blogs: Let's talk about family life 

If a new book about "keeping the Sabbath" is getting enough buzz to merit NPR discussions, Slate discussions, and, tonight, a featured author interview on The Colbert Report -- then maybe that indicates something about our society's longing for rest. Perhaps there is a growing desire to take time each week, in which we turn off stuff, unplug, become unreachable. Or maybe people are just looking for religious themed Easter week stories? Many Louisvillians are "off" all or part of next week, for example, because it's spring break in most area schools. And some area businesses will be closed this weekend for Easter. But how many of the people "off" for either occasion will go a single day without checking their email? Without taking a work call? If they don't do that even on vacation, is there any chance that they have a "day of rest" each week? The book in question is "Sabbath World" by Judith Shulevitz. The official website is JudithShulevitz.com (And she promotes her Colbert Report appearance which is scheduled for tonight.) On that website, she writes this explanation for her book: "The book tells the story of my search for the Sabbath. ... But The Sabbath World is more than just memoir. It's also the history of a good idea–the weekly day of rest–on the verge of being forgotten, and a meditation on the uses and abuses of time." There are, of course, religious reasons for observing the Sabbath. (It is, after all, one of the 10 Commandments.) But it seems that even among those who aren't particularly inclined toward religious observances there is some appeal to the idea of one day that is set apart. In addition to Shulevitz book, Sabbath Keeping has been advocated by some as an environmental measure. It's not hard to imagine that you could reduce your carbon foot print -- not by a seventh, perhaps -- but by 10 percent maybe, by sitting aside a day in which you did not travel, or eat out, or even use electricity. Of course, "keeping the Sabbath" means different things to different people. You can't even count on getting agreement about what DAY to observe the Sabbath, much less a consensus agreement on whether it's ok to buy gas on your way to church, or heat up a sandwich in a microwave. Is it ok to mow the yard? Well, then is ok to plant a garden? Shulevitz writes: "The Sabbath is a utopian goal. It has always been hard to keep, and in a world full of smart phones and other means of incessant communication, it is all but impossible to keep. But the impossible seems to me to have become the necessary. I think we need the Sabbath, or something like it, to help us hold on to our humanity as we hurtle into a rapidly accelerating future." Do you observe the Sabbath? Would you like too?

ADD A COMMENT

	frogbert   thu apr 01 2010 at 1:20 pm         ·  I observe Black Sabbath's "Vol. 4" frequently.
	J.S. Holland   thu apr 01 2010 at 1:35 pm         ·  I knew someone would go there.
	Stephen D   thu apr 01 2010 at 1:39 pm         ·  ...and frequently! But yeah, nice thoughts. Wish I had the time! Like many of the religious observations, it can certainly be read as 'a guide to life.' Taking time to repose and reflect is not only good for the soul, but mind and body as well...
	Steve Coomes   thu apr 01 2010 at 4:20 pm         ·  I, my wife and son do our best to have one day where no one works, where we just chill or play. it's good for the soul and slows things down a bit. i'd love to take it a step further and even shut the phone off. In the Bible even the animals enjoyed the sabbath, which is cool, and every seven years the land was to lie fallow. I don't recall if that meant all the landowner's land, or some of it, so he could rotate sabbath years. But how beneficial do you think it would be to let a field lie fallow just one year without taking from it all the minerals that sustain it? I doubt there would be such need for artificial inputs every year.
	WilderMom   thu apr 01 2010 at 4:42 pm         ·  I don't "keep the Sabbath" per se, but I try to get as much done on Saturday (including church) so that my Sunday is a day of rest. I love it when Sunday night rolls around and I've not left my house all day, or yard if it is warm. I feel much more prepared for the work and school week ahead.
	Beverly Bartlett   thu apr 01 2010 at 5:02 pm         ·  WilderMom, your experience raises an interesting point. In my (very limited) experience, not working on Sunday changes Saturday at least as much as it does Sunday. Instead of juggling "errands" and "family time" and "housework" across the two days, the family time gets concentrated into Sunday and Saturday is busier than ever. I actually end up liking that, for the most part. It's a lesson in being in the moment or ... something. I'm not explaining it well. And Steve, I think the point about the fields is very interesting. Imagine what a leap of faith that is, when you eat mostly only what you grow -- to not plant something one year!
	Mixed Mojo   fri apr 02 2010 at 12:51 am         ·  Mojo is like CBS Sunday Morning. I get a recap of most of the stuff I heard on NPR. :) Which reminds me. Saturday is the day god rested. The Sunday Sabbath so many Xtians sort of observe a little is of the devil.
