Blog Update

After a few years I finally got around to updating my blog template to Blogger's "layouts". The main reason I delayed so long is that the custom look and feel of my blog was important to me. It took some time and tweaking this morning before I was satisfied and I'm sure I'll tweak some more later.

~ Keith

Jesus Coaches Football

I don't usually follow sports at all. I watch the SuperBowl for the commercials, and the chips & dip.

But Brant posted this article and I read it. And I want you to read it.



~ Keith

Wordle

My blog as a wordle. ht to Jon.

~ Keith

PS -- I love how the words-in-proximity say:

"church sharing love models leadership" and how "ouch" is so close by.

N is Here

~ Keith

Vulnerability Trumps Insecurity

Some time ago, I had reviewed my bogging practices and noticed I had been way too revealing (of my and my wife's private life) in a public setting. I think blogs are a good way to share a bit of one's private life -- but I also think there is a limit. Some stuff just goes in my journal -- other stuff can go on a blog. There is sometimes a fine line between which goes where. This line is determined by each individual blogger. I contemplated my own fine lines in No More Blogging In My Underwear.

This morning I read the following in Celtic Daily Prayer:

It is because of the refusal to be vulnerable that, far too often, instead of enjoying friendship and intimacy with those around us, we find ourselves fencing with each other, using our talents, achievements, and strengths as weapons. To be vulnerable in the true sense does not mean that someone must become a doormat, a weakling, devoid of all pride, going out of his way to let others know all of his faults and weaknesses. Nor is vulnerability to be confused with the idea of 'letting-it-all-hang-out', or any other form of psychological strip-tease. To be vulnerable is to be strong enough to be able to present ourselves without false props, without an artificial display of our credentials. In brief, to be vulnerable is to be strong enough to be honest and tender. Like Jesus, the person who is vulnerable is a person who cares enough to let himself be weak, precisely because he does care.
~ Ronald Rolheiser, The Restless Heart

This was refreshing for me to read and reflect upon.

In the past, I am sad to say, my vulnerability was tied to my insecurity and desire to be liked. I thought perhaps if I was transparent enough people would be impressed by my vulnerability and therefore respect me as a very spiritual person. I wore my vulnerability like a badge of honor for others to see -- in a weirldy ironic (and oxymoronic?) borrowing from Rolheiser's imagery, it was as if I used my ability to be transparent as a weapon for fencing.

In Rolheiser's comment I see a new and better way. Since the time of my previous post mentioned above, I like to think I have begun to emulate this; that I care enough about the person with whom I am sharing that I will actually share the real me. But not in an attempt to prove anything or win any awards. It is not about me being liked by them: it is not about me. It is about the other person being cared about enough by me that I am able to, for their sake, not hide myself.
~ Keith

Homelessness and Being Like jesus

When I grow up I want to be like my friend Jon Reid, because he is like Jesus -- specifically the way he loves the people most of us wouldn't even want to get close to. In his blog he recently posted two articles about his interactions with homeless people. Homeless Adventure #1 and Homeless Adventure #2.

~ Keith

Light, Poetry & Prayer

Ring the bells that still can ring,
forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything,
that's how the light gets in.

Poetry is just the evidence of life.
If your life is burning well,
poetry is just the ash.

Prayer is translation.
A man translates himself into
a child asking for all there is
in a language he has barely mastered.

~ Leonard Cohen

Cathartic Laughter

is always a good thing

~ Keith

Faces, Books, & Friends

This cartoon is by Dave Walker.I am a member of Facebook.

I like Facebook -- but I prefer faces, and books.

Now go find some friends.~ Keith

Underdogs or Underhanded?

I'm a fan of American Idol. At first it is painful to watch because so many people are so clueless as to how little singing ability they have. I feel bad for them and want to ask: "doesn't anyone love you enough to tell you not to do this on national television?". But then as the season progresses, I enjoy seeing the folks with real talent shine, especially if it is mixed with a healthy dose of humilty. This season Melinda is the big winner in this department, IMHO.

Maybe that's because I've always been a fan of "the underdog" -- someone who looks way behind but comes back to win in an unpredictable way against seemingly insurmountable odds -- often someone who seems not only behind and down, but being beaten and kicked: "downtrodden". It may sound crazy, but if I am watching a sporting event, especially football, I always root for whoever is behind. If they score and take the lead, I switch sides and root for whoever is now behind. I'm more interested in both teams playing hard and overcoming challenges than I am in one team simply running roughshod over the other.

Somehow it just feels right to me to cheer for the ones with seemingly no chance to beat the bully. I suppose this is a bit autobiographical, but I also think this sort of hope-against-hope embodies the gospel as well. And who doesn't love a good Horatio Alger story anyway, huh?

