This week, Interview with the Vampire author Anne Rice officially outed herself from Christianity. Naturally, she did so via her Facebook wall. Here is the text of her post:

“For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian … It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.”

Conscience? What exactly is it about Christianity that violates Rice’s conscience? Well, a few hours later, she posted this:

“As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

Much like her return to the Roman Catholic church a decade ago, her stark about-face in regards to the church has stirred up a bit of discussion and opinion. Many wondered if she was mocking Christ and returning to her atheist beliefs of yesteryear. Again, via Facebook, Rice offered additional insight into her decision and her remaining devotion to the “Christ” of Christianity:

“My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.”

A friend of mine on Facebook compared her comments to those of Ghandi, who famously repudiated Christians, while embracing much of the philosophy of Jesus. Other friends of mine cannot understand how one can embrace the teachings of Jesus without joining his followers as well.

It’s a pretty fascinating concept to wrestle with. Are you a Democrat if you support President Obama? Are you an anti-Semite if you support Mel Gibson? What if you happen to like Mel Gibson’s movies? Does appreciating Tom Cruise’s role in Interview with the Vampire mean that you need to embrace Scientology as well? And now we’re back to Anne Rice.

A local Christian church had a sermon series a few months back with the title “Fan or Follower”. It was designed to separated the sheep from the goats, and the faithful from the attenuated. The desire was to elicit a hardy response of  ”Follower!” to the not so rhetorical question of how one should respond to Jesus. It was very much a situation of “either you are for us, or you are against us”. It was a significant souring point on my own relationship with the church, which I discussed in a little more detail here.

So, Anne is a fan of Jesus, but does not want to follow him along with any fellow followers.

Sounds fair to me.

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve come across two news articles, with very different examples of interaction between Christians and atheists.

The first one was written by Tom Krattenmaker of USA Today. The title of the article is How to sell Christianity? Ask an Atheist. The gist of the story is all about the new approach to evangelism being espoused by Jim Henderson. Henderson is a Seattle Christian who has embraced atheism as key to understanding why old argumentative approaches have become increasingly “more likely to repel than persuade”.

Buying a soul on eBay

Henderson famously purchased the soul of atheist Hemant Mehta on eBay, in order to get his perspective on the Christian church. Mehta wrote a book about what that experience did for him, while Henderson hired another atheist to travel with him to Christian churches around the country, and wrote a book about all of it. From what I have gathered from the reviews on Amazon, it sounds like both books are positive and even-handed, not looking to prove one side right, but seeking truth in our religious mire.

For what I understand about Jesus, and from the experiences that I have had with Christians, Henderson’s behavior is in line with what I would expect Jesus to do if he were alive today in those circumstances. The whole “What Would Jesus Do?” discussion would look favorably on this guy, in my opinion.

One Nation, Indivisible

In North Carolina, an atheist group displayed the words “One Nation, Indivisible” on a billboard next to the Billy Graham Parkway in Charlotte. The phrase is a part of the Pledge of Allegiance and intentionally leaves out the words “Under God”. These words were added to the pledge in 1954, and have been debated in different ways by different people ever since.

The new controversy is due to graffiti sprayed on the sign a couple of weeks ago, with the words “Under God” added back into the phrase. The debate at hand is whether or not it is appropriate for God followers to deface property, in the name of their god.

The North Carolina Secular Association (the group responsible for the original sign) wants to display their view that the Pledge of Allegiance should not include any language that respects a particular religion. They would rather have the pledge be neutral about any gods, and therefore be silent about the mention of any deities.

In a general sense, Christians are a majority in America, and a large part of democracy is majority rule. There are many Christians who believe that their majority views should be legislated or mandated upon the entire nation. They do not see loyalty to God and loyalty to the United States to be in conflict. To be a good American is to acknowledge God as the protector of it, according to some.

I would have to say that such behavior is not in accordance with the descriptions and understandings of the biblical Jesus. Jesus would not be a political “tagger”. As one quote from the article suggests, perhaps Christians should develop a new bracelet, saying: “What Would Jesus Spray Paint?”