	Beverly Bartlett   fri apr 02 2010 at 7:32 am         ·  It would be awesomely ironic if they discussed keeping the Sabbath on CBS Sunday Morning. (Although I recognize your point about Saturday.):-)

Teachers almost literally hold the future in their hands, so selecting the absolute best people for the job ought to be a priority. But the problem, often enough, is even agreeing on what the qualifications to teach should be. If you are looking for a math teacher, is it more important that the candidates excel at math? Or more important that they've learned to engage and inspire children? And to what extent does that equation change if you're looking for someone to teach math in fifth grade -- as opposed to 12th? (And to what extent can the latter quality be "learned" anyway?) Yeah, there's room for disagreement. So it was interesting to read in this morning's Courier-Journal that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has finalized licensing rules for teachers. The new rules will shift the emphasis further toward knowledge of the subject matter and a bit away from "education courses" that help future teachers learn about classroom management, etc. The story says that the new rules will also give schools more "flexibility." For example, it will be easier for a current teacher to change subject fields if they pass a test proving they know the material. Reasonable people ought to be able to agree that both qualities are important. You could take the most advanced math student at MIT, a math genius, and find that she can't convey anything about division to a room full of middle school students. (Do middle school students even study division? See... that might be one of the things she wouldn't know!) On the other hand, it's maddening to think that someone who took a couple of business classes in college 30 years ago is capable of teaching high school business, but not someone who has actually been running a company that long. Of course, no one wants to suggest that years of selling tobacco means you're automatically going to be a good teacher. But often enough teacher licensing rules read like they think the person with actual real world experience is vaguely suspect -- and should start all over, as if they were a recent 18-year-old high school graduate, before becoming a teacher. Here's hoping the new Indiana rules will be a force for moderation that will be good news for the state's students.

ADD A COMMENT

	brigid kaelin   wed mar 31 2010 at 10:18 am         ·  I've always thought that's an interesting debate. Totally agree with your thoughts, on both sides. I've taught piano lessons privately for 14 years, and I'm a professional musician ... but I'm not qualified to teach at JCPS. That's not saying I disagree with their rules though. For the most part, I think people should have teaching degrees. And if i wanted to teach there, I'd go get the degree. Private schools are a bit more lenient on that, obviously. I taught music in the Catholic school system here to great success before I decided that wasn't my life goal. But I've always appreciated that they understood I was qualified and capable of teaching. The kids loved that their teacher had actually used music in real life. Anyway, I've always favored the "life experience" argument over pure classroom.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 31 2010 at 1:28 pm         ·  At the elementary level, it's all about the teaching, I think. It's not like being a good reader qualifies you to teach other people to read. But it gets more complicated as the children get older. I once looked into becoming an English teacher. I was perfectly fine with taking some education classes, but was dumbfounded by how rigid they seemed to be on what counted as English subject matter. For example, college journalistic writing courses not count for, say, composition courses. The woman actually said to me -- a professional writer for 20 years and the author of two critically well-received novels -- "You're in the same boat as the guy with a podcasting degree." Nice.
	frederic   wed mar 31 2010 at 2:11 pm         ·  My wife tried a couple of times to do the education thing, and finally did with an accelerated program. Like pulling off a band-aid. Swallowing a horse pill. A lot of education curriculum is inane garbage. It really is. I saved some of her curriculum just for the comedic value. I think it's difficult for intelligent people to sit through edu classes, let alone pay for it, because it's genuinely thoughtless, incoherent, and ridiculous. There are always two stories--one, that they are desperate for teachers, and two, when highly qualified people try to get certified, and then it's a different situation. Then they want you to pay them thousands of dollars to watch the movie "Music Of The Heart" and write about what "teaching strategies" Meryl Streep used in the movie. By my count she used exactly one. She told a student "You're playing the wrong notes! Stop it!"
