The Halberts Take Manhattan

A week ago, Sam and I visited New York City, which was very exciting. Even though we only had two full days to run around NYC, we did our best to make the most of it. Kayla, our buddy who lives in Manhattan, was a big help in planning our time and in keeping us company.

FRIDAY
We arrived at LaGuardia airport to find cold and rainy weather, which is perfect nap weather. The best thing to do on your first vacation without a baby is to take a nap immediately. This weather was perfect. I was so excited. We cabbed it from the airport to our hotel, the Sheraton!

[Before I get too into the trip, I want to say a little bit about New Yorkers. The stereotype of the rude, loud, New Yorker did not match our experience on this trip, or my own experience in NYC a decade ago. People may be a little more impatient in NYC because of the speed of the city. For example, the response that you get from asking a question the first time in NYC is like the response you would get after asking it three times in a row in the south. Maybe rough around the edges, but helpful and direct. People were generally amiable and helpful. Also, they were very cool. Everyone dresses cool in NYC. Look down at whatever you are wearing right now. Just shake your head and roll your eyes at yourself, because you look like such a dork compared to literally everyone in NYC. Sam observed that the coolest person from everyone’s high school moved to NYC. Seems about right.]

The Sheraton is right around 52nd Street and 7th Ave, so we were very close to Broadway theaters (theatres?), Central Park, and Times Square. Our room was on the 43rd floor, so we had a nice view of the big Times Square screens, Rockefeller Center, and even Radio City Music Hall! We grabbed a quick lunch at Cafe Duke down the street. It is kind of like a mall food court plus convenience store rolled into one. Sam got a fancy turkey sandwich and I got shrimp tempura udon. Then, we took naps! Glorious, quiet, undisturbed naps.

That night, Kayla met up with us and we cabbed it over to Dylan’s Candy Bar for snacks and Serendipity for dinner. If you have seen the movie Serendipity, then you have seen the restaurant Serendipity. I would describe it as quirky comfort food, which is perfect for cold and rainy nights. The food and service were fun, and the dessert called The Forbidden Broadway merits a photo (which I didn’t take but linked): 

Dylan’s Candy Bar also merits a photo for being so colorful and fun. Samantha mentioned that her thoughts always look like the interior of Dylan’s Candy Bar, and I believe her!

SATURDAY
The next day we slept in, walked around, and ran into a member of the Brat Pack that I will not name because he lives there with his family and it seems rude to mention where they live. We also went to see A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder, which is a very funny, Tony award-winning musical. After that, we headed down the street to Lillie’s bar, which was very cool looking on the inside.

All of the bartenders were very exotic and cool, but we were even cooler than them: A Chick Fil A had just opened in NYC and one of the bartenders waited half an hour just try try it. We have Chick Fil A all the time! Point, Halberts.

I had been sick for a few days by this point, so we called it a night to rest up for the next day, which would be full.

SUNDAY
We got an early start on the day at Pret A Manger, which was a big sandwich place in the UK when I was studying abroad and is in the U.S. now. Sadly, the service was completely awful so that retroactively ruined my entire Oxford experience. Just kidding! Pret was pretty bad, though.

We jumped on the Subway (Sam’s actual reaction):

and headed to the Natural History Museum! It was very easy to spend three hours wandering the 40+ halls. My favorite was the Rose Center for Earth and Space. I love space! We’re all floating in space right now, if you think about it.

Next, we headed to the Union Park area to see a play called 39 Steps, which is kind of a Hitchcockian comedy. If you like Alfred Hitchcock and/or noir, you would enjoy this play. The set work in particular was very creative and fun.

We walked around in Central Park for awhile. We did not see Phoebe Buffay running around like a nut, which broke my heart a little bit.

For dinner, we ate at The Flatiron Room, which is a whiskey and jazz bar. It is the place that I was made to be. Behold!

For my cocktail, I chose the Lovely Kioto. It was made with Iwai Japanese whisky, plum tea, and lychee juice. Very good.

MONDAY
We slept in and cabbed it back to the airport. As much fun as we had in NYC, it’s always nice to be home!

Birthday Presents

Earlier this week, I celebrated my thirty-first birthday. It was a good one. It wasn’t the flashy kind of good. It was more like the spreading warmth in your chest from a hot drink on a cold day good.