Believe it, or not

Christians of the Arminianist tradition believe that belief in God is a matter of choice, and that such choices are personal to each individual. If Christians want to perpetuate a culture of being able to believe in God, and believe in him in a manner of their choosing, then they need to support those who believe differently. Without the possibility of dissent, there would be no point to discuss or deliberate the merits of Christianity, as a choice.

Many will remember Voltaire’s famous quote:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Do Christians feel so strongly to defend the rights of atheists?

To offer an answer to the title question, I believe that everybody needs an atheist in their life. No man can see everything around him, and if everyone you know is shining their light in the same place, how will you be able to see the rest of the world around you?

BT – I don’t know if it’s because I’m a devoted fan or because I’ve got precious little of value happening in my own life, but I’ve put in several hours over the last month soaking up all of the info I could find to prep myself for the next few weeks in South Africa.

Throughout all of what I will loosely term “my research,” I was surprised to find that one thing kept occurring to me: Landon Donovan is an A-Hole. In every interview, whether it was video or print, he comes off as smug, arrogant, and irritated that people are interested in talking to him. Not exactly what Team USA wants from their most famous player. Thoughts?

ZP – Alright Benny, I can’t argue that Donovan is an A-hole. Everything that you have read and seen is probably right on the money. I have to concede that number 10 isn’t going to win any congeniality competitions.

But, with that being said, isn’t that what you want from a competitor? Look at the second greatest French footballer ever, Eric Cantona. He set new heights (lows?) with his disdainful attitude and behavior. He drop kicked a fan in the middle of a game!

Click here to view the embedded video.

Manchester United’s captain in the 90’s was a bit over the top in his A-holeness, but I would argue that you need something like that from a team leader. He’s not playing the game to make friends, he’s there to prevail over his opponents.

People hate Kobe for the same reason, but that cold blood is exactly what makes him such a lethal killer. There is no way to argue that Kobe doesn’t have those the self-worshiping, douche-bag qualities in spades. But he wins, and this covers a multitude of sins.

I can vividly remember Donovan being interviewed about the U.S. National Team’s burgeoning rivalry with Mexico in 2002. He was so matter of fact about how it wasn’t much of a rivalry because of the way the U.S. had dominated them so thoroughly in their last several contests.  He even used the phrase “kicked their ass”.  It was a classic, “Put up, or shut up” type of comment, directed right at our neighbors to the south. It was also classic A-hole, and I loved it.

What would you attribute his captainship to?

BT – Important to note that Donovan is not the captain of Team USA. Carlos Bocanegra is the player-voted captain. When Bocanegra isn’t on the field, and Donovan often inherits the armband, I would imagine that it is out of seniority as much as anything else.

Keep in mind, I’m not condemning Donovan as a soccer player. I believe Landon Donovan is a victim of circumstance. A huge responsibility was placed on Donovan’s shoulders, a responsibility that he cannot possibly live up to. US Soccer presented Donovan as its messiah, giving fans the impression that he would dominate games from end line to end line. This is simply not the type of player that Landon Donovan is.

But what Landon does, he does very well: He gets the ball into the finishing third of the field, and makes smart decisions and crisp passes once he gets there. You rarely see Landon blast one fifteen rows into the seats, and numbers don’t lie: USA’s top-dog all time in goals and assists.

Like him or not, Landon Donovan is to US soccer what Kobayashi is to hot dog eating contests, or what beer is to, well, anything. That may attribute to his pseudo-captainship. Who else is there really to challenge him for the crown?

ZP – Alright, I can buy the “victim of circumstance” argument. Although, if you remember DeMarcus Beasley had a similar amount of expectation as America’s new golden boy in 2002, but he crumbled with the pressure. Tip of the cap to Donovan for standing strong thus far.

As far as a challenger to the U.S. Soccer crown, maybe we should differentiate between the best player and the rightful wearer of the captain’s armband.

With as much sense as it makes to designate a man who’s name means “black mouth” to be your communicatory ambassador to the referee, Bocanegra is probably the best choice. Claudio Reyna seemed to give the U.S. less than nothing on the pitch each time out, but the players steadfastly preferred him as captain during his tenure. Boca seems to have the same level of respect.

