the view from her

It's finally here. It's today. The new season of "Lost." I have been lost without it, and worse, I'm quite sure I'll be lost all over again because of everything I've forgotten in the last, what... 9 months? No matter. It will all be worth it to see our favorite characters again. (Welcome back, Sayid, darlin'.) This reminded me of a previous post, and I repost most of it here. Who have you missed the most? Cast your vote.

Lost wasn't the first TV series about people stranded on a deserted island. Back in the day, Gilligan's Island had its share of intrigue, and breathless anticipation about what would happen next.

A legacy of that show was the pop-culture question: "Ginger or Mary Ann?" While the comparison highlights stereotypes about women, it was also a personality test of sorts. There's no right answer. But do not make the mistake of presuming the question is, in modern-day terms, who's "hotter." This is a comparison of two classics: the wholesome, capable, attractive girl-next-door vs. the glamorous, sophisticated socialite.

Women also considered the question "Gilligan or the Professor?" Which wasn't much of a test really, because Gilligan was such an inept goof, and the professor - while quite handsome, intelligent and clever at inventing things - seemed permanently clueless about any romantic possibilities with the two beautiful, single women with whom he was stranded.

So, Lost viewers. I ask you:

Jack or Sawyer?

Hurley or Charley?

Desmond or Sayid?

Kate or Juliet?

Claire or Sun?

I picked up a copy of Time in the check-out line at the grocery store this weekend because of the headline: "The Science of Romance - Why we need love to survive." Science, as has become increasingly clear, is determined to explain everything. You can read the article if you want, or save time and just read this brief synopsis of how the scientists apply physical science to romance:

We're attracted to certain physical characteristics we can see.
We're attracted by specific scents we can smell.
Saliva contains a compound we can taste when kissing.

So that's about it. It must be science... it wasn't that interesting.

Oh wait. The part they got wrong was kind of interesting. The part about brain activity. Science says your brain shows a lot of activity when you are attracted, or in love. They say that activity proves it is your brain that in fact makes you feel attracted, or in love: "You think someone made you feel good, but really it's your brain that made you feel good." I have two words in response to that: "correlation" and "cause." The correlation between brain activity and feeling does not prove that brain activity causes a particular feeling. (Sheesh. You'd think scientists would know this stuff.) Otherwise, why can't I activate the "feel good" activity when I'm in a stressful argument with a coworker and put myself out of my misery? Why can't I flip the attraction switch when I'm having coffee with a nice, fabulously wealthy man who's merely dull? I'll tell you why. It's because they got it backwards. It is the emotion, which cannot actually be scientifically measured, that causes the brain activity, which can.

Otherwise, what causes the brain activity? Nothing? If it's completely random, it's astounding there aren't more people walking around with a sudden, unexplained attraction to streetlights or ficus trees. Yet remarkably, our brains consistently "cause" us to feel attraction only for people we... feel attracted to. Theory over logic: the romance of science.

I happen to subscribe to a regular email from the C.S. Lewis Society, and recently learned of some links I thought were interesting. There is a relatively new blog based on the work of C.S. Lewis, which includes the writing of some sixteen authors. The blog description says it "offers original work on and about C. S. Lewis from scholars who have written far and wide about his stories, his theology, and his world."

There is also a new book that purports to have discovered an imaginative and sophisticated scheme in Lewis' writing of the Narnia series. Planet Narnia, by Michael Ward, claims to have found the underlying theme for what have seemed to be seven puzzlingly unrelated books.

"Planet Narnia constitutes a real interpretative breakthrough. It argues that C.S. Lewis intentionally founded his most famous seven works on the imagery of the seven heavens, and the argument is offered in all seriousness. If found to be persuasive it will show that the Chronicles are considerably more interesting and imaginatively sophisticated than has been previously recognised."

And don't forget that Prince Caspian, the next film in the "Chronicles of Narnia" series, is scheduled to be released May 16th. If you haven't seen it yet, check out the trailer at the official web site.

A study of 3,000 brain scans reveals that women have thicker skulls than men.

