The Company of the Committed

"The Red Wheel Barrow"

2010-07-30T11:05:00.002-05:00

So much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens

"William Carlos Williams's most original work." (Break, Blow, Burn; Paglia, Camille. pg.128)

This poem is found at almost halfway through Camille Paglia's book, "Break, Blow, Burn" and more than any other poem up to that point it forced me to ask myself, what is the point? What "depends upon the red wheel barrow"? The easiest answer is, nothing depends upon a dew sprinkled wheel barrow. There is nothing that could be characterized by the phrase "so much" that could depend upon a wheel barrow, regardless of the color. Yet, Camille Paglia declares in the first sentence of her analysis that this is William Carlos William's most "originial work". I am reminded of something that Jason Bateman's character says in the show "Arrested Development" whenever his son declares his love for his dowdy, plain, dull girlfriend; he always looks at his son and asks, "her?"

This poem is daring? This poem is original? Her? In some ways this poem proves the cliche, you get out what you put into it. Having encountered this poem, as I have in the context of another person's analysis, I am presented with the difficult position of engaging the poem and the interpretation at the same. If I had encountered this poem on it's own it would be easy to dismiss it and move on (which was my initial inclination), but if I were to do that in this situation I would have to dismiss Camille Paglia's interpretation along with it. Being a gentleman, I was unwilling to do that, which posed another difficult situation, finding meaning and purpose in a poem that struck me, from the outset, as one that lacked both.

So I re-read the poem trying to anticipate what I felt the author was going to say about it, and a funny thing happened, I began to make things depend upon that wheel barrow. I thought of Citizen Kane and Rosebud, I thought of a person unable to work and whose tools are left to rust, forgotten. What if this is a memory? What if this carries significance to the author, or a character the author has created? What gives me the right to dismiss this poem, memory or idea? I slowly found myself enduing the poem with meaning, or entertaining possible interpretations of this simple poem. Perhaps that is the whole purpose of art, to cause the observer to ask questions of themselves and to invite them to interpret the work for themselves. Had I just justified this poem's existence? (In my life at least?) Yes. I find myself thinking about it and blogging about it. Thinking about simple discarded items and their significance, but where to draw the line? At what point have I objectively read too much into a poem like this? When I begin to see the plight of all mankind in this wheel barrow?

All this to say, this poem clearly serves a purpose, and for me at least, it serves it well. Not saying I would want poetry to be overrun with simple poems describing abandoned items, or with obtuse references to meaning that exists only in the reader's ability to supply it. After being forced to face this poem it has further opened the idea that art serves a multiplicity of purposes and more than one of those purposes is given over fully to the audience. In my own way, I have just as much a right to declare judgment on a poem as Camille Paglia, and that is a great realization that art affords us. It levels the playing field, you can underthink a poem, but in the same way someone who has been dealing with poetry all their lives can overthink it as well, we must be honest in our assessments, but good art will (should?) always yield a return on every investment.

The Problem with Blogging (Part One)

2010-05-04T12:23:00.004-05:00

In Part One of my "The Problem with Blogging" series, I plan to set my sights on the method of blogging. The first problem of blogging is the most obvious, typing. This may be a more general problem with computers, but the issue is that my thoughts have access to immediate expression, and many times I find my thoughts to be trailing my fingers. Perhaps not all my thoughts, just the most rational of them. The thoughts that lead the way are full of misspellings and poor word choice, but I don't have enough time to reflect on what I am thinking, my fingers are already three words ahead trying to predict what the next word will be.

On a side note, I blame our emphasis on typing speed. Surely rational thought cannot keep up at a 76 word a minute typing speed. Just try to sit back and think up 76 rational coherent words that string into one or multiple coherent ideas in a minute...it's impossible!

How many people who blog go back over previous posts and edit them for content and better word choice after hitting the submit/publish button? The method is too quick, the pressure my brain is under to keep up with my fingers while writing any one post, I have a suspicion, has to have real medical consequences on my physical wellbeing. Forget cell phone usage's effect on the brain, what about quantifying the mental stress level that repeated status updates, tweets, and blogs have on our minds? I guess we could explain all the mindless updates as our bodies natural defense mechanism, our minds just shut off after a certain amount of stress associated with them constantly having to think of something worth blogging or status updating about.

This may be a generational issue, perhaps my mind just isn't nimble enough, but I can't imagine how I could get it to be any more limber in order to keep up with the endless outlets to its instantaneous expression.

One last parting thought. I wonder, if you were to study it, how often a person needs to update a blog to keep interest in it? Is it once a week? a month? a day? Anyway, I'm sure I will be back to this post in a day or two to touch it up, once my brain has time to catch up with all I've written. Till next time.

