Saturday, January 31, 2004
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico
Over at Debi Warford's blog I found this little gem. Apparently I am a Yankee at heart, seeing as how I prefer to visit north of the Mason-Dixon line. I still maintain the providential nature of my residency in Texas, and proudly bear the title of Father to Four Texans by Birth.
create your own visited states map
or write about it on the open travel guide
create your own visited states map
or write about it on the open travel guide
Sunday, January 11, 2004
You Can't Touch This
Our family spent Thursday evening watching the entire A&E production of "Pride and Prejudice". The girls were enraptured with the elegance and the obvious feminine appeal of a family with five daughters and no sons. The boys were less attracted, though the story line pulled them in, and I think the presence of military men gave them hope their might be a battle scene. At one point, I believe Joshua was on the edge of his seat thinking Darcy was going to hunt Wickham down and challenge him to a duel. Sadly, no. C'est la vie.
I was impressed with the lack of physical contact in social contexts. In a world where people hug near-strangers, the idea of bowing, nodding, curtseying, and generally keeping one's hands to oneself is nearly extinct. The only time men shook hands was when Darcy and Mr. Gardiner came to a business agreement on who was going to pay Wickham's debts. Children and parents embraced each other after long periods apart, as did sisters. Other than that, it seems physical affection was reserved for private personal moments between parents or spouses.
While I refuse to believe that there was any less adultery or any fewer temptations in the sexual realm during this era of mankind, I'm not opposed to the idea that those who chose to remain chaste in their thoughts and actions benefited so much more from this cultural pretense than the pretense that we have today: it's okay to touch another man's wife, especially if you are in church. Call me a prude (I'm not), or old-fashioned, but somehow it seems so much more respectful to keep your hands off of someone who is not connected to you by blood or marriage.
As the years have worn on, it's become more and more awkward hugging a female of any level of relationship. I am a very physically expressive person, and for the longest time it seemed "natural" to express affection in that manner. But there were moments when either in my own mind or in a very real sense, that expression laid the groundwork for something less than admirable. The most frightening moments were the ones where I detected a need in a married woman's momentary "hello" hug: an outwardly imperceptible lingering that said, "I need someone to understand me. He doesn't." The impropriety of that level of intimacy now terrifies me. So I work very hard at not hugging women unless they gave birth to me, took a vow of marriage to me, or are a product of my obedience to the procreative command.
I was impressed with the lack of physical contact in social contexts. In a world where people hug near-strangers, the idea of bowing, nodding, curtseying, and generally keeping one's hands to oneself is nearly extinct. The only time men shook hands was when Darcy and Mr. Gardiner came to a business agreement on who was going to pay Wickham's debts. Children and parents embraced each other after long periods apart, as did sisters. Other than that, it seems physical affection was reserved for private personal moments between parents or spouses.
While I refuse to believe that there was any less adultery or any fewer temptations in the sexual realm during this era of mankind, I'm not opposed to the idea that those who chose to remain chaste in their thoughts and actions benefited so much more from this cultural pretense than the pretense that we have today: it's okay to touch another man's wife, especially if you are in church. Call me a prude (I'm not), or old-fashioned, but somehow it seems so much more respectful to keep your hands off of someone who is not connected to you by blood or marriage.
As the years have worn on, it's become more and more awkward hugging a female of any level of relationship. I am a very physically expressive person, and for the longest time it seemed "natural" to express affection in that manner. But there were moments when either in my own mind or in a very real sense, that expression laid the groundwork for something less than admirable. The most frightening moments were the ones where I detected a need in a married woman's momentary "hello" hug: an outwardly imperceptible lingering that said, "I need someone to understand me. He doesn't." The impropriety of that level of intimacy now terrifies me. So I work very hard at not hugging women unless they gave birth to me, took a vow of marriage to me, or are a product of my obedience to the procreative command.
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Black Sheep and Golden Rules
It is confusing to me why a company would call itself a "Christian company." After all, organizations are only as sanctified as the people who work for them. There is something to be said for wanting to represent the Gospel using your business, but when any time someone is dealing with you and feel they haven't been treated fairly (or their expectations weren't met), it puts a black mark on the body of Christ. People don't forget the bad taste, and the bitterness of the gall is more memorable when it bears the Christian name.
Better to do business well and treat people better than they expect to be treated. If they see a difference, then it's easy to point to Scripture as your road map and explain to them that you try to operate your company with Biblical principles.
A large company is especially vulnerable, because the principals may be Christians, but not all of their employees will share their conviction. So the first time someone lies to a customer or doesn't attend to their needs with a "servant mentality", the Gospel is compromised, because you put a sheep's name on a wolf's face. The only protection one has against this, I suppose, is to force employees to commit to a specific code of conduct and fire them if they don't follow through. Then all the heathens have to at least ACT like Christians, even if they're not.
Better to do business well and treat people better than they expect to be treated. If they see a difference, then it's easy to point to Scripture as your road map and explain to them that you try to operate your company with Biblical principles.
A large company is especially vulnerable, because the principals may be Christians, but not all of their employees will share their conviction. So the first time someone lies to a customer or doesn't attend to their needs with a "servant mentality", the Gospel is compromised, because you put a sheep's name on a wolf's face. The only protection one has against this, I suppose, is to force employees to commit to a specific code of conduct and fire them if they don't follow through. Then all the heathens have to at least ACT like Christians, even if they're not.
Friday, January 02, 2004
Dude, I'm Gettin' a Dell
512 MB of memory. 40GB of pastoral cyberfields to romp in. A free CD-RW/DVD-R upgrade. A wide screen monitor. Hello, my precious.