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 31 2010 at 2:56 pm         ·  I wish my music teacher would have used that technique on me as a singer. It would have spared me much embarrassment over the years. LOL.
	frederic   wed mar 31 2010 at 3:20 pm         ·  Yeah, it's a good technique. This was at Spalding. Very expensive, often abysmal. Students got no advance warning of the software requirements for the tech classes. None. Was the instructor making it up as he went along? When My wife came home with the "Music of the heart assignment I asked if they were going to watch it in class--Oh, she says "it's in video stores." Uh oh. Give me the phone. Look, an inspirational teacher movie is not one that stores are going to have multiple copies of. Sorry. And at that time most stores were ditching VHS for DVD. Sure enough, first place I call, they sigh, and wonder why is everybody calling us about that movie? So blythe. So thoughtless. What would make a good movie is a dark comedy about somebody going through teacher certification. "Learning occurs when the brains is stimulated"
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 31 2010 at 6:28 pm         ·  It could be a whole dark comedic television series! Maybe it can replace Lost -- it would be similar in that the main characters would not be sure what was happening to them, or why.
	frederic   wed mar 31 2010 at 8:52 pm         ·  Yeah, but first there should be a Mojo movie, then maybe the Edu tv series. Who would play you Beverly? I understand that an adult's understanding of a subject, by itself, doesn't account for all the structure, lesson planning,and suiting it to the developmental zone of students--and it's important. But so much of the "education" I've seen has nothing to do with any of that, and is such a waste of time. And on the other hand, I know more than a couple of people who set out to be teachers in college, did their assistant teaching, got certified, then have never considered teaching as an option, at all, ever again. It's odd.
	frederic   wed mar 31 2010 at 9:02 pm         ·  I meant, it's odd that there are so many people with knowledge in their fields, who get discouraged trying to get certified. And then there are all these people who set out to teach, and instead got chronically discouraged.

Theological debates rarely get much news coverage. For that matter, they rarely are even discussed in Sunday School classes or church sermons. So you can be forgiven (so to speak!) if you've not heard about the hottest theological debate going on in Christianity right now -- one that is particularly appropriate to discuss on Easter Week. Who was Jesus and what was his death about? You might think that after 2000 years or so, Christians would have come to agreement on this and -- for awhile it seemed like they had. But lately there have been several theological books published, downplaying the "blood sacrifice" aspect of Jesus' death -- the idea that his death atoned for our sins in a way similar to how pre-Christian believers thought a goat's death atoned for their sins. Instead, the emphasis of these books is on Jesus' life and his message -- which was largely about our relationship with money, the poor, and possessions. It's a big enough deal that last week, NPR's Morning Edition did a story on one such book -- "A New Kind of Christianity" by Brian McLaren. The story quoted Louisville's own Al Mohler. The piece mentions that Louisville's Southern Baptist Theoloical Seminary held a panel discussion about the book and quotes Seminary president Mohler as being critical. "Did Jesus go to the cross as a mere victim?" Mohler is quoted as saying. "If so, then we have no Gospel, we have no hope of everlasting life. Did Jesus go merely as a political prisoner, executed because he had offended the regime? Well, if so, that's a very interesting chapter of human history, but I'm not going to stake my life on it, much less my hope for eternity." Of course, Mohler is just one person. Just because he finds the story of Easter less meaningful if it's not tied to a blood sacrifice, doesn't mean other people wouldn't find it more meaningful. Being executed because of your strong stances may be quite meaningful to many people. The story quotes a Notre Dame professor who says that 2/3 of all young evangelicals - not all Christians mind you, just the most conservative evangelicals -- believe that non-Christians will get into heaven. That's a dramatic shift from previous generations and not in line with the official beliefs of conservative denominations. Now, the story doesn't quite explain exactly how that issue fits into McLaren's book, (which I have not read) but it does seem to suggest that these younger Christians view grace as being less tied to Jesus's death on the cross than previous generations of Christians did. A story in USA Today earlier this year further explores that issue here. (And includes references to the Presbyterian (USA) headquarters in Louisville.) What do you think?

ADD A COMMENT

	Steve Coomes   tue mar 30 2010 at 10:31 am         ·  <> Doesn't matter what younger Christians "think" will get them into heaven, what matters is what the Bible says. And it says, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." No further questions for me. The Bible is God's story, not ours to change or reinterpret as we feel it suits us. It's not a complicated message. Whether anyone believes that Jesus had to die for us doesn't matter; the Bible says he had to. If we want to go to the heaven drawn up in the Bible, then we follow the biblical way, not our own. Don't like it? There are lots of other places to place your eternal bets. Problem is, the bettor doesn't get to change the house's rules. He bets on the house's terms and hopes it turns out well. (Try changing the rules at any racetrack or casino and see if my analogy doesn't fit.)
