Wednesday, April 23, 2014

This Just Read: The Transforming Principle

I've been doing some book penance this week, and enjoying it, too! I've just finished Maclyn McCarty's The Transforming Principle: Discovering that Genes Are Made of DNA. I got this book when it was first published in 1985 and I've been carrying it around ever since. It was assigned reading for a biology preceptorial at St. John's College led by Barbara Leonard back in 1985 or '86.

Confession: I didn't read it then. I just read it now.

Overall it's a good read. Written by one of the three principle biochemists working on the puzzle of the "transforming principle" in the 1930s and '40s. Researchers discovered that cells of pneumococcus (the bacteria that cause pneumonia) could be transformed from one strain to another by the introduction of a small amount of cells of the new strain "killed" by heat or chemical action. The resultant cells are of the new type and reproduce true to that type. They are, quite literally, remade as something else.

Nobody knew how it happened or what agents were responsible. Over years of painstaking lab work Oswald Avery, Colin MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty carefully isolated the factors and deduced that DNA--something that had been discovered fifty years earlier but nobody thought very much about--must be the sole agent of transformation.

The book was written by McCarty in the 1980s, after Oswald and MacLeod had died. McCarty combed through lab notes and correspondence (and his own memory) to piece together the story. It's a great account of the real work of science: methodical, ordered, occasionally requiring intuitive leaps.

I love book and movies about creativity and discovery. I love the "Aha!" moment when all the pieces fall into place. I enjoy it in books about science, art, mystery, any human endeavor that requires innovative thinking. Favorites of mine along these lines include Thomas Harris' Red Dragon, the movie Enigma, James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Watson's The Double Helix, Randy Shilts' And the Band Played On, John Barry's The Great Influenza, and so on.

It took James Watson and Francis Crick in the 1950s to take the next step in DNA research, which Oswald, McCarty, and McCarty hint at in the 1940s:

It remains one of the challenging problems for future research to determine what sort of configurational or structural differences can be demonstrated between desoxyribonucleates of separate specificities.

This would be the work of Crick and Watson, who moved from pure biochemistry to spectography to unlock the secrets of the double helix (read The Double Helix for the account of this discovery. I did read that one, Ms. Leonard).

So, after almost thirty years I've finished my reading for that preceptorial. Whew!

Thursday, April 10, 2014

This Just Read: The Alchemyst

I read a lot of books. I re-read a lot of books. I start some books and don't finish them. I've decided to try to post about the books I do finish, as I finish them. Not full-on reviews, but a few words about what I thought. So here goes.

I just finished The Alchemyst: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicolas Flamel by Michael Scott. It's the first volume in a series of books. I'd seen them in bookstores for a few years and though about eventually giving them a go.

Let me start out by saying that I love good young-adult fiction, emphasis on the good. I re-read The Hobbit constantly. This winter I re-read Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy and think it might be my favorite YA fiction ever. I love me some Harry Potter.

The Alchemyst isn't really on the same plane. It's not bad. I found it to be a pretty predictable normal-kids-discover-magick story. It didn't have the depth or quality of writing that could really engage me as an adult reader. I haven't read any of the Percy Jackson and the Olympians books, but I've seen the first movie. The Alchemyst has the same sort of feel.

The Alchemyst starts the reader off on a large story arc. You have to get the next volume to find out what happens next. This is different than the Happy Potter books, for example, which have an overarching plot, but each book has a self-contained story and can be read alone.

So, I don't feel I wasted my time or my money. I'd recommend The Alchemyst to an interested teen, but I'll not be getting the next volume.

Monday, January 20, 2014

Stop the Hurting: Why I’m Not Marrying Anybody

“Injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates.” ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