As far as the best player argument goes, how about your boy Clint Dempsey? I don’t follow the Premiership as closely as I should, but this Fulham chant speaks volumes about his reputation across the pond:

“He scores with his left, He scores with his riiiiight, That boy Clint Dempsey, Makes Drogba look shite!”

Make an argument for Deuce, I’m all ears.

BT – One of the most overused terms in soccer analysis is “creativity.” Analysts throw it into their critique of every midfielder that steps on the field. It’s frustrating because it cheapens what truly creative players, like Dempsey, do so well.

Due to the lack of breaks in action, soccer is very much a game of rhythm, not unlike ping pong or Barrel of Monkeys. As such it is easy for players and teams to fall into a lull of predictable repetition which is easy to defend. Creative players like Dempsey change games by taking chances on risky plays and passes, not always to see direct dividends, but more often just to keep the defense from getting too comfortable. (Oddly, this was also my original strategy when I burst onto the semi-professional monkey-stacking scene in the mid-80s.) Dempsey is the first truly creative player I’ve seen in a US jersey. This creativity speaks to his incredible skill and swagger, and is invaluable to a US program that is very average in most areas.

I think that Dempsey is probably the most talented player on the US roster, but in terms of achieving results, talent can only take you so far (see Portugal, which basically runs out a roster full of Dempseys every time they play). While I’d certainly prefer to get into a dialogue about Dempsey’s fabulous beard stubble, I instead will ask you this: Would saddling him with the captaincy interfere with his wildcard mentality, and keep Deuce from being Deuce?

ZP – I agree with you regarding Demsey’s talent, swagger, impact on the game, and even his attractive beard stubble. I’m not sure if I would call him a creative player, but I like the picture you present of him being a disruptive force to another team’s equilibrium.

As far as being captain goes, I do think that it would be a bad idea for Clint and his fragile emotions. He plays on a tight-wire of tension, aggression, and PMS quality emotional rawness.

When I first saw Clint Dempsey crying at the end of the Confederation’s Cup final last year, I was encouraged by it. Maybe he was exhausted after the effort that he had put forth and simply didn’t have enough strength to control his tear ducts. Perhaps he was reflecting on the death of his sister as a child, and the subsequent opportunities that had given him the opportunity of that moment. In my view, I believed that he understood the historical impact of the result that his country had just earned. I believed that he was devastated by falling short of his personal goal. By all accounts, I was right.

But here is my problem.

When Michael Jordan won the NBA title, he embraced the Larry O’Brien trophy, and cried like a baby. Adam Morrison and Tim Tebow wet their collars while the clock ticked down to a loss. When Steve Nash finally swept the Spurs in the playoffs this year, he went into the locker room and bawled his eyes out. When the Lakers finished the Suns within a fortnight, not a tear was shed.

Winners cry when they win.

Who cries when they lose?

I’ll give you the last word.

BT – I feel as though I’ve seen many players cry when they lose, though no examples immediately pop into my brain. That is probably because the losing team gets fewer articles written about them and as such their tears are significantly less publicized. Everything you said about Dempsey being an emotional player is spot on, and I agree that being saddled with any resposibility other than being a wildcard would severely cramp his style.

That said, if Clint Dempsey is not a creative player then I don’t know if I’ve ever seen one. I mean, seriously:

Click here to view the embedded video.

If this is the last word then I suppose a verdict must be rendered: Who is better for US Soccer, Donovan or Dempsey?

In this World Cup? Donovan. This team is going to give up some goals, and they need him to play and play well in order to get those goals back on the offensive end. It’s very possible that Dempsey could finish with more points than Donovan, but the threat of Donovan’s speed on one of the wings is crucial to open up space for the rest of the team to operate.

For the long run? Dempsey. If the US is going to make an impact when they hopefully host the Cup in 2018 or 2022, that means that America’s next generation of superstars are in junior high and high school right now. It’s important for those kids to know that you don’t have to be from South America or Europe to have world class soccer skill, and important for them to see a player who is truly unintimidated by the traditional powerhouse soccer countries. Dempsey is the player who shows displays these attributes most clearly.