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 30 2010 at 11:25 am         ·  That would certainly be many people's take, including Mohler's. But there have always been Christians who did not take the Bible literally and there is even disagreement about what books should be in the Bible -- now and historically. There were Christians, in fact, before there was a Bible as we know it. So I don't think it's right to suggest that to be a Christian you must believe in the literal truth of every sentence in the Bible. There were Christians before those books were written and their were Christians who voted against their inclusion in the Bible. In that sense, it is highly relevant what younger Christians think because it will affect the way the live out their religion and interact with the world and their neighbors. The appearance of the "Red Letter Christian" movement, that puts a special emphasis on the words of Jesus, for example, would seem posed to live their Christianity differently than people who put more emphasis on the teaching of Paul, for example.
	DavidsonDuke   tue mar 30 2010 at 11:31 am         ·  There's a deep irony in the red letter movement, though. If you follow historical-critical dating, and, Beverly, is sounds as if you do, and you put the books of the NT in chronological order, all of Paul's letters pre-date the earliest Gospel (Mark) and are way, way earlier than the latest Gospel (John). For many other reasons I resist the too easy separation of Jesus from Paul's teachings (although many of have done it). But historically, it is harder than one might think.
	Steve Coomes   tue mar 30 2010 at 1:08 pm         ·  Bev: There's an old axiom that's really applicable to Bible study: the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. The main thing in both the old and new testaments is the same: without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. You cannot dispute that like you can dispute whether the world was created in six days. The message of grace by Christ's death is the endgame and the world gets one choice: take it or leave it. If young Christians think they can get into heaven without that, then I'm not sure where they're getting that from. That message is not in the Bible. That's why Christians young and old sing "In Christ alone, I place my trust." If we sang "In lots of things I place my trust," that would be a different story from the Bible's. Paul said "our righteousness is but filthy rags" before God. In other words, our best won't cut it. That's why we need grace and that's why the perfect sacrifice, Christ, had to die. If that message is missed, then there's absolutely no use for any message the Bible. Martin Luther wrote regarding his scriptural epiphany, "Sola!" meaning nothing else, no purgatory, no indulgences no nothing at all other than Christ's efforts are important when it comes to actual salvation. What younger Christians think now about words already written has no bearing on those ancient words. Those words are not theirs to modernize, only theirs to accept or deny.
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 30 2010 at 3:27 pm         ·  DavidsonDuke, that is an interesting point. I had not thought about the implications of the dating in this context. Steve.... I'm really not taking a stand here, just reporting the fact that there is such a "movement" -- although that word may suggest something more organized than what really exists. But I'm not sure I understand your point about accepting or denying. For example, it's my understanding, that there are denominations that do not use the Old Testament at all. They do use the New Testament. Does that mean those people aren't Christians, because they "deny" part of the Bible? Likewise, the Protestant Bible is not the same as the Catholic Bible. I know there are members of each that would say the others aren't "Christians" but I think the mainstream opinion is that both are Christians.
	Steve Coomes   tue mar 30 2010 at 5:24 pm         ·  Acceptance or denial: Either you accept that you can't get into heaven outside of Christ's sacrificial death, or you don't. To say, "Well, I"m a good person, and that helps, too," is denial of the first truth. Withing the Christian context, it's all Jesus or nothing. That clear it up? Your question about churches that don't buy into the OT not being believers ... Oh, no, of course not. Sorry if I implied that. But knowing what I know now about the Bible (having studied it for 15 years), I know the two halves are inseparable. An old saying goes like this, "What was concealed in the Old is revealed in the New." Basically, the Old is heavily prophetic, and the New details the fulfillment of those prophecies. The Catholic Bible has four extra books added about a thousand years after the Church approved the original 66 as God-inspired. Personally, I don't agree with their later addition to the canon by the Catholic Church, but their presence doesn't nullify the other 66. Yes, both groups are Christians, but both groups (and I'm speaking as a former Catholic) are missing out on some the deepest revelations of the Bible by ignoring the Old. Jumping in just at the New Testament is like skipping the first half of a novel.
	Strawberry Burns   tue mar 30 2010 at 5:53 pm         ·  For a God to demand "Thou shalt not kill" and then turn around and REQUIRE death as payment to him so he will be nice and not destroy you and your soul is the same dynamics as an abusive relationship. It blows my mind that people defend the Bible. The Bible is written by man, and conceived by the minds of men. You believe what you were taught to believe as a child, a generational brain washing. (The movie Jesus Camp is a great illustration of this. The evangelical movement within politics scares the crap out of me!) I am of the school of thought that Jesus was possibly schizophrenic and Muhammad suffered from severe epileptic seizures that induced religious delusions. I turned my back on Christianity after attending church while growing up, being baptized, and after being a member of Job's daughter's for 11yrs. For those who would give the typical retort of "You don't know what the Bible or Christianity is about!"...I've read the Bible and I was once a Christian, but when I grew up and started thinking for myself I saw it for what it was and wanted no more part of it.