The United Methodist Church struggles with human sexuality. At this time, much attention in my denomination is focused on the issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Battle lines are drawn and we grow more contentious every day. Recently, several United Methodist pastors have been charged with defying the Book of Discipline—the rule book of the United Methodist Church—which explicitly forbids pastors from performing same-sex weddings. Our dialogue and debate has become a season of crime and punishment. The trials have begun.
In recent months we have witnessed the trial of Rev. Frank Schaefer, whose ministry credentials were stripped because he presided over a same-sex wedding and has refused to promise never to do it again. In March the trial begins for Rev. Thomas Ogletree. In my own corner of the United Methodist Church, the Upper New York Annual Conference, we are awaiting a trial date for Rev. Steve Heiss, who was brought up on charges last summer.
In this midst of this difficult issue, both sides have become more hardened, more absolute. Pastors who are performing same-sex marriages claim that they are being obedient to their calling to share the love of God with all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or identity. They see God’s activity in inclusiveness, in erasing the lines that separate us, acknowledging that we have drawn many of those lines ourselves.
Those who are opposed to these marriages cry for biblical obedience and hold up our Book of Discipline, claiming that these actions harm the covenant that clergy enter into when they are ordained. We have obligations not just to God, they rightly claim, but to one another. We are part of something larger than ourselves.
Every pastor and church member is a part of this struggle, no matter where they stand on the issues. I personally believe that our church’s historic stance on homosexuality is wrong and I support same-sex marriage and the ordination of homosexuals. But I also take seriously my church’s tradition (even when I disagree with it), the vows I made at my ordination, and the clergy covenant of which I’m part.
What solutions may come—from full inclusion to church schism—are not coming any time soon. There is much hard work to be done by men and women of good faith, clergy and laity. How can we proceed in this atmosphere of fear and distrust? How can me move forward together?
The United Methodist Church has historically expected its members to live by three simple rules:
First, do no harm. Second, do good. Third, stay in love with God.
As I go forward on this issue I must first do no harm. It’s very telling that the rule against harm comes first, before any other. No real, lasting good can be done through harming another. The kingdom of God cannot be built upon a foundation of pain.
Those who oppose same-sex marriages, and who would see pastors who perform them punished, argue that great harm is being done through these acts of disobedience, harm to the Church, the world, and to our fellow clergy with whom we covenant. Putting a stop to these marriages would bring an end to that harm.
Yet I am not blind to the harm that has been done—and continues to be done—by our denomination’s traditional stance on homosexuality. Generation upon generation have been grievously harmed by our intolerance. Our church is paying a toll in vitality, integrity, and human lives. Simply putting a stop to same-sex marriages does not return us to a time of wholeness and freedom from harm. I find disingenuous those who make such arguments.
I’ve been grappling with this issue for a long time, seeking a way to live into this struggle with faith and conviction. My heart—like Jesus’ own heart—leans toward the disenfranchised and powerless. Yet, as an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church, I take my vows, my tradition, and my covenant with my clergy sisters and brothers seriously.
After much prayerful consideration, I know that path I must walk during these difficulties. I will honor my vows and will not perform same-sex weddings. But I will also honor my calling to serve all people and until such time as I can share God’s love in marriage as I feel called, I will share it with none, gay or straight. Neither will I allow weddings to be performed by others in the church where I have been appointed to lead.
This is not fair. This is not just. This grieves me greatly. But this is the only principled way forward that I see as I navigate the troubled waters of this issue. What I am doing is not a solution, but a posture I must adopt in the midst of this struggle. I invite my fellow clergy to join me. Whatever their beliefs on this issue, this seems to me the only faithful way to engage one another and move forward. Let’s stop the hurting.
Rev. Michael A. Smith is an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church. He serves Trinity United Methodist Church, in Whitesboro, New York.

Friday, July 5, 2013

The Fourth of July: A Prophetic Date

I love that we celebrate the birth of our country on July 4th. We could have chosen October 19th (the date that Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown). We could have chosen September 3rd or January 14th (when the Treaty of Paris was signed and ratified, respectively). There are probably a few other dates the could have been chosen, but we chose July 4th. Choosing July 4th is our nation's way of signifying that freedom begins when you stand up and declare yourself free.
There's something remarkably prophetic in that choice of date. Prophets stand up and declare a new reality. They are able to see a world that does not yet exist except in their mind's eye. The job of the prophet is to speak this vision into reality. The Declaration of Independence is a prophetic document, because it casts a vision of a world that did not exist (and would not exist for many hard-fought years to come).
Our choice of July 4th as the nation's birthday is prophetic because it pinpoints the moment when something was born that had not been before. Clearly that something is not an independent free nation--that didn't exist on July 4th, 5th, or even the 6th. What was born that day was not the reality of America, but the idea of America. That America is--first and foremost--an idea is something astounding.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Cheap...

Today was not my finest day. Let's roll things back a few years...

I was a member of a vibrant, dynamic ministry with lots of great people. We talked a lot about what it meant to be in ministry. We didn't like the idea that church was a "business." Still, we had to begrudgingly admit that the preacher's job involved a bit of showmanship. Like it or not, we were "selling" something. We were selling Jesus.

While this admission didn't make me happy, I was able to find some comfort when talking with my fellow pastor. After worship many Sundays, we'd both be worn out. We'd have some time in the sanctuary, putting things away, enjoying the feel of the empty space that had so recently been overflowing with the Holy Spirit.

"Well," one of us would say, "at least we didn't sell Jesus for cheap today."

It gave me comfort then, and still does.

Fast forward to today. I'm becoming aware that I've been selling Jesus for cheap--maybe for a long time--and it doesn't feel very nice. We'll see what happens next...

Peace...

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Wow! Look at those comments!

I just perused the comments on a few previous posts. Apparently, I'm a hit with the Chinese! I suspect if I could actually read those comments, I'd find myself to be a hit with automatic Chinese blog-bots. Does anyone have anything they'd like to... um... extend?

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Friends and Facebook Friends

I like Facebook. I spend some time there each day, catching up with friends. I've managed to stay away from the various games/pyramid-schemes. I don't want to join your Mafia, become a Knight, Farm, Garden or run a Cafe. Still, I love how FB has been able to connect me with others.
Almost all of my friends are people I know in Real Life(tm). Early on, I added a few people who befriended me through common interests, but I'm pretty much not looking for new friends on FB.
But now I have a problem. What if I just can't stand to read the FB posts of one of my Real Life friends?
Does Facebook friendship eclipse real friendship? Can I safely "unfriend" my friend and remain friends?
I'm not sure what I'm going to do...