the Lord has done
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