Then, recently, I heard about a blog called http://www.votefortheworst.com.I'm bummed by this! I understand their purpose and I suppose they "have the right" to do this, but it seems to me a poor use of technology; a mean reason to have a blog. It is a very underhanded (should I say it? I will: immoral) way to manipulate a situation. It's like a nationwide game of hogging.

This is not a good thing.

With friends like these, everyone gets more salt in their wounds.

The owners of this blog say America is helped because it makes the show somehow more interesting or enjoyable -- they're just giving the American people a little more entertainment, and thereby also giving the producers what they want: higher ratings. And after all, the person who likes to sing gets to stay on the show longer! Everyone wins, right?

I imagine being on the show as something akin to living in a fishbowl. VFTW folks seem to think the show and their blog is about the pet store owners and the little kid who gets the aquarium, and they say right on their front page: "We agree that a fish out of water is entertaining...". But the show, IMHO, is not about the American People. The show is not about the producers. The show is about the people singing their heart out. I think the show is about the unfortunate fish, living life on display. OK, OK, they auditioned and they want to be there on stage -- but I'm pretty safe in assuming they don't want to be patronized or intentionally humiliated for someone else's enjoyment.

Maybe in a cartoon online, abusing a fish is funny.

But dealing with real people is a different thing altogether. The way I see it the folks at VFTW are just bullies having a laugh at someone else's expense. It's Sanjaya Malakar at the moment, but who is next?

It would be bad enough if a bunch of people started a private word-of-mouth game to do this, but what makes me really steamed is they've created this blog and are ostensibly asking everyone to join in the "fun" of adding insult to injury.

Maybe their influence on the results is not statistically significant. Maybe Sanjaya is still on the show because a legitimate amount of people actually voted for him, and less people legitimately voted for Brandon.

I guess in this case the American Idol Viewer is the underdog I'm currently rooting for.

~ Keith

Do Yuo Lkie Raeidng My Bolg?

In an eMail today:

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

~ Keith

More details from Cambridge, Wikipedia, & Snopes.

indexed translations

Yesterday = Joy Yesterday I found indexed.

Today = Fun I made this one up myself, in homage.

~ Keith

PS -- archives go back to August of 2006. Be prepared to spend hours perusing, laughing, and agreeing as you enjoy the poignancy of them all.

Happy Anniversary!

One year ago I posted my first blog entry.

To all of you who come by to share my weird little world: thanks!

~ Keith

blame orgus

Owl jamms

Owl rouge

Cadmium on chronicitron

chrome orange

No More Blogging in My Underwear

These days I'm blogging less than I used to, and the content and character of my blog posts have changed too.

When I first started blogging, I loved it because it was very cathartic. I could say what was really on my heart much like a journal or diary, but since it was public, this sort of upped the ante and made me feel I was being more transparent or vulnerable than I otherwise would be -- so I felt more honest; more forthcoming. That was a good thing for a time, but I also crossed some boundaries.

I still journal quite a bit, but keep it to myself these days. I'm finding more and more satisfaction with that, and also with sharing the insights God is showing me only to a few trusted friends, rather than the whole world at large.

It has been a process of boundary exploration for me. On the one hand I want to break free of my tendency to isolate myself, yet I also have found myself wrestling with questions re: how much self-disclosure is too much. Here is the best word-picture I can think of to describe what I mean:

If I am at home alone, or with my wife, and want to sit around in my underwear, I can do that with impunity.

If company is coming over, it is best (for all concerned!) if I get some clothes on.

If the company is close friends who're staying overnight then maybe as the evening wears on I'll go put on my pajamas and slippers and hang out like that.

But I wouldn't do that with just anybody, and if I always sat around in my underwear no matter who came over, that would be wrong on many levels.

Thinking back and re-reading my early blog posts, I now realize I (inappropriately) spent a lot of time in just my underwear. There was a certain freedom in that, but as I've thought through this I've come to see how staying fully dressed is a much better idea.

I know my blog is not read by tons of people, and that most of the people who read this stuff know me -- some know me very well. But electronic communications like blogs and eMail are rife with miscommunication since there are so many aspects missing: non-verbal cues like facial expression, tone of voice, and body language.

And the kicker for me is this -- even if someone completely understands what they are reading, I have to ask myself why I am posting it. In other words, like other aspects of life, my blog posts and other forms of self-disclosure fall under the biblical principle of "just because I can doesn't mean I should".