"The average thickness of a male skull was 0.25 inches (6.5 millimeters), while the average thickness of a female skull was 0.28 inches (7.1 millimeters).

Women had smaller skulls than men on average though, with an average front to back measurement of 6.7 inches (171 millimeters) and width of 5.5 inches (140 millimeters). Men's skulls averaged 6.9 inches (176 millimeters) by 5.7 inches (145 millimeters)."

So... while women are thick-headed, men are big-headed.

I have no further comment.

At an all day, all-staff meeting at my church yesterday, the discussion turned to spiritual growth. Someone mentioned the situation where people move from one church to another because they weren't "being fed" at the previous church.

This is a spiritual-sounding rationale, because of course you really can't fault someone for wanting more of the meat of God's Word. But in reality, it reveals an incredible spiritual immaturity.

Here's the question: As a human, how old were you when you were last "fed"? Infants are fed by others. Small children and adolescents learn to feed themselves. Adults actually feed others.

It's a pretty simple analogy. The best response to someone who insists they're entitled to be "fed," is perhaps, "grow up!" Because while it's true that God's Word is the meat for our spiritual growth, it's really up to any "adult" Christian to pick up a knife and fork. Do we honestly want - or expect - to be spoon-fed?

While adults can feed themselves, they obviously do more: they feed others; physically providing food for their families, friends, and hungry people around the world. Spiritually, we should do the same. Are we developing relationships with our neighbors? Volunteering to lead small groups? Donating to or volunteering to serve in missions efforts in the world?

For grown-up Christians, the question isn't whether or not anyone is feeding you. It's, who are you feeding?

I've been wresting with some decisions lately, and it is at these times that I realize I'm so fortunate to have friends who surround me with encouragement. One friend mailed me a card that contained this verse:

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 2 Corinthians 12:9

And the message was about finding grace to go forward, and wisdom to guide your steps. The final statement was, "His strength in you is perfect."

For some reason, that phrase jumped off the page at me. It was incredibly meaningful, and yet the more I considered why it moved me, the less I was sure I even understood it at all.

"His strength in you is perfect." His strength? This would be the God of the universe, who keeps both atoms and planets in motion. Also known as all-powerful and omnipotent. I try to imagine what one iota of that power in me might be like, and imagine myself swelling up like the Incredible Hulk. And how is his strength in me perfect? Perfect seems like the wrong word there, and I don't understand it. His strength in me should be empowering, fortifying, sustaining, strengthening. Can strength be perfect?

My New Testament commentary says that "divine power finds its full scope and strength only in human weakness... The cross of Christ forms the supreme example of 'power-in-weakness'." The analogy of Christ on the cross helps - his supreme power over sin and death was fully realized in the moment of his greatest weakness.

But it is the dictionary that makes a clearer connection. Merriam-Webster defines "perfect" as "satisfying all requirements." Dictionary.com defines it as "exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose." And I see that it is in my moments of fatigue and failure and indecision - my weakness - that the omnipotent power of the Creator is customized to exactly fit my certain situation. It's perfect.

UKdating.com has the results of a survey that identify the particular qualities of Mr. Right.

He's clean-shaven and tall.
He has "blue eyes, short dark-brown hair and medium build."
He "must also love pets and appreciate fine wine, theatres and nice restaurants. Coupled with this he should have a 'wacky' sense of humour."

Sounds right to me so far.

He also "wears smart jeans and a T-shirt... and is a doctor or lawyer who owns a home in a good location." Hmm. Does anyone else see a potential problem between the ideal of a doctor or lawyer, and a man in jeans and a t-shirt? Though I guess it makes sense that a doctor or lawyer would wear "smart" jeans.

Smokers and football fans did not make the list.

Gentlemen, if you find yourself lacking in the impressive qualities listed above, there's still hope. "Cuddly lovers" were favored by 21 percent of the 40,000 women surveyed, and 16 percent said they wouldn't mind a balding guy like Bruce Willis.