Plus, Landon Donovan is an A-Hole…

In the fall of 2003, at the age of fourteen, Freddy Adu became the youngest athlete to sign an American professional sports contract in over a century.  Along with his MLS contract, a very lucrative deal with Nike had thrust the Ghana-born US citizen into the spotlight.  The hype surrounding his signing with Major League Soccer had caused quite a stir.  Was it possible that the best young soccer player in the world was actually right here in the shadows of our nation’s capital, and would one day lead the red, white, and blue to international glory on the pitch?  Major League Soccer certainly thought so.

Freddy gets a kiss from Pele

Adu was signed to DC United and made his first appearances with them in 2004.  The pundits were skeptical.  Some feared for the boy’s safety, while others claimed that if he were as good as they claimed that he should be sent to one of the top youth academies overseas.  Other players were skeptical as well.  Just because a kid is quick and skilled does not mean that he should be competing at the professional level.  However the US soccer program had already dubbed him as their white knight, and there would be no turning back.

When I heard about Freddy Adu, and saw the approach that was being taken to groom him for stardom, I laughed.  This was going to be a disaster.  My logic was simple:  If you are grooming somebody to be a dominant athlete, the worst possible thing you can do is make them a role player.  Freddy Adu had been taken from playing against high school kids, where he could learn to take over games and dominate competition, to playing against men twice his age, where he would be relegated to coming off the bench and playing on the outside midfield.

Then, a rare thing happened:  I turned out to be right.  In the seven years since, Adu has had a journeyman career.  He has played for six clubs in the last five years, and was not even invited to US National Team camp last month.  He is currently plying his trade in Greece, and no more than an afterthought on the American soccer landscape.  A disappointing, though not surprising, result of the path that was set for him seven years ago.

All hope is not lost for Freddy.   At age 21, he will still have two more chances to perform on the world’s biggest stage.  While his current situation can be attributed to decisions that were made for him as a fourteen year old, Freddy still has the opportunity to look inside himself (or, at least into his reflection in a bottle of legally purchased beer) and set his own course for the next decade.

My left eye burst open as the all too familiar shrieking of my alarm clock pierced the calm silence of my bedroom this morning.  Still not fully aware of what was happening, muscle memory had located and silenced the offender within a matter of seconds.  The right side of my face still buried in a pillow, my left eyeball scanned the room for some sort of explanation of what in the name of Jake Gyllenhaal’s beard was happening.  Slowly things started to come together.  It’s 5:30… it’s Saturday… hands are a little clammy… forehead is a little warm.  It’s all vaguely familiar.  I remembered a similar sensation from a few summers ago.  Ah, yes… yes I remember now.  The Fever.  I’ve come down with a case of the World Cup Fever.  Symptoms include rising with the sun every day for a month, regularly throwing back a pint with breakfast, and overuse of terms such as “match” and “pitch” in place of the more Americanized “game” and “field.”

World Cup fever is definitely back, and despite being six days out of the official start of the tournament, I found myself stumbling out to the recliner at 5:30 Arizona time this morning to watch the US take on Australia in their final tuneup “match” before taking to the “pitch” against England next Saturday, June 12.  The contest came and went in very similar fashion to their two previous friendlies against Czech Republic and Turkey.  There were some offensive highlights, some defensive miscues, and overall I came away with a sense that I had just watched a team that is still struggling to figure out exactly who they are.  Which begs the question:  Who exactly are these guys, and what chance do they stand of making a name for themselves amongst the world’s elite over the next few weeks?  I’m glad you asked.

The Roster

The US roster is a relatively inexperienced one, in terms of international competition.  While names like Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey, and Tim Howard are fairly well-known in the worldwide soccer community, the rest of the roster has traveled to South Africa in relative anonymity.  From head coach Bob Bradley on down, the team as a whole is putting on a confident front going into the competition.  An attitude to which they may be entitled, considering that most experts are picking them to advance out of their group into the knockout stages.  However, those predictions are most likely based more on the teams the Americans will be facing, rather than on the roster itself.  Algeria and Slovenia, while not pushovers, are considered among the weaker teams in the field of 32.  As a result, England and the USA are really the most logical choices to advance from Group C.