A Petition for Motown

2009-07-01T12:14:00.007-05:00

It has recently come to my attention that at work I am allowed to play music in my office. I immediately set about building playlists to run softly in the background. My first impulse was to assemble a classical playlist. After all, that is the traditional music you associate with the work place, but i quickly found that the music is too soft and then too boisterous, there are too many peaks and valleys (volume wise) with classical so I decided to venture into uncharted professional waters. Motown was my next thought. So I set about constructing the ultimate smooth motown mix for work. I began to rack my brain and within a few minutes I had pulled together my core group of songs and started playing it. Soon after I realized that Motown worked far better than classical in my office. And now I am convinced Motown is the best choice for offices, waiting rooms and possibly elevators. It is more than just pleasant melodies and it can more easily (in my estimation) elicit an emotional response from the hearers and, in turn, make them happier. I think this is the reason: for the most part people have a reference for Motown hits and they identify with the song almost immediately. And the memories that have Motown songs attached to them are pleasant ones. I am willing to venture a guess that at least 98% of memories that are recalled because of a Motown hit are pleasant ones. Regardless of the particular memory the point is that it has immediate impact that classical music fails to have. How many people have a specific reference for Chopin and Handel or some piano concerto in their everyday life? I won't say none, but I will argue an extremely small and easily dismissed percentage. So this is my petition to have all offices, waiting rooms and elevators replace their classical music with Motown.

Some quick obvious benefits:
1.) Enhancement of positive feelings and an optimistic outlook on one's day, future and life.

2.) Weightloss. People will lose wait and help loosen their tightened muscles through their unconscious dancing to the irresistable pull of the music.

3.) Joy. People's joy will be enhanced by watching people unconsciously dancing and/or singing along to the background music. (something you cannot do to classical)

These are just to name a few. There are other reasons as well. Just put "Just My Imagination" on in your place of work and tell me your day hasn't just gotten a bit sunnier.

A Quick Thought on Diaper Art

2009-02-19T07:02:00.005-06:00

Currently my son has Big Bird grinning half mad on the front of his diaper with a few other choice Sesame Street characters looking like they are planning a jail break out of the fixed ink of the diaper and into real life. Since noticing their queer placement on my son's underthings I have wondered about the purpose of putting art on baby diapers. And then I realized that it's not art at all, it's advertising. The company is advertising to the parent subtly leading them to believe that when their child gets older they will want to watch Sesame Street. When I realized this I felt besmirched and soiled, that a line had been crossed and a good faith pledge was broken. I am not sure if sometime in history, corporations got together with a representative council of consumers and hashed out a few ground rules to help direct the undeveloped capitalist model, but they should have. And one of the requests by the consumer representatives should have been, "You must not use a necessary item to my family, especially to my innocent baby, to advertise to me. No advertisements on trash bags for food products, no shampoo plugs on toilet paper, and no Children's programs on my 3 month old's diapers. I bought one product be happy with that."

So now I am fighting the feeling that it is inevitable that my son will want to watch Sesame Street, maybe that's just the diapers talking. All this got me thinking about advertising in inconvenient or absurd places that anyone else has seen, I'm interested to know if anyone else has any examples.

Humanity is a poor lens to see God through

2009-01-12T13:15:00.009-06:00

I was at work the other day and got into a discussion with a coworker about Christianity. During our conversation he kept recalling all the Christian leaders he could remember who had experienced a public scandal, but would not discuss the theological points of Christianity. For him Christianity was all about the hypocrisy of it's "leaders" and nothing more. I realized that these people gave him an excuse not to deal intellectually with the principles of Christianity, but instead gave him an easy out, a way to take the focus off of God and put it back on fallible man.

At first I was frustrated by my coworker's argument, he was using these disgraced figures as deflectors from dealing with the main issue. But as I reflected on our conversation I realized that his argument was one predicted by Jesus in Matt. 5:16 as well as by Paul in Titus 2:7 and also by Peter in 1 Peter 2:12. The basic theme of these verses are "Do good so that you don't become a spiritual obstacle for unbelievers." This appeared to me to be a heavy burden to bear. I am to live my life in a state of constant awareness of how it may look to unbelievers. The problem I have with this reality is that I do not see myself as a good reflection of God, nor do I see myself as a good example of God's nature to humanity, let alone to my coworkers. I started to feel weighed down by this responsibility, until I read Romans 8:10-11, which in essence says that my flesh will always be sinful, but Christ has given me the Holy Spirit who empowers me to not be an obstacle, but, perhaps a signpost pointing someone's gaze back to God.

