Switching to wordpress

For anyone interested, I'm switching to wordpress, because it's cool...

No really, wordpress is much prettier, so I thought I would try it out. The blog is the exact same name: Everybody's Fond of Owls

Book Review: Introverts in the Church

I just read a really great book that I think anyone in a Christian community should read. I'm an INTP on the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator, which means I love thinking about things and making connections between different areas of my life. I quite often look at my world through the lense of the Myers-Briggs test. Through my involvement in Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship at ASU for four years, as well as my small group experiences at Redemption Church, I've noticed that most people don't understand how much being an introvert or an extrovert affects your experience in any Christian community. This was one issue that was never dealt with in my community, even though many of the introverts consistently struggled with finding a place in that community where they both fit well and were capable of investing throughout an entire school year without burning out.

Introverts in the Church: finding our place in an extroverted culture by Adam S. McHugh talks about this issue in the church today, and offers much practical advice in the areas of Christian community, spirituality, leadership and evangelism for introverts living in an extroverted culture. Introverts in the Church starts by first identifying the problem (that there is a serious disconnect between the extroverted church culture in the United States and the 50% of the church body that is introverted) then discussing many different ways introverts can invest themselves by using their personality rather than trying to become extroverts. The book also delves into the gifts that introverts can offer within the community and on leadership, gifts that complement extroverted strengths!

My favorite thing about this book was how the author encourages introverts to blossom in their own gifts, but never gives introverts permission to withdraw from community or isolate themselves completely. While McHugh does point out that parts of the extroverted expectations of the American church are not actually required by the bible (which means that introverts don't need to do everything!) the fact is that we are required as Christians to invest in people, both in Christian community and in reaching those outside our faith. Introverts in the Church gives many ideas on how to be an active part of the church without simply acting extroverted, while still following the commandments the Bible gives for all Christians

I would recommend this book to anyone investing in a Christian community or leading one (which should be all Christians!). Introverts will find the book helpful in suggesting new ways to live out their faith, while extroverts may find a better understanding of the introverts in their community, and news ways to encourage them to be themselves within the community. Leaders may find practical ways to encourage their introverted disciples in self-understanding, community involvement, and eventually, leadership. I think that Introverts in the Church could be a book that starts to change Christian communities for the better!


*If you're interested in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, I would suggest the wikipedia article for understanding the concepts quickly and the Myers-Briggs website for a quick assessment of your own personality and what that means for you.

*If you like the book, check out McHugh's blog Introverted Church!

Book Review: Flight of Shadows

Flight of Shadows by Sigmund Brouwer is a suspenseful dystopian novel that plays with themes of extreme science, extreme government control, and the effects of extreme religion. The novel follows the story of Caitlyn, a hybrid human born with a deformity that sets her apart from everyone else. She's on the run from her old life, and from the authorities who want to control the powers that her genes hold.

The novel is middlingly suspenseful, but won't keep you up at night. "Flight of Shadows" is very enjoyable, though not always novel. As a one who greatly enjoys the sci-fi/fantasy genre, and especially dystopian novels, I found Flight of Shadows a bit predictable at points. There were a few twists, though, that really kept the plot going. Most of the characters are well formed, though they all fall into very typical categories (conflicted hero, unpredictable trickster support character, etc). My favorite character was the classic intelligent policeman who is on the opposite side from the hero, but probably will not stay there.

I really only had two problems with this novel: First, "Flight of Shadows" is actually a sequel to a previous book by Brouwer, "Broken Angel," which I have not read. The author did try to explain the previous connections between the characters, but not knowing the whole back-story made "Flight of Shadows" a little harder to read. Secondly, "Flight of Shadows" follows about four story-lines within the overall story. There are a lot of characters, and the book switches between story-lines almost every chapter. If you're not good at keeping track of characters, you might have some problems. Again, I would highly suggest reading "Broken Angel" first, as the characters would have more depth and hopefully would be less confusing.

If you've never read a dystopian novel, try this one out. If you don't know what a dystopian novel is, think "The Giver" by Lois Lowry, "Anthem" by Ayn Rand, "Uglies" by Scott Westerfield, "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley or "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by George Orwell. A dystopia is a future society that has regressed in some way from the present one. "Flight of Shadows" will introduce you (or reintroduce you, if you read one of these books in high school) to the dystopian genre. Overall, "Flight of Shadows" is a worthwhile, if not spectacular, read; one that might even make you think a little bit about where the future is going.

*I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review* I really do believe in what I wrote here though :) In simple terms: I enjoyed the book, would recommend it, but would not re-read it.