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 30 2010 at 7:35 pm         ·  I have read some novels that would have been better if I skipped the first half! LOL. But seriously.... that does help Steve. I see what you're saying now. As I said, I've not even read the book (the book being discussed in the story, I have read the Bible several times) so my explanation here is of limited value. But I think what some of the people in question would say is not that they're denying the power of Jesus's sacrifice to redeem, but to say that our understanding of how it is applied to any individual is rather limited. But again, take that with a grain of salt. Strawberry.... I can't imagine what would make you think Jesus was schizophrenic. The information we have about him is that he taught a beautiful message about love and peace and that he had a loving relationship with a great number of followers. That seems to be fairly at odds with how untreated schizophrenia would affect a person.
	Mixed Mojo   wed mar 31 2010 at 1:13 am         ·  We create god in our own image. Every era reinvents a god that suits their purposes. It took a while but maybe someone had decided to re-INVENT Jesus in the more metaphorical sacrificial son of god he was originally meant to be. Steve Coomes' argument doesn't hold up because the Bible was written, edited, compiled and rewritten and edited/paid for by men with politics and crowd control in mind. It is no more the unerring word of god than the book of Mormon or an L. Ron Hubbard novel. But the winners right the history and since God wanted them to win then the history they write MUST surely be true. Silly me.
	Mixed Mojo   wed mar 31 2010 at 1:15 am         ·  Too bad my words aren't unerring. I can't right/write good.
	Strawberry Burns   wed mar 31 2010 at 1:32 pm         ·  Auditory and visual hallucinations, social and occupational impairment, delusions of grandeur, paranoid delusions, delusions of reference,delusions of being controlled,disorganized speech patterns,continuous symptoms for at least 6 months. I'm surprised you've never heard of this view of Jesus. This is a widely held opinion and much has been written on it.
	Strawberry Burns   wed mar 31 2010 at 1:48 pm         ·  I'm surprised that you would make the assumption that someone with schizophrenia would be incapable of having good intentions, of being loving or caring toward people they know, or have a concept of peace and love.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 31 2010 at 2:48 pm         ·  Strawberry, I did not say that a person with schizophrenia was not capable of any of things you just said: I did not say, for example, that they wouldn't have a "concept" of peace and love. What I did was question their ability to put together a coherent message and communicate it consistently to a large group of people over time. Especially in a society that was much less tolerant of mental illness than we are. Your list of symptoms includes "social impairment" but then you get all smart with me for suggesting that they would not have healthy relationships. That is exactly what I was talking about! Social impairment! I do not think the number of people who believe Jesus was schizophrenic puts the theory remotely close to being "widely" accepted, and the fact of the matter is that you didn't make a single argument for it. He was not socially or occupationally impaired. Was he paranoid? The account doesn't strike me that way. Delusions of grandeur? He washed people's feet. I'm sure you're going to come back with a quote or two that you think indicates differently, but the fact of the matter is that you go back over any person's life you can find a quote or two that suggests something. (Beverly said she could write better than Dan Brown!) That does not make for a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
	Strawberry Burns   wed mar 31 2010 at 3:55 pm         ·  "I can't imagine what would make you think Jesus was schizophrenic. The information we have about him is that he taught a BEAUTIFUL MESSAGE about LOVE and PEACE and that he had a LOVING RELATIONSHIP with a great number of followers. That seems to be FAIRLY AT ODDS WITH HOW UNTREATED SCHIZOPHRENIA WOULD AFFECT A PERSON." I capitalized the key words in your statement that prompted my response. I was expressing genuine surprise at what you said, which is NOT getting smart with you. There are many different ways that one can be socially impaired Beverly, and just because a relationship can be loving at times that doesn't constitute a healthy relationship. His own family is quoted as saying they thought him out of his mind and showed great concern for his mental state to the point they wanted to intervene. (Mark 3:21) This shows that those who knew him saw that something drastic had taken place and that he was no longer his usual self...which points to "onset". If you question how a schizophrenic can put together a coherent message and communicate it consistently to a large group of people then how do you explain the likes of Jim Jones or David Koresh? Schizophrenics are very much capable of throwing out a message and gaining followers. You say I didn't make a case for schizophrenia then immediately discount anything I could quote from the Bible in support of my view...so what would be the point in my doing so if you have already discounted what I would say before I say it?