The roster itself suffered a big blow when striker Charlie Davies was severely injured in an auto accident last fall, and suffered another big setback less than a month later when top defender Oguchi Onyewu tore his patellar tendon in a qualifying match.  Onyewu returned to training early this spring, but still seems very uncertain on that knee, and it is starting to become obvious that he is still quite a ways out from being the dominant physical presence that the US need him to be in the heart of their defense.  Davies, despite a miraculous recovery to return to training in the spring, was left off of the World Cup roster.

The one area in which the Americans can be comfortable, is goalkeeping.  Top keeper Tim Howard is regarded as one of the world’s best, and he is not only healthy, but also playing at the pinnacle of his career.  Backups Marcus Hahnemann and Brad Guzan are very adequate if they need to be called upon.

The defense in front of Howard has looked shaky at best over the last few weeks.  Onyewu remains a question mark, and fellow central defender Jay Demerit does not seem to have the awareness to orchestrate the defensive organization.  The outside defenders have repeatedly been caught watching when the attacks come from the opposite side of the field, giving opponents numerous clear looks when they crash in on the back post.  As a general rule for outside defensive players:  The fewer times the announcers mention your name, the better your performance.  I have been hearing the names Spector, Cherundolo, and Bocanegra far too often, and I feel that if the US is to have a chance in this tournament, these players need to figure out a way to step up their game.

The good news in terms of midfield is that Bob Bradley seems to have his lineup figured out, they seem to be healthy, and three of the four starters are legitimate international level players.  The bad news in terms of the midfield is the fourth starter: Ricardo Clark.  I have never seen a central midfielder do less on a soccer field.  This morning against the Socceroos he played the entire game, and I think I heard his name called two or three times.  This has been his motif since he became a regular on the national side a couple of years ago.  He must be an amazing practice player, because Bob Bradley is sticking with him, and most games I have no idea he is even on the field until the oppositions center midfield makes a wide open run through our defense and I scream “Who’s man was that!”   If it weren’t for Tivo I’d have no idea how bad Ricardo Clark really is.  Michael Bradley is a very capable center midfielder, and Donovan and Dempsey on the wings will give defenses fits from both sides.  Personally, I’d rather see Dempsey start at forward with Stuart Holden on the wing, but Bob Bradley does not return my calls.

In the front, no one really knows what to expect.  The team’s most experienced striker, Jozy Altidore, is twenty years old and may have a bum ankle.  If he can go, he will be one of the starters, and despite the young age he is a rare combination of size and speed that will certainly make a difference for the US.  The other three roster forwards: Edson Buddle, Robbie Findley, and Hercules Gomez, have almost no experience on the international level.  Gomez has scored goals in two of the last three games off the bench, and I think could be a very effective super-sub coming late into games.  Edson Buddle put two in the back of the net today, possibly earning himself a starting spot against England next weekend.  Findley made the team because he is the closest thing the US has to Charlie Davies.  His speed will keep the defenses honest and create spaces for the offense that won’t be there when he is on the bench.  Findley has had some ups and downs in the last couple of contests, and is a bit of a wildcard going into the tournament.

Analysis

As a unit, I think the US has played below their potential in the three tuneup matches.  They seem to be lacking consistency because they don’t quite know what type of team they are.  This identity crisis is the difference between this team and the one from last year’s Confederations Cup.  Last summer the team hunkered down on the defensive end, and relied on their speed and athleticism to catch teams off-guard and create dangerous counterattacks.  My feeling is that with the available personnel, this same strategy is the United States’ best chance of success.  They don’t have the talent to control and move the ball like a Brazil or an England, and if they get stretched their defense is not good enough to hold without help from the midfield.

As of the writing of this sentence, we are faced with six days, nineteen hours and twenty-six minutes until we find out what the boys in blue are capable of.

He has been labeled as a pluralist by some, and a heretic by others.  But he still ardently believes in the beauty and truth contained in many, if not all, of the world’s expressions of faith (or doubt).  Samir finds it distasteful and arrogant (as do I) when a singular religion claims to have a stranglehold on truth.  Even when Christianity aims for this type of “light in a dark world” status, he mostly rejects it.

There are a lot of interfaith groups out there, but Samir gladly throws atheism into the mix.  In his book, he offers an interesting perspective on a common debate among atheist and religious thinkers:

“Does religion own virtue?