This morning, after finishing a presentation at a job that I enjoy, I was thinking about how blessed I am, and how many presents God has given me. My plan is to live a very long life, as in, I will live in a sky apartment like the Jetsons. But if I were to be taken home today, I would’ve already had a lifetime’s fill of adventure at thirty-one.

In no particular order, I have:

• Traveled all over three continents and more than a dozen countries.
• Graduated from high school, college, grad school, law school.
• Passed a bar exam.
• Seen the Eiffel Tower sparkle at night.
• Seen the sun rise over the ocean in the morning.
• Jumped out of a plane.
• Rafted the Nile River.
• Eaten a crepe in Paris.
• Saw a play in Shakespeare’s Globe.
• Met my dream girl.
• Planted a kiss on my dream girl.
• Married my dream girl!
• Knocked up my dream girl!
• Grown a circle of close friends I’ve had for more than a decade.
• Worked as a legislative staffer.
• Been to the top of the Texas Capitol dome.
• Written human rights briefs for the highest court of a country.
• Taught classes for my favorite university.
• Moonwalked!
• Grilled a steak.
• Completed a triathlon.
• Known God.
• Through God’s grace, transitioned from a state of anxiety to a state of peace and contentment.
• Through God’s grace, escaped from an island of isolation into becoming a member of a family.
• To Be Determined

I feel humbled, loved, and lucky. Everything feels like icing on my birthday cake. Except that I didn’t have a birthday cake, I had birthday chocolate chip cookies stuffed with Oreos.

• Ate chocolate chip cookies stuffed with Oreos.

Anyway, this is a love letter to God, to you. Thanks for the birthday presents. There’s only way to describe them:

Lissie

Because of my work’s biennial cycle, my work days are getting longer and longer. This has led me to spending a lot of time with headphones and Spotify channels. I stumbled on Lissie and I can’t wait to throw my credit card at her merch table when she comes through town next.

And, if you just want something in the background for a while:

Everything is Different and the Same

My wife is pregnant! I’m going to be a father. Even though we’re working our way through the second trimester, I already think of myself as a dad. I do plenty of dad things:

• Make sure all the lights are off when a room is empty.
• Keep a baseball bat by the bed to take out any would-be home invaders.
• Get a list ready of kid-friendly superhero cartoons, books, shows, etc.
• Take pride in anything my boy does (right now this is mainly just being himself).

Bringing a new life into the world makes you think about the circle of life. In my case, that means thinking about my own mortality and immortality. God willing, I will be alive and kicking until our boy is old enough to be a good man on his own. If I’m not around though, I thought I had better provide him with some life advice. I wanted to give him a letter welcoming him to the world in case something happened to me. I thought it would be wise and sentimental, and here is what poured out:

Dear Son, the first thing you need to know is that we love you! The second thing you need to know is that your parents are cool. I played in bands! Also, your mom is hot. Those two facts are probably why you were created in the first place. If we aren’t cool when you’re reading this, the only thing that has changes is that we had you! So if you don’t think your parents are cool it is probably your fault. Anyway, we already love you and are proud of you and we can’t wait to meet you. Love, Dad

This isn’t exactly a Field of Dreams level conversation between father and son, but it was weirdly reassuring. Yes, there is a new life in the world, full of potential (and responsibility). Yes, my life and identity if fundamentally changing. But I’m still me. Sam is still Sam. We’re just getting to experience the world in a richer and fuller way. We’re raising up a little one in the way that he should go. So maybe I won’t give our kid that letter, but I do hope I can pass on the best of us and minimize the rest.

Basically, I can’t wait to become Phil Dunphy.

Did We Live Too Fast? by Got a Girl

Fortune Days by The Glitch Mob

The weekend is here, go get it!

Crave by Flight Facilities (Adventure Club Remix)

Spotlight by Leagues

Theology Talk with Brett and David: On Science (Part 6)

Brett and David have given up completely on any sense of decorum and now sit on coolers in the garage chugging down beers and throwing darts.

Brett: I would like to bring this conversation to your field of expertise and explore how it affects you and your work. How do you deal with doubt in the context of a counseling theory? What if some theory you find to be good and rooted actually turns out to be ineffective or even harmful to some client? Are there examples of old counseling ideas that have now been discarded as untrue, or are there competing schools that argue over the effectiveness of different approaches? If these are questions you think about, how do you continue to do the essential work you do in the face of doubts?