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 31 2010 at 6:47 pm         ·  Strawberry, the quote you use, with your inserted capital letters, makes MY point, not yours. It illustrates that I did not say a bunch of the baloney you accused me of saying. For example, yes, I used the word "Love" but it is not surrounded with words like "NO CONCEPT OF." That's what you accused me of. You also said that I didn't think people with schizophrenia could have "good intentions" -- a sentiment that is NOWHERE IN MY comment. You couldn't capitalize that, because it wasn't there. Finally, you took that fact that I used one symptom of schizophrenia -- social impairment -- as some sort of slur against schizophrenics. I did not know that Jim Jones or David Koresh were diagnosed with schizophrenia -- were they? But even if they were, I hardly see that the example is comparable. Jesus wrote the beatitudes -- a sermon that has inspired people to great acts of compassion for 2000 years. Jim Jones convinced some people to commit suicide. That is not what I would call "lots" of "healthy" relationships. I didn't immediately discount anything you would offer as evidence. I was merely noting that a single utterance isn't going to cut it. No responsible mental health expert is going to diagnose someone as schizophrenic, based on the news that their family once said they were out of their mind. I'm not sure I know anyone whose family hasn't said that about them, actually.
	Bon Air Observer   wed mar 31 2010 at 7:43 pm         ·  Bev, This was quite the discussion here. There are several threads in your piece, and hopefully I won't echo Steve too much because I think he and I are a lot alike. I guess there is what the survey respondents believe, and then there is what the Bible says. They may believe what they believe, but then there is what the Bible text says about salvation. Secondly, you mentioned Brian McLaren. Locally, Al Mohler is an easy person to take a shot at but, Al is not alone is his criticism of McLaren. There are a number of other scholarly evangelical critics of McLaren (Millard Erickson for one--and Millard actually supported ordination of women). McLaren is making statements that (depending who you are) are heretical or not orthodox. To make my mention of Mohler germane, it comes to how authoritative is scripture to you? That influences how you see Easter and what it means. I think that you do not have to be a word-for-word literalist to be a Christian. As an alternative offering, there is a statement of inerrancy called "full inerrancy" which says something to the effect that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God in what it teaches and affirms as originally given. (This allows for ideas that the Bible is not a science textbook.)
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 31 2010 at 8:08 pm         ·  Bon Air, thanks for your comment and your very reasonable tone! Did my piece come across as "taking a shot" at Mohler? I didn't intend it that way. As I said before, I was trying to avoid getting into my personal thoughts about the matter, but just to bring to people's attention that this debate was happening. I thought it was interesting that a local religious leader was being quoted in a national forum on the matter. I know that I said he was just one person, but... you know.. he is. I'm not saying that there aren't people who agree with him. Obviously, there are lots. I just meant that as a comment about his particular quote, that he personally wouldn't find such a belief very meaningful. My comment was only that his personal feelings about what would be "meaningful" to him doesn't change the fact that it may be meaningful indeed to other people. (And apparently is.) His feelings are no more relevant to the ultimate truth than the feelings of the people surveyed. That was all I was trying to say.
	Mixed Mojo   wed mar 31 2010 at 8:14 pm         ·  It is much more likely that Jesus is a myth than it is that he was schizophrenic. If not for Constantine, the notion of a historical Jesus would have long been forgotten.
	frederic   thu apr 01 2010 at 9:48 am         ·  I was raised as a science experiment, so I'm no expert, but it seems pretty clear that the meaning of the bible has evolved over time--before these young Christians--and I'd guess it will probably continue to. From what I read, all the things Jesus said tend toward Very Difficult, and the way they are interpretted tends toward Not Nearly As Hard. Emphasis on blood sacrifice may sound strict when you say it, but really it's a whole lot looser and easier that emphasis on the teachings of Jesus. The Bible says those things, just as much, and pretty clearly. It's far easier to stress that we are forgiven for largely ignoring all the other parts and let the sacrifice of Jesus pick up the tab. It sure would be convenient if one could live and act according to the principles that mainly suited the time, the place, and a generous helping or two of self-interest, but could actually really "believe" in other, more difficult principles, because one is "Christian." Maybe one can. And maybe some people who say they believe that, really do. But I don't think existentialism was thought up in the last century, largely by some French guys. That's beyond ridiculous.
	Linus Van Pelt   sat apr 03 2010 at 6:33 am         ·  Instead, the emphasis of these books is on Jesus' life and his message -- which was largely about our relationship with money, the poor, and possessions. I sense an agenda here. Not a religious agenda, but political. Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else in the bible. Here lately this seems like it is getting to be my favorite passage to use: And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. --Luke 12:13-15
	frederic   sat apr 03 2010 at 3:12 pm         ·  But I guess there's still an outside chance people focusing on the teachings of Jesus, generally, don't have any more hidden agenda than you do, using a favorite passage.