If I have something meaningful to say, and I want someone to know about it, I've found it is much better for myself and anyone else if I do that face to face. It doesn't mean that communication will be easy or fun. In fact, doing it "the hard way" is better in the long run than just blogging about it and hoping someone will read it and then know who I really am.

So blogging has a place in my life, but it is not a place for soul-baring. It is still a place for personal reflection, and a window into my life, head, and heart...but as you look through that window I'll be fully dressed. =O)

~ Keith

for more on the perils of blogging and the value of either not blogging at all, or being more selective in what/when one chooses to blog, there are some great links here at Conrad Gempf's blog.

Just Try Hacking Something Together

As I scan blogs, sometimes a thought-provoking post will really get me pondering.

That happened today as I read one of my new favorite blogs: The Corner. The article by Bob Carlton is just too good not to share.

You can read it here.

~ Keith

grief from afar

this morning i was scanning blogs and when i hit jason clark's blog and read about mark palmer's death, i was stunned.

i never met mark personally, but felt as if i knew him from a book i read called the journey towards relevance by kary oberbrunner. from what i read there, i know mark was a person deeply connected with those around him in life. i admired him for that and through many tears i asked jesus to make me more like himself -- and more like mark.

as someone who has wrestled most of my life with feeling disconnected and alone, it is oddly comforting to me: the end of this earthly journey -- the passing between the stones -- for someone i've never met could hit me so deeply.

maybe I'm finally connecting.

~ cob

Grid Blog for Int'l Women's Day

Every year millions of people follow the results of various awards shows. This past Sunday we watched the Oscars. There are also the Emmys, the Tonys, the Grammys, and more.

Today I'd like to talk a little about: the -archies

In case you didn't already know, 8th March is International Women's Day. You can read a brief history of the day at this United Nations page.

I heard about it in Rachelle's post about Dismantling Patriarchy. Over on Rachelle's blog, she has a list of various bloggers who are also covering this topic.

I appreciate her use of the word "dismantle" instead of "overthrow". For me, this speaks of a collaborative effort to work for a better future than the past we've lived through. Growing up as a male in the turbulent bra-burning 1960s and the vote-for-the-ERA 1970's, it always struck me "These women don't want equality; they want a turn at superiority!" As a follower of Jesus, and as a man, I'm very glad Rachelle is espousing a different ideal.

"No book has yet been written in praise of a woman who let her husband and children starve or suffer while she invented even the most useful things, or wrote books, or expressed herself in art, or evolved philosophic systems."
~ Anna Garlin Spencer
~ Woman's Share in Social Culture, 1912

"I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career."
~ Gloria Steinem

I think great strides have been made in the last 50 years, but I also believe we have a long way to go. I'm no historian or cultural anthropologist, but I don't think I'm going out on any limbs when I say I think the world has been a patriarchy for a long long long time. I'm sure someone who knows more about it could point out a few matriarchal societies but I think, in the world at large, men have pretty much always ruled and led.

That hasn't always been bad. As a man* who thinks he is a pretty good guy I have to point out that not all men are evil. But taken as a whole, in this long-standing patriarchy there have been too many examples of men dominating instead of leading, and enslaving instead of ruling.

I'm kinda over the "men are better than women" implications getting subconscious air time in a lot of Christian media too. Instead of being an agent to transform culture into a better place, some of the church is instead being swayed by the surrounding culture and becoming less Christ-like.

I'm very glad to be part of an association of churches which promotes the autonomy of the local church, and also encourages individuals to wrestle with challenging issues. On the Vineyard USA website, for example, you can read articles both for and against the idea of ordaining women. This kind of healthy exploration and discussion leads us to value one another and grow in faith.

I used to be way more "complementarian". (Keith's definition: men & women are:

• equal in value to God, but
• different in roles.
  • Husband is "head" of wife in marriage
  • Men built to initiate, women built to respond)

These days I lean toward being "egalitarian". (Keith's definition: men & women are:

• equal in value to God, and can be
• equal in role; whatever God chooses for us, we do for Him)

I think there is a lot of validity to the whole Mars/Venus thing. Men and women are different in a lot of ways. I think God may have had some reason for making Adam first, then Eve. And I think God must have had some reason for having the masculine pronoun used to describe the Godhead the majority of the time in the bible [sidenote: no gender-specific terms can adequately describe a Being whose very Nature is far above and beyond such limitations anyway].

But to infer the idea of men being more suited to certain "leadership" and "initiator" roles (where most of the power is in the world) while women are better suited to "follower" and "responsive" roles? This, to me, seems to be too much of a leap -- a jumping to conclusions.