Are religious people more likely to be protectors of the earth’s resources, more likely to believe in nonviolent solutions to world problems, and more likely to care for the poor and oppressed?

The obvious answer to this question is no.  To which many religious people respond, ‘Yes, but this is just because the sense of right and wrong of atheists is feeding off of centuries of the development of morality and ethics nurtured by religion.  Once that storehouse of religion is used up, secular societies are going to fall vicim to their inherent vacuum of values.’”  (It’s Really All About God, pg. 190)

and

“While religious people relate their lives to something transcendent, which often means ‘elsewhere’ and ‘later’, atheists are in a position to assume full responsibility for ‘here’ and ‘now’.  They cannot avoid, cover up, or postpone solving personal and communal issues in Some Other Time and Some Other Place with Someone Else.  All that happens, happens in the present.  Every person and moment is precious, unrepeatable, unpostponable, and thus sacred.”  (It’s Really All About God, pg. 191)

It’s tricky to have discussions about religion, especially when beliefs about nearly everything vary as wildly as they do within my particular religious upbringing: Christianity.  There are Christians who believe in the justification of war, and those who are dedicated to radical peace.  Christians who consider America to be most “Christian” nation in history, to those who believe the exact opposite.  Musical instruments, style of dress, use of technology, sexual preference, authority of scripture, and countless other issues are constantly debated and disagreed upon within this one religion.

So, how does one decide what to believe and how to be classify themselves, religiously?

Depending on who is looking at me, or who I am being compared to, I am either fanatically conservative, or heartbreakingly liberal.  Am I whoever I want to be?  Or am I whomever you want me to be?  What about you?

When it comes down to it, you can either look at the beliefs that make up our lives as showcasing how different and separate we all are, or consider the beliefs that show how alike we all are.

I’ve been mostly absent from church services for the past couple of years.  While I would not classify myself as an atheist, it didn’t seem fair to call myself a Christian either.  While the term “post-Christian” is an appropriate description of much of western Europe, it seemed a rather arrogant distinction to put upon myself, no matter how accurate it seemed to describe my spiritual state.

But, with this discovery of Samir Selmanovic, a Christian with answers for some of my toughest questions and some questions for answers that I didn’t even know that I held to, I feel like there still may be room for religion in my life.

I’ll leave you with one final quote from Samir’s book, and one that has stuck with me the most.  It’s Samir giving a summary on what someone would possibly gain by following Jesus:

“Follow me, and you might be happy-or you might not.   Follow me, and you might be empowered-or you might not.  Follow me, and you might have more friends-or you might not.  Follow me, and you might have the answers-or you might not.  Follow me, and you might be better off-or you might not.  If you follow me, you may be worse off in every way you use to measure life.  Follow me nevertheless.  Because I have an offer that is worth giving up everything you have:  You will learn to love well.”

May it be said that we all “learn to love well”.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The video was exactly the breath of fresh air that my religion-weary lungs needed to take in.  I started a quest to learn more about this man, this book, and this new perspective on my faith that might rescue it from the toilet bowl it has been sitting in for the past several years.

I became a fan of his book on Facebook, ordered his book from Amazon, and basically fell in love with his spirit and perspective on the most important things in life.  Samir is a sage.  I highly recommend his book to people that ponder the mysteries of life, God, and one’s relationship to the “other”.

To give you a unique look at Samir, check out this video that his daughters made to encourage people to NOT purchase this book:

Click here to view the embedded video.

I don’t want to discuss too much of the book without you.  I want you to read it and talk about it with me and others on this website.

If you’re still not sure what this book is about, and you aren’t much for watching videos, check out this interview of Samir by Robin Russell.  Here is my favorite quote from Samir from that interview:

We are going through a period where what it means to be religious is changing. Religion has to adjust to an interdependent world. In the past, the strong city was a city with big walls. But today, the strong city is the city that has more bridges and airports and links. Links make you strong, and links are also boundaries, so we can have our identity. If our roots go deeper, we can afford to take off some walls.

So, if you can’t find the book locally, just buy it here.  If you want to talk more about this book through this website, let me know in the comments.  If we have enough people involved, Samir may be willing to participate in a group Skype chat with us.  Sounds pretty great to me!

Cheers and Namaste!