	Bon Air Observer   sat apr 03 2010 at 4:28 pm         ·  Bev, For the record, I did not think you were taking a shot at Mohler. At the risk of stirring up more drama and emotion I will say the following: At least in my local church "circles," Mohler is still looked at with disdain given the changes at SBTS in the mid to late 1990's. Many local people with close connection to the seminary community were hurt and they still show it and tend to see Mohler as an intruder and ignore Mohler as an intellectual. The fundamentalist-moderate conflict is no longer a hot war, but it seems to live on as a family secret that causes much emotional tension and avoidance. Being sensitive to that dynamic and given that that I think I have far more in agreement with Mohler than disagreement (not being a native Louisvillian or life-long southern baptist), I try to be balanced and measured in what I say about him.
	Linus Van Pelt   sat apr 03 2010 at 7:53 pm         ·  I don't hide my agenda. Jesus died for my sins and anyone else whom will truly believe. It is your free will to believe this or not. I believe it should also be your free will whether you give to the poor or not and that you cannot "save" someone by taking their possessions and property against their will and giving it to someone you deem "less fortunate." Before the Soviet Bloc fell (or appeared to fall) there were crowds of people waiting in line for bread while their leaders were living in luxary. All this under the supposed philosophy of "all things common to all men". I can hear the argument now, that in Acts 4 these christians lived quite well with the communism they had created themselves but here is the difference: And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. --Acts 4:32 It only works if all the people are of one heart and of one soul and void of covetousness. They do so freely among themselves wihout any wordly auhority.
	frederic   sat apr 03 2010 at 8:31 pm         ·  Oh I didn't think you were making a secret of it. I took it more like that kind of cattiness you read about in a Miss Manners' column. That was an argument, among others, in Thomas More's "Utopia" somewhere, yes. But there's a lot of irony in that book, beginning with the first word. The argument you say you "can hear now" is not exactly breaking news, or something young Christians are up to these days. Why you're automatically suspicious of interest in focus on the teachings of Jesus is a different question. My first guess would probably be that maybe interest in the teachings goes with the territory of truly believing, but I'm no authority. Truly believing might entail ignoring His teachings for all I know. It might entail being suspicious of any interest in them. Or a secret handshake, or something, I have no idea. The entire Pledge of Allegiance aspect of religion eludes me. I don't see how it matters, at all, what people say they believe in. Politics is a different subject, but expressing concern for others isn't "covetous." (Another good book one might refer to is the dictionary.) If any hint of interest in social justice sounds like Soviet communism, it's probably something in your ears.
	Linus Van Pelt   sat apr 03 2010 at 11:14 pm         ·  I have no problem and am all for a focus on the teachings of Jesus, if they in fact truly be the teachings of Jesus. Here is a link to an inerview with author about he book http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/2010/02/617-interview-brian-mclaren-a-new-kind-of-christianity.html Here is an excerpt: "Fossil fuels, for example, brought unimaginable prosperity to a minority of us, but we left millions behind. In this new century, it’s terribly irresponsible to carry on business as usual in any dimension of our life—and most of all in our faith. In hindsight, we can see so many things clearly, now. What I hope people can do is take advantage of our foresight and look at the crises that are going to dominate the lives of our children and grandchildren." What I hope people can do is take advantage of our foresight... OUR foresight what happened to the teachings of Jesus?
	frederic   sat apr 03 2010 at 11:53 pm         ·  They seem to imagine they are acting on those teachings, as a group, I guess. But I suppose many people think that, and do various things. I'm okay with just having those teachings written down, and belong to no group trying to do anything about it, one agenda, or another. And I'm a fan of capitalism--though a lot of things many other fans say about it still strike me as thoughtless nonsense. But I'll give them this-- when you look back on it, a lot of what people supposedly believed in, and a lot of what they did, just don't add up.