And I also think most of the pointing to experience is mainly chicken and egg stuff -- like "But I'm just a natural leader and my wife is just naturally submissive!" says more to me about the culture in which s/he has been raised and shaped than it does about an indwelling expression of the image of God.

So patriarchy isn't a perfect system. And Rachelle isn't talking about revising or repairing it. She's talking about dismantling it. What'll that leave? I dunno. I mean no disprespect to women when I say this, but I think a matriarchy would be just as grievously errant and just as egregiously abusive.

Anarchy is not the answer either. While this may be arguable, I believe "faulty government" is still better than "no government".

Monarchy and thearchy have been tried. From what I've read and understood about them, monarchies implode or get overthrown, and thearchies are (all too often) simply uber-twisted versions of patriarchy anyway.

That leaves two other viable -archies I can think of: Oligarchy & Polyarchy. Both have merit.

I think our current democratic republic here in the U.S.A. is (despite its many faults) the best representative oligarchy we've seen in world history [waves flag].

But on the small scale, like in friendships and such -- you know, the circles of people with whom we spend our day-to-day lives -- I think polyarchy is the way to go. To paraphrase Lincoln's famous Gettysburg address, I think each little "government of the friends, by the friends, and for the friends" works pretty well. Even a polyarchy, though, isn't fully democratic. At times the "buck has to stop" with someone when consensus can't be reached and the issue at hand is important enough to demand a decision or action. As long as the group in question agrees on who that person is at any time or season or event, then things typically flow smoothly, at least in my experience.

If my desire is a local polyarchy within a broader oligarchy, then what can I do to bring this about?

Rachelle quoted the Indigo Girls' song Hammer & a Nail. I like that song. But I also like Ben Harper's powerful song With My Own Two Hands

Both songs remind me of the old adages:

"better to light a candle than curse the darkness"

and

sow a thought reap a deed
sow a deed reap a habit
sow a habit reap a life
sow a life, reap a world

So when the rubber meets the road what will I do? What deeds will I sow? Locally and globally?

I've done this blog and will continue to express publicly the benefits of polyarchy in God's Kingdom.

I'll respect and express appreciation for the contributions of women I'm blessed to walk alongside in my own life.

I'll use language that emphasizes the value of all people regardless of gender.

I'll champion those who are being abused or held back (wherever they may be), and use my energies and resources to help them change their situation.

And I'll encourage others -- both men and women -- to live and speak in like manner.

~ cob

* a man who, btw, grew up as the only boy and the youngest of 5 kids, and who now works as an RN (one of the few professional fields where women outnumber men).

Tagline

Hi, I am a blogger virus: paste me into your blog and help me spread.

Waxing Preferentially Loquacious in my own Blog

I don't remember how old I was when I learned to read, but I think it was at a fairly normal age. What was unusual, I guess, is how quickly and how well I learned to read aloud. I could pronounce large and difficult words on-the-fly and also learned quickly to develop a certain cadence; a natural flow of words.

To this day, if I am reading aloud, my eyes are always a few words ahead of my mouth, so that, when I get to them with my mouth, my brain has already processed them. I don't try to make this happen. It just does. Maybe I'm some sort of reading savant.

When I was 7 or 8 I remember being at the home of our neighbor Diane Zaske...

(why do I remember her name? -- you'll have to wait on that answer, since my status as something of a memory savant will probably be the subject of a future blog)

I was at their house playing with her two kids, around my age, but younger. She had a couple friends over and was playing cards or something. I was absent-mindedly reading the front page of her newspaper as it sat on the kitchen table. She asked me what I was doing, so I told her. She was incredulous that I, as a 7 year old, could read the front page of a newspaper. She tested me on a couple word meanings. Then, she asked me to do something that would become a defining moment of sorts: she asked me to read out loud.

I don't have any memory of doing this earlier in life, although I suppose I must have in kindergarten or 1st grade.

I don't remember what the stories were in the news that day. I don't remember how long I read -- a few minutes probably. What I do remember is her awe at my ability. She had me read some more from the front page; the back page; the sports. I was a showpiece for her to coo over and praise. She pointed my skills out to her friends. She called my mom and dad and told them how amazing it was. She went nuts over my ability to not just read, but read with pronunciation, articulation, and comprehension beyond my years.

I have always enjoyed reading. I like being told stories, whether it is someone reading to me, or me reading to myself with various voices inside my head for the different characters.

But since that day at the Zaske's, in school or in other settings, I have always enjoyed reading aloud. Especially when it has resulted in praise. It has made me feel valuable and "better than" others who couldn't read as well. I probably looked down my nose a few times at kids who weren't as good at reading, but there were plenty of things I was not good at for which I endured playground ridicule, so I don't think I lorded it over anyone for too long, or too ruthlessly.