I want to give you the link to his revelatory article, and I will.  But first, you should probably know the end of this tale.  This same sportswriter, Mike Penner, was found dead on Friday.  He was 52.

Although the official cause of death has not been released, most around the L.A. Times have acknowledged it was suicide.  Mike’s transition to Christine was not permanent.  By October 2008, he was again writing for the Times as Mike Penner.  Whether the regression back to male status was temporary or not, we do not know.  What we do know is that his journey was not finished after his essay was published 2 and 1/2 years ago.

Really, as I’m writing this, I keep reflecting on his 2007 essay over and over.  It’s beautiful, laugh out loud funny, poignant, and courageous.  I’ll just include one quote here, a question that transcends gender-confusion and touches many people with a secret:

“How do you go about sharing your most important truth, one you spent a lifetime trying to keep deeply buried, to a world that has grown familiar and comfortable with your façade?”

Although I’m confident that he didn’t coin the phrase, I often let the lyrics Steven Tyler sang in the Aerosmith song “Livin’ On The Edge” go running through my head:

“Life’s a journey, not a destination.”

Like many popular quotes, after they become common, they become trite.  The truth of this statement is hard to for me to ignore.  With so few things in this world that are permanent, it’s frustrating to me how often I feel like I have “arrived” somewhere.  It’s an announcement that “the struggle is over” and falseness has given way to truth. But somehow, the “arrival” is an illusion.  Even Steven Tyler’s personal journey to sobriety is in serious question, after years of staying at the “Hotel de Sober”.

It’s more than tricky to balance the concept of our personal identity with our habitual actions, even something as personal as sexual orientation or gender.  Mike/Christine spent the majority of his life wearing a mask, and when the facade was lifted, the struggle was not over.  Life is struggle, life is movement, life is dynamic.  The most significant events of our lives shape much of how we act, but they do not define who we are.

We are human before we are writers, employees, artists, Christians, Muslims, lovers, warriors, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, men, or women.

Mike Penner had a gift for seeing the human side of his sports assignments. He surely developed this from his own struggle with his identity as a human.  It’s tragic that his struggle is now over, especially for those closest to him. His life and death have reminded me of the correlation between struggle and growth.  I am thankful to him for this.

You can read his “Old Mike, New Christine” article here.  It is my hope that it will be encouraging, and uplifting, and not just a mere cautionary tale of the danger of change.

Mike Penner/Christine Daniels, rest in peace.

Last week, I put up a video of Malcolm Gladwell speaking at TED.  Much like his books portray him, he is articulate, funny and engaging.  He can make something as silly as spaghetti sauce, riveting.

Currently, Bill Simmons is touring the country in promotion of his new book “The Book of Basketball: The NBA According to The Sports Guy“.  I stumbled across a interview he was doing for ESPN about the book.  Check it out:

Something with it just didn’t seem to work.  I know that the first time I heard his voice, I was stunned by how dissimilar it was to the voice I has assigned him in my head while reading his articles.  I won’t criticize him here, because he is still a superb writer and I appreciate the thought process he goes through when creating his work.  Let’s just say that he helps to prove the idea that good writers are not necessarily good speakers.  It’s interesting food for thought if you are trying to become one, or both.

Gladwell illustrates the lessons from his story about Howard Moskowitz pretty darn well, so I won’t add much.

I too often find myself obsessed with universals and trying to discover the rules that govern the way that all of us behave.  The idea of variability and diversity is very intriguing.  In truth, there may only be a handful of universals amidst a sea of beautiful diversity and variables.  It seems to me that a large proportion of our conflicts and wars are due to leaders mistaking a variable truth for one that is universal, and then attempting to impose it on the masses.

Even attempting to give something as universal as “freedom” to another culture can fail based on the variable understandings and perspectives on freedom.

The older I get, the less “black and white” the world gets.  While I always knew that “There’s no wrong way to eat a Reese’s”, I didn’t extrapolate that principle to many other areas of my life.  There always seemed to be a right way to do this, and a wrong way to do that.  The more I understand about my own perception, the less faith I have in my ability to discern things that are ALWAYS right or ALWAYS wrong.

Since taste seems to be obviously chock full of variability, where does that principle end?  What is universal?