David: I’m probably not the best person to answer this question since I don’t adhere strictly to therapy models, as some do. My personal view is that models are theories that have approaches that can be helpful. I see them as tools in a toolbox that can be used at will depending on the needs of the client. My guiding rule in counseling is “whatever works for the good of the client”, which is intentionally vague. However, much of my underlying approach to people is based on my understanding of the Bible and relationship with God. So “true” “untrue” and “right” and “wrong” are hard to apply to this situation. As a real scientist I’m sure you’re aware that therapy and counseling, perhaps even psychiatry are much softer sciences than what you do.

There is certainly competition between schools of thought, but in my experience, almost every theory works for somebody but no single theory works for everybody. So my answer is a big IT DEPENDS. Many of Freud’s theories were at one point foundational and even helpful, but have since been largely discredited and have fallen out of use. However, they were used as a jumping point for other good things since then.

On a personal and internal level, I really do incorporate my faith into my work. This means that my doubts about my treatment approach or the work that I do is filled in easily with the knowledge of God’s sovereignty.

Brett: So I see that something similar happens in your field as has happened with science, that knowledge is built progressively over time. Speaking of, what do you think about the idea of progressive revelation, that is that God is revealing himself more and more (or perhaps just differently) throughout history? Does this bear on the question of scientific knowledge and theology?

David: This is tricky. I do think that God progressively reveals himself. While I’m no humanist, I do believe that God has allowed us to progress, become collectively more intelligent, or even- dare I say it- EVOLVE, in a sense, over time. But God does not change, so the way you phrased the question is important, and accurate. God is not changing, but rather our scope of knowledge about him is expanding, as he wills it. That will of course have an impact on both our theology and our scientific knowledge. But no new knowledge will ever be able to change the bedrock truths of God, and I feel that’s what some scientists wrongly try to accomplish. “We found fossil evidence that contradicts the Bible, so obviously God doesn’t exist!” Well, not exactly. Perhaps we’re just finding evidence of HOW God created us, not proof that he wasn’t involved. God gave us our curiosity and so a progressive way of learning about him seems to make sense.

Brett: On that note, let’s discuss Biblical revelation in terms of objective studies. For example, what if the creation story in Genesis is not historical? Does this make it not true? Or could it be true in a different sense than historical?

David: Again, your question provides important wording for my response. Truth is key here. We must first and foremost not lose sight of the fact that TRUTH is TRUTH. None of this mamby pamby postmodern “truth is relative” or “it may be true for you but not for me” nonsense. If we’re those compromised definitions of truth, then we’ve completely diluted the very concept of truth. Is the Genesis creation account true? Absolutely. Is that a literal depiction of what actually happened? I honestly don’t know. But then, is that what the text is intending to portray? Is that the question it’s attempting to answer? There are many factors here for me, a few of which are as follows:

1) This is a holy revelation given to an unholy person with a limited understanding of science or….anything really. If God is really GOD then how could he possibly describe his great pre-Earth work of forming a planet to a single mortal mind? I think the Genesis account was the best way he could describe creation without blowing Moses’ mind, while still speaking the complete truth.

2) This has been said a lot, but here goes: the Bible is not a textbook. It’s not intended to convey scientific fact. That goes for both scientific detractors and the most ardent young-earth literalists (<–made-up word). Again, the creation account is absolutely true. But it is true in the way that music or poetry describes something that actually exists. Because of this we can get into the tangled web of semantics: “what does it mean by ‘day’? what is this ‘expanse’ that he’s referring to?” We can conjecture till the cows come home but it’s ultimately a narrative designed to tell people about God, not instruct a science class.

3) The point of this passage is not to answer our questions about our various sciences, but to point us to God. “In the beginning, GOD…” Did God literally create the Earth in 7 days? For me, the better question is, “Do you believe that God could have done it in 7 days?” Personally, he could have done it literally how it said and compressed millions of years worth of fossil records in our dirt for whatever reason, or he could have used our planet as a giant sandbox for millions of years before reforming it to what we know today and creating humanity. Either way it doesn’t really matter. What matters to me is that God is the one who did it, and he could have done it any way he wanted. Our feeble scientific constructs, formed thousands of years after earth’s creation, have no bearing on the truth of the one who put us here to begin with. It is that far-reaching perspective of God that causes me such angst when some use science as a blunt object with which to flippantly club God out of existence.