No mention of religion or spirituality. But imagine a tall, blue-eyed, pet-loving, cuddly, Jesus-follower with smart jeans and a wacky sense of humor. One can only dream.

The New York Times wonders if the male midlife crisis is just a convenient excuse for being a narcissistic jerk. Wow. It's not very often that a major newspaper writes an article outlining a case for something that most people consider obvious.

"Why do we have to label a common reaction of the male species to one of life’s challenges — the boredom of the routine — as a crisis? True, men are generally more novelty-seeking than women, but they certainly can decide what they do with their impulses."

So why do we label something common as a crisis? Besides our penchant for trying to make things sound more complex than they are, [ADDED: I recently heard heating & air conditioning described on the radio as a "home comfort system"] there's this from the article: “You have to admit that 'I’m having a midlife crisis' sounds a lot better than 'I’m a narcissistic jerk having a meltdown.'"

CNN has posted recently discovered photographs of Lincoln's inauguration.

(via Hugh Hewitt)

The FDA declares cloned meat to be safe.

Yup. They've checked it out for like 10 whole years now, and hey - it's good to go! It must feel good to know everything there is to know about cloned meat. To realize there is nothing further to learn outside the realm of your knowledge. That's so totally cool! Eat up now... tastes just like chicken!

For some reason that makes me think of Scotch tape. A cool, useful invention of the 1930s. In the early 50s they stuck Dead Sea Scroll fragments together with it. Sixty years later they're still trying to scrape off the sticky, gooey crud we now know old tape mutates into.

I don't know. I won't be rushing out to buy me some cloned meat. I'm no scientist, but... it sure seems like learning the long-term effects of something can sometimes take, well... a long time.

Dan Edelen writes a prophetic wake-up call. Read the whole thing.

If you haven't yet heard the news reports of a "possible, slight recession," you're not paying attention. People are losing their jobs. They're losing their homes. The banking industry is in chaos because of the sub-prime mortgage debacle. The stock market is a roller coaster. The dollar continues to decline in value. An excerpt from Dan's post:

"What pains me is the American Church’s joint inability to read these distressing signs. It’s as if they simply don’t want to see... The early Church prepared for problems. In fact, they listened to their prophets and sprang into action. But where are our prophets? And in lieu of prophets, why can’t we seem to heed our own common sense? Yet I can’t think of one major Church leader in this country talking about economic issues and how the Church must face them."

I happen to think it's because Christians are equally caught up in the consumerism of today's culture. We have not acted differently than the world in this respect. We feel every bit as entitled to the latest gadgets and bigscreen TVs and new cars as anyone else. We run up our credit cards like anyone else. In California, we cashed in most of our home's bubble equity and spent it. We have not lived modestly, or "denied ourselves" as Jesus instructed. Frankly, we are not positioned to help others because we are them.

Non-profits are already suffering. The Red Cross laid off 50% of its employees in Riverside county, California. "The Red Cross, along with many other charities, has fallen on hard times. Contributions are down across the board as the economy continues its downward slump." Churches are beginning to feel it, too.

I'm reminded of Genesis 41, where Joseph predicts seven years of famine, and is put in charge of stockpiling provisions. Then, "with severe famine everywhere, Joseph opened up the storehouses and distributed grain to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe throughout the land of Egypt." It's not enough for churches to "tighten their belts" like everyone else. We also should be proactive about saving, stockpiling, and actively preparing.

Is anyone talking about this at your church? Is your church planning, or taking steps to be a resource to your community in an economic recession?

UPDATE: Bill Kinnon correlates several posts related to this topic (including this one) and adds additional insightful comments.

There has been a lot of discussion about Willow Creek and the results of their REVEAL study. I've followed a lot of the conversation, but haven't felt compelled to join in. I do appreciate when a perceptive blogger finds another perspective on the situation. Susan, the Philosophical Pastor, has done just that. She examines and comments on the survey itself, noting that generally surveys tend to reflect the underlying assumptions of the data collectors. She comments on this business model being used by the church:

"It works in the marketplace; why not in the church? Spiritual growth is just like anything else human beings want, right? We want fuel-efficient cars, fit bodies, smooth younger-looking skin… and spiritual growth.