Next week, most area schools will be holding "Spring Break," so you may be taking the week off to be with your kids, and making last minute plans for a quick beach get-away or a cruise. If so, skip this article. But if you're going to be engaging in that trendy, recession-busting activity known as the "staycation" -- we're here to help you out. Here are my top five hints for making the most of a spring break spent at home: 1) Before it starts, clean the house. (I know, I know. No one wants tips that start with clean the house.) But for many of us, if we explore our deepest feelings about vacations and hotels, we realize that a large part of the appeal is the simple, minimalist look and clean vibe of the hotel. The beds are always made. There are no toys on the floor. There is no laundry at first, and even when some begins to pile up, you don't feel guilty about it because: You're in a hotel. You can't do laundry. Try to achieve the same thing in your own home this week. Get caught up or ahead on the laundry. Get the pile of out-of-season clothes off the bedroom floor. Vacuum. Mop. Next week, spending a week at home will seem more luxurious if it's clean. 2)Stay home, but get out of town. If you're a wanderer at heart, there is something nice about leaving the city limits. The feeling of "Getting out of Dodge" still provides a sense of escape, even if your geographic location no longer makes you unavailable to the office, etc. Drive to Cincinnati and marvel at the IKEA showroom for a day. Go to Hubers. Kentucky is one of the relatively few eastern states with a National Park: Go there. (Both Mammoth Cave National Park and the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park offer Junior Ranger Programs, which are a fun activity for children. They earn a junior ranger badge.) 3)Try new forms of transportation. A fun part of any "real" vacation trip often revolves around new forms of transportation, especially for kids. Taking a ferry. Riding a subway. (I've been on trips where one of the kids' favorite parts was the cart ride from the parking lot to the amusement park!) So, try some new forms of transportation at home. If you normally drive everywhere, take the bus to the big library downtown. A trip for ice cream can fill an afternoon, if you walk with young children on the four-mile roundtrip. If you take the bus most places, can you spring for a cab ride to the library one day? Take a horse and carriage ride downtown. Or the trolley. Years ago, when I was an education reporter for the CJ, an educator recommended taking children to the airport for the afternoon. That was certainly easier back in the days when you could roam the whole airport without a ticket, but even now a visit to the airport -- seeing the security systems, the glass elevators, etc. -- can be fun outing for a kid. 4)Eat someplace/something new. If you have any pad in your budget, it's fun to have a nice meal. But even if you don't have an extra dime to spend, you can still try something new. Do you normally eat at McDonald's on Wednesday night? Try a Arby's. You might be surprised at how little it takes to feel like a special outing -- especially if you do so in a new part of town. If you don't have money to eat out, you can still have a picnic at a park you've never been too. (Or at least get a new brand of frozen pizza, or try a new recipe.) 5)Start a project. Think about this in terms of having something to report afterwards. If you've wondered why children who are better off financially often test better in school, remember that part of the explanation involves their wealth of experiences. If you're reading a book that involves an airplane trip, for example, it is simply easier to understand that book for a child who has been in an airport. Likewise, if you and your child spend part of your spring break running a lemonade stand, planting a vegetable garden, putting up a bird feeder, or ... really... doing ANYTHING, they'll have a wider window on the world -- and they'll have something to say when a teacher asked: "What'd you do on spring break?" 6) Ok, I promised five tips, but one of them was cleaning the house. So I'll throw in some else: CAMP. Now, camping is not always the cheap activity people suggest. An official "camping trip" -- complete with gas stoves, lanterns, tarps, fire utensils, etc -- can be expensive, especially if it takes place at a for-profit campground. But if you've got a tent -- or can borrow one -- you can sleep outside for free or close to it. (Some campgrounds may advertise their cheapest rate as being about 20 dollars, but if you call they may have unimproved sites (with no electricity or water) for less. If you're camping for one night, from dusk to dawn, that's no big deal. If all else fails, you can camp in your own backyard.

Imagination takes you on the best trips!

ADD A COMMENT

	~*FabulousChic*~   mon mar 29 2010 at 2:00 pm         ·  Yeah I'm babysitting a very high strung 12 yr old... This is gonna be a long week for me... haha I'll be playing Wii till my eyes pop..
	Bwahahaha   mon mar 29 2010 at 8:05 pm         ·  I took a van full of kids ranging in ages from 4 to 14 to Bernheim last week and we all had a great time. The older kids explored while I hung out with the younger ones and enjoyed walking around the lake and the playground. Bernheim is only 20 miles south of Louisville and well worth the drive and the price (it is free Monday thru Friday)... We packed a lunch and made a day of it! I think it would be a great place for a scavenger hunt...
	Beverly Bartlett   mon mar 29 2010 at 8:54 pm         ·  Good idea, Busy, Busy Mommy. I wonder if they still have the I Spy trail. That's a fun, short trail for children. They give you a checklist and you're supposed to find various items hidden along the trail. (To check off, not to take.) It has a good mix of really hard ones and very easy ones, to entertain a wide range of kids.