Musings: Normal vs. Abnormal

What is normal? It is too easy to just say normal is what we see to often. That really doesn't answer the question. At least not from a philosophical, let's base our morality/philosophy on this definition point of view. Do we define normal by what we know to be abnormal or abnormal by what we know to be normal? Or a mixture of the two, I guess? What are our expectations of something once we have determined if it's abnormal or normal? Do we say everything abnormal is bad and normal is good? If we don't then how do we treat it? In Generosity, a girl with 'abnormal' characteristics is first heralded then torn down for these genes which she did not choose and cannot control. Is it actually important to judge based on normal versus abnormal? If we're only talking about genetically based characteristics, then what does it matter? If Thassa is like that because of her genes, then how can she share anything for the good of humanity? If it's because of her and some choice she made or makes, then why would defining it as normal or abnormal even be a useful distinction? Perhaps the inherent-ness of normal and abnormal do not need to be fully genetically connected, which would leave the ability to find what makes a person one way or the other in their early life--a nurture related determinism instead of a nature related one. But it still doesn't seem the most helpful distinction. Even if at that level it can be helpful, in many cases the label of abnormal (or mental illness, or diseased) has a very detrimental effect on a person's life (whether because of their own response, or society's response to them, or both). This effect often seems bigger than the benefit of being able to put people into categories. Especially, if all we do as a society is go trigger-happy with the drugs, without actually teaching anyone how to manage their own lives without dependence on some pill, then how do these labels really help. Our whole society seems set up to help people fail, even as we have higher and higher incidences of 'mental illnesses.' Maybe the more important thing is to invest in finding how to help people help themselves--therapy, I'm saying--rather than in more drugs which take away symptoms. And then actually training people. But also, it seems like it is necessary to have a revolution in how we think about normal and abnormal. If we as a society can't get past the idea that someone with bipolar is disadvantaged, and ill, then we will never be able to use non-pill means of dealing with these diseases--because there are huge benefits to being somewhat bipolar, to being somewhat autistic, in what one can offer society. Many of the most influential and world-changing people in our history have been suggested to have had mental illnesses of one sort or another--and it allowed them to reach a much higher potential (perhaps even pushed them to) than the 'normal' human beings of the time.

Musings: the Pursuit of science

Is explaining things by science to the public actually ever helpful or even true? Without a very strong basis in science (and I mean one of multi-discipline multi-year study, really) it is very easy to make mistakes in the interpretation of science, and even in the pursuit of science. This happens pretty much every time scientific information is presented by the media to the public, with some sort of scientific background. This background is often paid for by the companies that benefit from it--unsurprisingly, since they're the only ones who have enough reason for the financial investment. However, many times the research does not even live up to the standards of peer-reviewed, pseudo-scientific method science that the academic world requires. But, when something is told to the public, if it's convincing at the first, it will live on long past the science. Therefore, should science even be used as a basis for media-mediated advice? Does this not just tear down the credibility of science every time the opinions go back and forth? On the other hand, what's the point of science if it is not used to change people's lives (or at least animal's lives, the environment, etc)? If the problem is the system, not the goals or the science, then is there another system that would work better? (other than the level of democracy/capitalism we use today)

Is striving for unbiased science actually worthwhile? Does it not need there to be an absolute truth to reach? To what extent should we try to be unbiased, and how far can we actually go? Since everything we 'know' is through our own senses, so is automatically biased. But which is more worth knowing: What we can perceive through our senses or some absolute that we cannot?

Musings: Homo Evolitus

How should evolution and purposeful evolution be thought of in today's human world? We are not under the same evolutionary pressures as when we developed, but we also will not evolve at any reasonable speed (even for evolutionary change), because of our ability to help people live, and even reproduce, who would not have been able to before. We have eradicated so many diseases, that the only ones left are the kind that are very good at adapting, or allow reproduction before becoming fatal (if they ever get fatal). Many health problems (which I personally hesitate to call diseases, by my own definitions at least) actually result from what were historically adaptations. Should we then begin to change ourselves? Not just behaviorally, but at the genetic level? Homo Evolitus. And if we should, how do we tell if a trait has any benefit today? Ex. in Generosity, the 'happiness gene.' We know why the pattern of normal anxiety/stress and occasional peaks of happiness/ecstasy were useful historically, but are they still necessary today? And how can we tell without trying (and causing some humans, or at least animals, to take genetic risks?

Musings: Getting out of our paradigm

So I'm going to post some things I've been thinking about, in relation to my classes and other things that have been going on in my life. I just sat down and wrote out what I've been thinking about/struggling with, so they not very well formed. A lot of the writing is in the form of questions, as well, because I don't have the answers yet (and may never, of course). I'm just going to post them though, and will hopefully come back at some point and edit/add to them. Some of the topics may be used for papers this semester, too...so that might lend a more concise form to them :) Also, there are a few book references from my class, that will be a bit incomprehensible if you haven't read the book--but ask me if you want to know more!

Getting out of our paradigm. Is it possible to do so? Does it come down to a forced change every time, or can we in some way choose to change? How do we judge how much our views are affected by our own paradigm. Is it possible to broaden our paradigm? Or is it only possible to change it? For example, in Avatar the main character and the scientists seemed to mostly just switch sides, rather than encompass both. This often seems to be the case (perhaps because I/We most easily see the polarizations) in people who have gotten out of their own cultural prejudices (most easily, indigenous peoples advocates in the US/Western culture). As a listener, I often get the feeling that I should be ashamed of everything Western and just convert to the indigenous viewpoint.