Brett: Dramatically put, but I think you speak truthfully. I have many other thoughts and responses but I believe we will end on that note.

David: This is by no means the end of the matter, but I agree that this is a good place to stop for us. For our loyal readers, the conversation can continue in the comments! We look forward to much rigorous discussion in the future and I certainly hope to engage you in a conversation on another topic in the future Sir Brett.

Brett: I hope for that as well.

Theology Talk with Brett and David: On Science (Part 5)

Having enjoyed the comforts of the indoors, our hosts have now retired to the back porch. Sir Brett enjoys a long island iced tea while Lord David sips frequently on a rum and coke. They are comfortably seated on the finest outdoor seats that Wal-Mart has to offer. The night is cool, the breeze is light, and the conversation continues.

Brett: As one who studied the Bible in college, allow me to ask you some questions. Should scientific knowledge ever bear on religious knowledge? That is, should a scientific theory ever be weighed in order to modify a theological stance? Surely not new scientific theories, since most have such a short half-life. But old ones, well-accepted by the community? For example, Darwinian Evolution: if it still stands as successfully describing the origin of species in 200 years, should Christians begin to look at what that means for our doctrine of imago dei? What about after 1000 years?

David: The short answer is yes, scientific can and sometimes should have bearing on religious knowledge. But then I’ll come back and say “no, it shouldn’t” because scientific knowledge and religious knowledge are inherently different and it would take an epic work of science and discovery to prove otherwise.

Let me attempt to explain that (forgive me if I’ve said some of this already in this discussion). Science provides the “how”, it (as of now) does not and cannot provide the “why.” Darwinian Evolution, for example, does describe the origin of the species. Or rather, Darwinian evolution provides one possible theory for HOW our species came to be. Science, through a Darwinian lens, provides a description for a process that may or may not have occurred. It cannot, under those conditions, also make a claim for why that process occurred in the first place or even perhaps who or what initiated that process.

Evolution may be a very good explanation for how things happened, but just because we have an explanation for life that makes more “scientific” sense, doesn’t mean that it automatically disqualifies a creationist explanation. (Quick side-note: It seems as if Darwinian evolution is a symbol of man’s arrogant attempt to find a more “logical” or “rational” way of explaining our existence that doesn’t rely on a higher authority that we would have to submit ourselves to.) If we build on the previously accepted assumption that science is treated as a religion, then it’s no different than saying “Hinduism’s creation account makes more sense than that of Christianity, so of  course that one must be true.” Science has no greater bearing on the existence of God than any other religion because evolutionary theory does not in any way conclusively rule out the existence and influence of God. In that way, no, science does not bear on religious knowledge UNLESS it allows us to eventually build time machines and go back to witness the evolution of man firsthand, or discover a malevolent alien race that has been pretending to be God by manipulating our minds and history.

Alternatively, there have been points in history where religious knowledge wrongly attempted to wrest control of scientific knowledge, for example in the debate between a heliocentric and geocentric view of the solar system. (Quick side-note follow-up: Things like the church’s insistence on a geocentric solar system also shows man arrogance as we’ll even use religion to show that we’re at the center of the universe.) Science rightly called out religion for being intellectually dishonest and making claims about reality outside the scope of the Bible. While the Bible speaks to foundational truth, it does not contain all specific truths, which is where science becomes so important.

To sum up: in theory, yes it is distantly possible that science could have a meaningful and course-changing impact on religion, but that’s a tall order that we’ll never see.

About imago dei: My understanding of the Genesis account is that it’s intended to be more abstractly descriptive rather than scientifically precise. That is to say that it is inherently true, but the main point is not exactly how God created man, but that God was the one who created man. The means by which this happened is largely irrelevant and explaining the specifics of our creation was not the intended goal of the creation account. Maybe God took an afternoon to form man out of dirt and mud, maybe the dust is a metaphor for some evolutionary process, who knows.

Brett: You bring up some interesting points, particularly in how doubt affects any given field of study. I will be most interested to discuss this more, but it must wait until next time.