How satisfied are you with your fuel/exercise program/wrinkle cream/church?

What is the most important benefit a fuel /exercise program/wrinkle cream/church ought to provide for your car/abs/cheekbones/spiritual-life? How satisfied are you, with the way your current fuel /exercise program/wrinkle cream/church serves the needs of your car/abs/cheekbones/spiritual-life?

If enough of your customers are dissatisfied in some area, this will warrant a change in the product. You can’t keep your business open if you don’t serve the customer...

I do get the logic. I do understand the business rationale. I even agree that it “works” - if what you are aiming for is people who are getting what they want and therefore happily returning for more. What I don’t see is that objective in Scripture…."

Read it all.

Apparently, if you Google the word "single," all you get is related to dating. I didn't bother to test that theory. But Sherri Langburt said it was so, and she's a founder of SingleEdition.com, a website that "celebrates flying solo, and offers shopping, financial and other advice to help [singles] do so with pride," rather than treating singleness as a predicament. They are acting as a guide to embracing life as a single.

"Articles on the site give advice on how to entertain in small apartments (have cheese- or chocolate-tasting parties instead of sit-down meals), how to cook for one (try freezing homemade soup in ice trays to simplify defrosting single portions) and how to select gifts for other singles (perhaps an audio book or a G.P.S. device to help a solo driver)."

Right now, I'm trying to think of anything more pathetic than a single person microwaving three little frozen cubes of soup for dinner. Because the thing is, most of these lame ideas only exacerbate the issue of being single. A GPS device for a "solo" driver? Please. What a condescending stereotype. Buy gifts for your "single" friends the way you do for your Mom or spouse or brother: based on their tastes and interests. (And let me just say I am categorically opposed to gift registries for singles. Registering for birthday gifts implies not only that you expect gifts, but that you expect to tell other people how to spend their hard-earned money on your behalf. You are not entitled to select your own birthday gifts and request that other people pay for them simply because you've never had a wedding. Get over it.)

SingleEdition is an interesting site. There are lots of articles on finances and travel, and Q & A's with experts. I appreciate what they're trying to do. Maybe the NYT article is at fault for not presenting the story as positively as it could have. Maybe I'm just cynical. Or maybe I'm one of the "untold masses of silently contented singles" who was out drinking champagne with friends on New Year's Eve, rather than reading a NYT article on how to embrace life as a single.

"Science"... and I use that word loosely here, has made up some interesting findings from a study of primates. Frankly, this might be one of the stupidest articles I've read in awhile.

"Male macaque monkeys pay for sex by grooming females, according to a recent study that suggests the primates may treat sex as a commodity... And as with other commodities, the value of sex is affected by supply and demand factors: A male would spend more time grooming a female if there were fewer females in the vicinity."

I'm pretty sure "Science" are the same people who came up with Evolution in the first place. So let's try to remember the first rule of Evolution, which is: survival of the fittest. You know, only the strongest and fittest survived long enough to reproduce. What purpose would a "biological market" serve in Evolution 101? I'm going to go with None. Trading or buying or shopping, doesn't make sense, because what would be the point? I'd just smack you on the head with a rock and take what I wanted in order to survive. That's how Evolution works, darn it. Sheesh! You'd think they'd know this stuff by now.

So I'm just gonna make an evolved guess, and suggest that male monkeys groom females because it's simply more effective in advancing procreation than smacking females on the head with a rock. As the Theory of Everything, Evolution is just not that hard. In fact, the whole "paying for sex as a commodity" sound suspiciously like a human interpretation, filtered back over the data by middle-aged, lazy "Scientists" who have no idea how to survive except by paying for stuff with a Visa card.

Ya can't have it both ways. Science says we evolved from apes. Let's quit trying to remake them in our image.

"He is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex."
Gloria Steinem comments on the media's apparent double-standard in evaluating the presidential campaigns of Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton.