Awakened at the End of September!

Well, it's the end of September, so everyone who was waiting for the end of September to wake up (Green Day :)) can wake up!
So, I decided to write some thoughts at the end of the month. Here's the list:
1. Wednesday, or maybe Sunday night (or maybe even last Saturday morning), I was hit by a wave of nostalgia. I started thinking about childhood and the crazy things that my siblings and I did and about high school (as fun as it was, I really wouldn't want to do it again - college, maybe, high school, never). Anyway, I started thinking about how that time in my life really shaped how I am today. Although, I rather think I prefer to be on this side of it looking back than going through it again (don't mishear me, I really enjoy the experiences when they happen, but sometimes it's better to be looking back at them). And then I started thinking about how great I have it and how much God has blessed me. I have two parents who are just full of sense (now, at least, when I was in high school, they didn't make much sense to me - I must be getting old), two siblings who are unbelievably talented and intelligent and who are just a joy to be around (I haven't seen either of them in awhile, so that might have something to do with my warm feelings!), friends who support me and without whom I would definitely not be in the place I am (although, they're probably getting really tired of watching Law and Order with me!), and a wonderful church family. And, to top all that off, God has allowed me the privilege of dating a terrific, honorable guy who not only puts up with all my whining about law school, he puts up with the fact that I've gone off the deep end when it comes to the law. There are not enough hours in the day to relate all I've been blessed with, I've just named a few - a few of my treasures (Matt. 6:19-21).
2. I promised Court that I would use the word 'palpable' in one of my next posts. I fully intended to use it in last night's, but I completely forgot! So, here we go (and don't worry, there will be a way to use it that doesn't just give the word and a sentence using the word :)). Last night, I taught some people how to flowchart legal ideas. The rampant fear in the law school emanating from the 1L class is palpable. Ahh, I remember that year (how could I forget? It was only last year!). The late night studying, the cram sessions with my study group, the absolutely terrifying finals that loomed over me like Hurricane Rita loomed over Houston (of course, Hurricane Rita didn't hit Houston and finals hit me like a ton of bricks, so I'm not sure of the aptness of the analogy), the dread as we waited for grades to come out (although, that was a couple of weeks into the second semester - let me tell you, it would not be easy to quietly withdraw from law school after first semester grades come out - it's too late in the second semester). Ahhhh, how well do I remember last September. Of course, now it's easy to idealize, I'm sure it was worse than what I've described ;).
3. So, we're 6 weeks into the semester and I've got three complaints: 1. I haven't started my outlines yet. Now, this may not seem like such a bad thing, but since I've got other stuff going on this semester, I had planned to start a little early this year. Oh well, maybe next week. 2. I still don't understand a. what's going on in one of my classes and b. how this class is going to help me in the long run. I understand why I have to take it, but I don't understand how it will be helpful. 3. I'm taking the MPRE in November and I'm a bit scared of it (the same sort of palpable fear that is emanating from the 1L class!)
4. The new Law and Order season has begun! Many of you out there will not care. Many of you out there will think I'm a big nerd. Many of you will be right ;). (notice that I use the word 'you' in a very general, all-the-world sense rather than just directing this at the people who read my posts.) But, regardless of the many, I soldier on in the new season! What I like about Law and Order is that the longer I am in law school, the more flaws I see in it. I like to think of a good Tuesday or Wednesday night watching L&O (as it is affectionately called) as an issue-spotting exercise. The questions that come up? Can the police do that (many times yes, but I am a big fan of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, call me a civil libertarian)? Is that the real way a trial is conducted? Oh the fun! (of course, I also like the story lines and seeing what happens, and, of course, the 'Jack McCoy moments' (for the older crowd, these are analogous to 'Perry Mason moments').) All you law students know what I'm talkin' 'bout!
5. Work - first of all, this is the type of stuff I could do my entire life - I really like the law - it's always changing and yet never changing. Quite the paradox, wouldn't you say? Allow me to explain. The courts, regardless of your judicial philosophy, do make the common law. And this, my friends, is not a bad thing. So, in one sense, it is changing as judges decide cases and controversies (U.S. Constitution, Article III). On the other hand, from time immemorial, people have always had some system of dispute resolution (the fact that we in America have chosen the adversarial, legal profession route is merely a result of our social contract theory, etc.). So, we've always kinda had some sort of law, and it's always kinda made sense to us (us being the people using it - although, I'd bet that the law in this country doesn't make sense to a lot of people). And speaking of the law, one of my professors mentioned the other day the difference between statutes drafted by lawyers and statutes drafted by legislators (I know, I know, many of them are lawyers - but most of them don't practice!). Take a look at the UCC for example, place it beside a contemporary piece of legislation and see if you can't figure out which is superior (the UCC, by the way, is only law because the Legislature says it is, so don't go saying that lawyers make law too!)! The second thing I love about this profession is that I'm always learning something. Last week, I had no idea what one would have to plead for a bailment claim (oddly enough, I did know what bailment was - thank you Professor Oldfather!), now, I feel like somewhat of an expert! I love that! Not to mention the fact that if you are going to use something in a case (for ex. some scientific evidence), you have to know it like the back of your hand (speaking of, have you talked to the back of your hand lately? If not, you might not know it as well as you think you do) because you are going to have to know what questions to ask! (plus, if the other side is calling one of these witnesses, you are going to have to know what to ask on cross!).
6. Church - I am really missing iMPACT on Monday nights (not that it's church). I really enjoyed getting together with a bunch of people for fellowship and prayer. Only 10 or so more weeks! I am also really enjoying Ronnie's messages on Ephesians. (of course, I've been enjoying them for over a year now, so I'm not really sure that this should go with the 'end of September' theme - not that there's really much of a flow in this post anyway!)
7. This blog - I have really enjoyed posting on this puppy this year (even though I only started in June). So, I suppose I should thank Kevin for throwing me off his and forcing me to find my own forum. I'm not so sure that everyone has always enjoyed reading it, but that's not the point, is it? (if it is, someone tell me so I can revamp how I'm doing this)
8. Grammar - (and words in general) - how great is the English language? Granted, it would be better if we were all at least bi-lingual, but I really like the English language. So many fun words out there to use and to define (like 'palpable' - what a great word!).
9. It's getting dark earlier - I don't really classify this as a good or a bad thing - it just is. I like the evenings, since it's getting cooler, so I guess it's a good thing. I don't get up early enough to watch the sun rise, so I guess watching the sun set is just as enjoyable. Maybe more so, but I haven't gotten around to writing any poetry about it yet.
and, finally, 10. You - the reader! It's the end of September, and if you've stayed with this post this long, I commend you and ask that you have your head examined ;). Once again, I have rambled on and on and you have put up with it and read the insanity (unless you just scrolled down to the bottom to see how long this post was - shame on you!). Everyone have a great weekend!

In the news...

Okay, so this may be a litte bit of a rant, but what else have I ever written? :)
First - I have been against the project of putting a dome on the Oklahoma Capitol building since it was started. The argument I've always run into is: "it's being done with private donations." Fine, I've got little problem with that (although, I still think that they could use that money in better ways). But, I found out on the news last night that there is still $5 million to pay, and guess who is putting up that cabbage? You and Me - that's right, the taxpayers are paying the last $5 million on a dome paid for by private donations. I'm a bit upset by this, if you couldn't tell.
Then, I was driving to work yesterday, listening to talk radio (I've really got to stop listening to it, it just makes me mad). Jerry Doyle was on and he said that the best thing that could happen for this country would be that Tom DeLay gets tried, convicted, and led to jail in handcuffs on national television. Now, if DeLay is guilty, I've got no problem with that - arrest him and throw him in the slammer (I'm not going to line up to defend him, I don't know any of the details). But, can we have a trial first? Something in my head tells me that there's something in the Constitution that covers this situation. Ahh, yes, here it is, the sneaky 6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." (emphasis mine). In other words, an indictment is not carte blanche to throw someone in jail. An indictment (by a Democrat prosecutor, just to throw in the party classification, and keep in mind that the prosecutor has lots of control over a grand jury because he/she is the only one presenting evidence) is not evidence of guilt, nor is it a verdict of guilty. So, let's just hold onto our ponies for a few minutes, okay?
The other thing that bothers me about this DeLay thing is the prosecutor's apparent willingness to have the press make a movie about the investigation before DeLay has been brought to
trial, much less convicted! Okay, that was one of my huge problems with the O.J. Simpson trial - it was all on television and the judge was playing to the cameras the entire time.

In other news:
The Senate confirmed Roberts as your 17th Chief Justice this morning by a vote of 78-22. Here's my theory about the 22 nay votes. They were made for one of several reasons:
1. Barbara Boxer's reasoning: I don't know enough about his views on abortion (definition: the killing of unborn children), so obviously he is pro-life and I cannot vote for him.
2. Harry Reid's reasoning: I need, as the leader of the Democratic Party (at least in the Legislature, Howard Dean has unfortunately not disappeared yet - although, we haven't heard much from him lately - did he comment on Katrina?), to send a message to the Republican Party that we will filibuster if they allow someone more conservative to come through.
3. Hillary Clinton's reasoning: I'm running for president in a couple of years, I need the support of my party, Harry Reid is voting no, I'm having a bad hair day today (when is she not? I can't really say that - that's an ad hominem attack - I apologize), and my pantyhose has a run in it, obviously I cannot vote yea on this.
4. Mary Kay Letourneau's reasoning: he's not young enough. (I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself, I thought of it and had to write it).
and 5. Justice Souter's reasoning: He's competition and I may not be able to steal his house (see Kelo v. Connecticutt).

Okay, that's your fun stuff for today (although, more may follow), enjoy!

Gandhi

Well, I never really thought I'd write a post on Mahatma Gandhi, and I'm really not going to do so here. But, I did find a very interesting article on the move "Gandhi." And, so I thought, in the interest of allowing people to educate themselves and feeding the insatiable historian in myself, I would post this article. The article contains many things that I never knew about the man (not that I ever knew much), and many comments on the movie. It's kinda long, so if you're not at all interested in knowing about Gandhi or how historically inaccurate the movie is, don't bother. However, if you are interested, I think this is at least a good place to start.

I'm ba-ack!

Preliminary note: the title of this post is not to be read in an Arnold Schwartzenegger voice.
Another preliminary note: Justin, it's been longer since you've posted on yours than it has been since I have, so shush on your complaints (and I don't want to hear any whining about you trying to post but being unable to) .

Okay, preliminary notes finished, let me explain the title: I have made it through the wall, pushed it over or gone over it or something and have started freaking out about the fact that I don't have all the reading for next week finished already! (and it's only Wednesday....although, Monday night I could have sworn yesterday was going to be Thursday :)). What can I say, lately I've had the attention span of a 5-year old!

On to some interesting thoughts from today (and perhaps from yesterday, I can't promise none of those will creep in):
First, DeLay has been indicted. Not a huge shocker in my opinion, but still something that will have huge repercussions on Capitol Hill and for President Bush's agenda. Of course, that all remains to be seen.
Okay, caught up on current events, we turn our eyes to some things I thought it might be interesting to discuss. I had a realization this morning while I was listening to KOMA that made me rethink my bias against contemporary singers. (Don't worry, my bias against American Idol is still there and healthy.) I started thinking about the fact that I like all these older singers who didn't necessarily write their own songs and who didn't play instruments. Here's what I came up with for a distinction, however: they had talent. So, I came to the conclusion that there are some in every time frame who are going to be worth listening to regardless of their ability to play an instrument or write his/her own songs just because he/she has talent. On the other hand, there will always be some who are not worth listening to because they can't write their own songs, can't play instruments, and face it, they just don't have any talent. (the question then arises, why do there seem to be more of them now than in times past? Or is that just me remembering a 'golden-era' of good music that never really existed?)

Okay, that's enough of that. Here's the realization from this morning's criminal procedure class: as I get further into this legal education, I see more of the flaws of the system. A couple of months ago, I wrote about the fact that our legal system had a tendency to attempt to imitate the Almighty's perfect justice and perfect mercy, and I still believe that. However, I was sitting in criminal procedure reading cases about the 4th Amendment (right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures), and the civil libertarian in me started to protest. I am not, by the way, a liberal, I am a conservative. I also believe that law enforcement has to be able to do its job. However, I get really bothered by the ways the police have around the 4th Amendment to search anyone's vehicle, etc. The cases you read really aren't that sympathetic, because it really does only come up where someone has been convicted of something, and so I have a tendency to think, well, they deserved it anyway. But, I have a difficult time coming to the conclusion that we must sacrifice our Constitutional protections in order to effectively investigate people. I have become a terrible person to watch Law & Order with because I have a tendency to get angry at the police characters in that show for not respecting a suspect's Constitutional rights and then getting upset at the prosecutor for not being able to get the illegally gained evidence in at trial. See, I'm getting upset thinking about it. Well, here's my comment on that - if you want the evidence to be admissible, get it legally! There are plenty of ways to get it legally, trust me. (there is also a problem with the law enforcement here in Oklahoma - not all law enforcement, but it seems to be more pervasive than we might think)
Must get off that topic! Okay, that's all I've got for today (sorry about the rambling, I decided to try out the stream of consciousness writing here).

The Wall

I have hit It. The Wall. And I'm not talking about the Great Wall of China. I am talking about the Wall that has been erected in the middle of every semester of law school. I have run head on into it without a helmet every semester so far. To those of you who are in law school, you will understand. Those of you who are too close to a law student might be able to understand, and probably can, but let me explain it to you anyway. This Wall (I refer to it personally because we have gotten to be acquaintances, never friends because it is more adversarial than that, but we have gotten to know each other over the last year and a half) is an unfortunate lack of motivation. I am sitting in the torts class, in which I am a TA (so to speak), freezing (because they keep this building way too cold) and thinking about how much I have to do this week and not wanting to do any of it. I know this week I will be pressed for time, but who cares? I have hit the Wall, my friends, I have hit the Wall. Here's the other problem with the Wall - apparently every semester it is erected earlier. My first semester I made it through at least 9 weeks without hitting it; second semester, probably 7 weeks....here we are in the 5th week of school in my third semester and I've already hit It. At this rate, by the time I get to my last semester, I will hit it during Christmas break! Okay, that's my rant for today.

Ice Cream, Islam, and 'Tolerance'

Okay, normally (since when did I start calling myself normal?), I wouldn't post twice this closely, but I found this article and really had no choice. I figured if I buried it in my much longer earlier post, no one would read it, but it's hilarious, in my opinion. Burger Kings in the UK had to remove their ice cream machines because....here's a guess, there was some indication that they were unsafe - some employee had stuck his finger in it and it got chopped off and that incident prompted a general recall for safety and health reasons? No....if that was your guess, you were wrong. The real reason? The lid on the ice cream machine resembled the Arabic inscription for Allah. That's right - a Muslim threatened jihad, whatever that means in the context of offensive behavior from Burger King. Wow have we all gotten sensitive or something. I found that article on the tongue-tied website (linked on the right), and just had to comment on it. You know, dipping a crucifix in urine is considered art in the United States, so maybe BK should truck all their restaurants in the UK back on over here.

Judge Roberts and other stuff

This is a picture of East Jerusalem. I can't figure out how to put a picture at the bottom of the posting, so you can look at it at the beginning :).

Nothing much is going on right now: the Roberts confirmation hearings are over and no one knows when the Senate will vote on his appointment. So, in the absence of having anything interesting to say about Capitol Hill, let's move on to other topics.

Gas prices are rapidly declining. However, it doesn't look like they will ever return to those halcyon days of 1.50 prices. I could be wrong, but I don't expect it.

Someone has finally sued "Extreme Makeover" because they refused to make her pretty. Actually, the complaint alleges a little more than that - not only did they refuse to make her pretty, they caused her sister to commit suicide. This is an article you have to read to believe. I'd rather like to follow the case and see whether some judge throws it out for failure to state a claim. (on a 12(b)(6) for all you crazy law students out there!)

Here's an interesting thing about Roberts: Mayor Bloomberg of NYC opposes his appointment because, get this, he can't tell if Roberts would be for or against a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a baby. My roommate and I discussed this last night, and I want to issue a small challenge to all 'pro-choice' persons out there: would someone, in a civil manner without hysterically pointing to the possibility that some woman will be dragged into a back alley to get an abortion or the right of a woman to have autonomy over her own body, please explain to me how not having the right to an abortion keeps women from having the right to decide whether or not to have a child? And no pointing to the rape victims either - that's a discussion for another day.
Speaking of abortion: I found this great article that talks about the fact that actions have consequences, and we wouldn't expect to be able to eat as much as we please without possible health and weight problems; nor would we expect to not eat at all and not have serious health consequences. I really wish I could find the article, but I can't, so you'll have to take it on faith that it was a good article. Bottom line: actions and choices have consequences, there are some you wouldn't dream of getting out of (because of the impossibility), so why do we expect to get out of these?

OU football: there are reasons to be comforted even in the face of two seemingly insurmountable losses. However, we will probably be lucky to win 6 games this season. If Bomar keeps getting better (I concede that this week was an exponential improvement over the last game) and we can get rid of stupid mistakes, we may not be too bad at the end of the season. [I'm not as hopeful as some people I've talked to, though - we still look pretty bad.] And look out next year after these players get some playing time in! And, in OU news, apparently the coaches have decided to play Paul Thompson as a WR. How do you go through spring training, an entire summer, and fall practices and not know that the guy you have starting the first game at QB shouldn't be there?

And, who believes Iran when they say they don't have any and are not seeking the technology to create any nuclear weapons? (and get this: it's because the religion prohibits it - someone find me that sura in the Koran)

I'll leave everyone with this verse this afternoon: "Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!"

Complaint

I am going to register a complaint against blogging. I enjoy writing my opinions and linking to all types of news stories and all that, but I have one (I may have more, but this is the one I can think of at the moment) big complaint about it. There is very little discussion! I am the type of person who (1) learns by discussion; (2) loves to hear other people's opinions on things; and (3) will argue about anything (this point is likely to generate not a little commenting). So, what's my problem with blogging? Well, not to impugn my regularly reading and commenting (thanks everyone :)) readers, but there are very few discussions about anything I post. Now, this, I concede, may very well be my fault because I don't post nearly enough 'discussion-worthy' topics. And, since I don't comment on too many other people's blogs nearly often enough, I extend my most abject apologies for complaining about this. I think, however, that it is also a question of numbers - the more people reading any one thing, the more discussion it is bound to generate. (what has been so interesting to me so far is that the posts I think will generate debate rarely do, while the ones I think have very little to do with anything worthwhile (i.e. the band names post) have, for some odd reason, generated the most responses - weird)

So, in an attempt to fix what I see as a problem, I am going to try to post more 'discussion-worthy' topics. I don't know how to fix any of the other parts of this problem, so I guess I'll have to leave them alone for now. Either that or quit blogging in favor of having actual real live discussions with people that don't involve a keyboard.

However, there is one bright side to my complaint: what I do like about blogging is that when discussions do happen to get started, while there is ample opportunity for people to be rude and mean and slanderous and everything else that goes along with that, there is no opportunity to interrupt. (all the people who have ever had an argument with me may be surprised that I like this about blogging because I have a terrible habit of interrupting people when I think I'm right and they are wrong - but, contrary to popular belief, I do enjoy a good, civil, non-raised voices discussion where people are allowed to finish their thoughts and then have them commented upon). The other side of the no opportunity to interrupt is that you have the argument laid out before you, not on a page with disappearing ink, so that you can respond point by point to all the contentions. That, in my humble opinion, is both good and bad (because invariably, if you're the one making the argument, you will leave something out; but, if you are the one refuting the argument, you have ample opportunity to think about it).
Okay, well, that's all I've got for today except:
I took my car in to get it fixed and it's going to cost me a pretty penny (that's even minus the 4 other things they found wrong with it! And about the phrase 'pretty penny' - where did that come from anyway?). But, on the bright side - gas prices are coming down!

A random question about band names

Okay. If anyone I don't know finds this blog, this question is going to sound very odd and random, but, if the reader knows me, this will merely seem like par for the course.
Here's the question that's been keeping me up at night (well, really just one night, and my roommate wasn't very much help):
Why do some vegetables (and other food) work for band names but not others?
For example, the Black-eyed Peas - that works. The Carrots - that does not work.
Korn - that works.
Red Hot Chili Peppers - that works. Black Cold Cabbage - that does not work.
Bread - that works. Muffins - that does not work.
And I can think of no fruit band names (there's Banana Seat - but that's not named after the yellow fruit). If anyone else can, let me in on the secret.

And, to extrapolate that principle, let's apply it to places as well:
Chicago, Boston, Kansas - those all work.
Think you'll ever hear of a band named Norman? (unless the lead singer is named Norman, don't count on it) Or how about Tobago? (now that I think about it, that would actually be a pretty cool name)
Why is there no band named Greenland (or is there and I don't know about it?) or Iceland?

Here's my theory: there are some names that are inherently cool and those are the names that work for bands (don't ask me what it is that makes them inherently cool, that's like asking what makes ice cubes cool - no, not the same thing, that actually has an explanation - they're frozen; it's like asking what makes waterskiing cool - it just is). The other names are like instant death to your band if you name your band after that item/person. Rule of thumb? There is none - I guess you have to name your band and leave the coolness decision up to everyone else (sorry all you aspiring bands out there, I have no guidelines for you).

This is one of those posts where I am going to ask for feedback. What are your thoughts on this band issue? I need to get some sleep, so I need to know. I can't afford any more sleepless nights because of this question!

Church Attendance

A friend sent me an email about church attendance and I thought I'd share it with everyone. It's a pretty cool little anecdote:

If you're spiritually alive, you're going to love this! If you're spiritually dead, you won't want to read it. If you're spiritually curious, there is still hope!

Why Go To Church?

A Church goer wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper and complained that it made no sense to go to church every Sunday. "I've gone for 30 years now," he wrote, "and in that time I have heard something like 3,000 sermons. But for the life of me, I can't remember a single one of them.. So, I think I'm wasting my time and the pastors are wasting theirs by giving sermons at all."
This started a real controversy in the "Letters to the Editor" column, much to the delight of the editor. It went on for weeks until someone wrote this clincher:
I've been married for 30 years now. In that time my wife has cooked some 32,000 meals. But, for the life of me, I cannot recall the entire menu for a single one of those meals. But I do know this... They all nourished me and gave me the strength I needed to do my work. If my wife had not given me these meals, I would be physically dead today.
Likewise, if I had not gone to church for nourishment, I would be spiritually dead today!" When you are DOWN to nothing.... God is UP to something! Faith sees the invisible, believes the incredible and receives the impossible! Thank God for our physical AND our spiritual nourishment!

A few thoughts from around the internet

I was looking around on the internet yesterday and a few editorials caught my eye. So, I thought that others might like to read them.

This article is a heartwarming discussion about individuals' responses after Katrina. We may all be worried about the criminal element in New Orleans after this disaster, but there are some great things that come out of it as well.

The second article is actually a blog entry making parallels between Katrina victims and humanity in its fallen state. It's really well done.

Also, an update - I got a new computer and the number keys work. Yay!
Okay, I'm going to the OU game now, hoping that it's better than last week. Hope everyone is having a wonderful weekend!

Another Birthday?

Happy Birthday Chad! You're getting old!

Breaking News

President Bush has some more on his plate this evening! Chief Justice Rehnquist has passed away tonight, giving Bush another appointment to the Supreme Court, immediately on the heels of what looks like it might be a brutal series of hearings on John Roberts' appointment. Conservatives such as myself mourn the passing of Justice Rehnquist and would like to reflect for just one moment about his time on the Bench.

Rehnquist was appointed by President Nixon in 1972 and became Chief Justice in 1985 when President Reagan filled the opening left by Chief Justice Burger's retirement.

Rhenquist and 'his' court will most likely be remembed as taking a broader view of states' rights, with its opinion in US v. Lopez; and as broadening the Court's view of the Establishment Clause in cases such as Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. He was a conservative justice, concerned with originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and I hope that President Bush is able to appoint someone similar to replace him.

2 Questions and a comment

Ok, in the wake of Katrina, I feel the need to ask for feedback on two questions:

First, does anyone have any suggestions as to what organizations to which to donate? Is the SBC gathering a collection or anything? I never know which organizations are best to donate to as far as how many of my dollars or how much of my help is actually going to the rescue effort rather than to administrative costs.

Ok, and second, does anyone have any suggestions as to how to cope with the rapidly rising gasoline prices? I know the obvious, don't do unnecessary driving, but does anyone have any other thoughts on this?

Last, the comment, prayer, prayer, prayer. Like the situation I discussed in an earlier post, worldwide prayer is needed here.

Christian Marriage

Of course, I am not going to write this post. I am going to allow more adept, more experienced, and more wonderfully verbal people to write it for me. In other words, I am going to exploit some scholars (and some who are not scholars) to say some things that I agree with but that I cannot say with the alacrity with which they speak. So, disclaimer aside, here we go.

First, the text in question:
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."
Ephesians 5:22-33

Second, a quote from C.S. Lewis:
"Something else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the man is said to be the 'head'. Two questions obvoiusly arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all - why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?
(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two, there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.
(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say 'Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.' I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own 'headship'. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world - what might be called its foreign policy - must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The funciton of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If you dog has bitten the child next door, which woud you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendencey not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbors as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?"
That, of course, is not all Lewis has to say on the matter, but I think that it applies to the matter at hand more closely than the rest of his chapter in Mere Christianity about Christian marriage - the matter in question being the submission of the Chrisitian wife, not the state of being in love or the promise made by a marriage 'contract' with which the rest of Lewis' chapter is primarily concerned.

Then, for the sake of brevity, not reproduced in its entirety here, a blog entry that I think succinctly addresses the subject without beating anyone over the head with it. But first, a note from the aforementioned blog to whet everyone's appetite:
"The decision to submit is a voluntary one - it cannot be forced on the wife or husband. It has to be voluntary because it is an expression of obedience to God; and He looks at our heart." (emphasis in original)

Okay, just some food for thought during this wedding season (I feel like I have been to so many weddings in the past few months! And I have more to go to before the year is out!).