This praise-loving led to appreciating the praise I received when I was not reading aloud, but simply speaking my mind. I'm not as well read as others I know, but I've always been fairly good at articulating, in some detail, what is going on in my head or heart.

I used to be a regular listener to Dr. Laura. As caustic as she can be, one of the things I appreciated about her rapport with callers was her refusal of "I don't know" as an answer. She would often tell callers who gave that as an answer to stop, think, and then respond -- instead of just blurting out "I don't know" as some sort of cop-out or excuse.

Likewise, I almost never say "I don't know" when asked something. If it is a feeling or thought question, I think and then respond with my feelings or thoughts. If it is a factual question and I truly don't know the answer, then I will often give an "educated guess" (read: pull an answer out of thin air (or elsewhere) and speak with a confident tone of voice). If it is a work-related matter and a patient is asking me a medical question and I don't know the answer, then I will say "I don't know, but I will find the answer and get back to you".

Along the way in life, I somehow learned words are the best way to communicate. Researchers now tell us only about 7% communication comes from the actual words/content. (55% comes from body language and 38% comes from tone of voice).

What this means, is that if someone does not understand me, I have often considered it my fault -- if I could just articulate more clearly or in more detail the nuances of the situation/feelings/etc then the other person would truly understand.

I learned being misunderstood means feeling hurt and rejected, or someone else feels that way. Since neither of those is nice, I have learned to overuse words up-front; to over-communicate so as to avoid any possibility of miscommunication.

If you haven't picked this up by now then God bless your naivete: I'm wordy. Verbose. Loquacious.

Strunk and White say "Omit needless words" but I have always found it easier to say in 500 words what others can say in 50 (or 5!).

Where once I found praise for my ability to articulate, I now found friends and family members getting glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, or worse: angry. I began to receive comments like:

Get to the point!

Stop rambling!

Do you even have a point?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

or just

Huh?

From these and other (more loving) comments I've learned that not everyone shares my fascination with words, word pictures, stories, analogies, parables, and the like. I've learned that, at times, brevity helps. Being concise can be good.

When people tried to "help me" by telling me I should learn to get to the point more quickly, and avoid using stories and analogies, it hurt. When these same people tried to tell me they loved me, it never clicked. I would think "How can you love me if you want me to be different?" I felt betrayed and used and manipulated.

But then one day I read something that helped me get a more clear perspective. It was printed, of all places, on a bumper sticker. It said this:

Jesus loves me exactly the way I am.
He just loves me too much to let me stay this way!

That helped me see the love others were trying to express in helping me become a better communicator.

I think I have come a long way in my ability to avoid overcommunicating. Now I am more able to let the words fall where they may, and deal with any misunderstandings which arise. This has not always been fun or easy, but it has actually helped me become even more articulate, more loving, and more mature.

But you know what?

I still love words. I love to write them and craft them into stories. I think I am more articulate as a writer than a speaker. With speaking, at least extemporaneously, there is little or no editing on-the-fly. With writing I can save draft copies and change syntax, structure, and content -- waiting until it is truly what I want it to be before giving it to anyone.

That's why I love blogging. I can say as much as I want, on whatever topic I want, using as many stories as I want (the stories I think are relevant).

And if someone says "wow -- your blog is too wordy" then I can either delete their comment, or tell them not to read the blog then.

See, while I've grown up some and reduced my normal word-count in day-to-day communications, I still sometimes feel the condescension of less wordy people. Not the people really close to me (just in case you were wondering if it is you, it probably isn't -- but just in case, please think twice the next time you feel yourself getting glassy-eyed. Maybe I'm just getting to the really good part!).

I get the impression these less-wordy people are "putting up with" me -- "enduring" me. That doesn't feel good at all. It feels pretty crappy, to tell you the truth. It feels the exact opposite of what I felt in Diane Zaske's kitchen 33 years ago. Instead of feeling valued and appreciated I feel belittled and pushed away.

So in my blog, it helps me and I like it -- getting to say as much as I want on whatever topic. Using whatever words I want, being as redundant as I want. Being as repetitive as I want. Just because I can. I can talk and tell stories and no one gets to say "hurry it up and get to the point" because it is my own space and if they don't like it they can leave.

I guess the bottom line is this: I want to be liked not "in spite of" how I communicate, but because of how I communicate. Or at the very least "aside from" how I communicate -- like it is a non-issue.

In my blog I get that. It is mainly for me. If others read it, that is fine, but it is mainly for me. And I like me. I like me because of how I communicate.

~ Keith