It is an odd thing that my goal as a Christian is, in essence, not to be noticed. If I am noticed than there is a good chance it won't be for anything I'm proud of. People should look at me and see the power of something greater working in my life, and not see a burdened frustrated sinner struggling to fulfill an impossible command, to be a lens through which unbelievers can see God. Instead they should see God directly working in my life and the focus should not be on me at all, that is exactly what I wanted. To not have to carry the burden of letting my coworker down on my own, instead I am called to just rely on the Holy Spirit to work through me and for Him to be the lens. In this way God is acting as His own lens through which humanity can see Him better...a lens that magnifies itself. My righteousness is imputed to me by Christ. I am holy, because HE is holy. Only through His imputed holiness and righteousness am I able to fulfill the challenge to not be an obstacle for unbelievers. It is not out of my own doing, it is out of the Lord's work in me and through me that I am able to be a person through which people see God.

Hospital Ruminations

2008-11-25T09:28:00.003-06:00

I have been in the hospital with my wife for the past three days. We are currently waiting on some tests to see how Indiana is doing, and to determine if we are going to have to induce labor. One of the most amazing things that I have noticed throughout this pregnancy and especially in the last three days is how little people know about how life is formed and sustained in the womb. I cannot tell you how many times a doctor looked at me and just shrugged their shoulders in response to a question about Indiana's development or questions about how the womb is structured and works, this just heightens the reality that God is truly in control of this situation. I find it interesting that I always hear these New Atheists talking about how unreasonable and unfounded a belief in God is, but in this situation if seems far more reasonable to put my faith in God's ability to know and control the situation than in Science's inability to provide me with even the most basic assurance of Indiana's safety. It seems like with every test there are more questions that arise and less answers.

My brother in law pointed out a verse to me the other night that I thought was really poignant. Ecclesiastes 11:5, "As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything."

Just pray that Indiana gets as much time in the womb as possible and that Elise stays healthy and strong throughout the remainder of her pregnancy. And pray for clarity and discernment on the part of the doctors and nurses. Thanks in advance for all the prayer.

A Look Inside Condiment Correspondence (Pt. 1)

2008-11-02T23:34:00.008-06:00

Dear Mayo,

First, let me say you are too pale, you should get out more and get some color in you, perhaps that is why so many people look slightly put off when they see you sprawled out on a piece of their lunch or dinner. And please tell me you aren't still considering that foolish move to breakfast are you? I don't care how great the Omelets look there. It just sounds like a bad idea from the start. They have no room for you and they have made it clear that you aren't welcome in the past. I am sorry to hear that Wendy's is the only fast food restaurant that still consider you as a "regular" member on all their burgers. But remember that there will always be some new salad attempted that may need your abilities. I know the Macaroni's swear by you. But we must learn to take the times as they come, the good with the bad, the mayo with the mustard so to speak...that is a saying now-a-days is it not?

Anyway perhaps you would benefit from being out of the limelight for a while hang back in some deli's for a bit, become a request-only member in the fast food chain, perhaps they'll realize they really don't know what they got till it's even more congealed and translucent shoved in the far corner of their refrigerator? Or then again maybe it's best that you just fade off into the sunset, allow another sauce to have its turn, I hear there's this great Wing Sauce looking for a big break...hear he's doing wonders on Chick-fil-A sandwiches. Anyway, I got Hot Dogs, Brats, Burgers, and Grilled Cheeses calling me I gotta run, you used to be big time you know how it can get being "in demand". Look, you were a big surprise to everyone, I think especially to the people who were eating you. Mustard thought you were created on a dare...All I'm trying to say is you had a good run. Maybe it is time to hang it up.

Stay fresh,
Ketchup.

P.S. How'd you get my new address? Just curious.

Update: The Year of Reading Dangerously...Update.

2008-08-26T14:33:00.003-05:00

I have been distracted recently by a successful cross country move, the ever increasing reality that I will soon be a father, and the need to secure a job, asap. I have been wanting to blog though and hopefully I will be able to develop a schedule where I can do this regularly again. So I wanted to do a quick post here and give an update on how my first attempt at living a year that is in large part determined by a title or goal. I have declared '08 to be my "Year of Reading Dangerously", and have resolved to read a dangerous amount of books this year in hopes of re-igniting my passion for reading as well as providing me with some bragging rites...although I have found that bragging about reading, no matter how pompous or proud, still barely qualifies as bragging at all.

To begin the update I must confess it is not going too well at all. Since my first declaration of my intentions I have finished only a few books in my original list, although I have purchased a few others that have just sat there.

I have officially finished 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea by Jules Verne and was extremely impressed with Jules Verne's knowledge of the sea. Captain Ahab is one of the most brilliantly written characters I have ever encountered and the way Verne exposes his motivations while retaining his inherent mystery was amazing. I was expecting an extended story about a giant squid, but was surprised to see this book is an intimate character study of a man on the run, as well as on a mission of vengeance. ***

I have also finished No Country For Old Men, which is better than the movie (which is one of my top 10 movies of all time) and is definitely worth a read. I am saving comment on this for a full blog. *****

I also read a book called The Ruins. There is not much to this book, it is just light summer reading for fans of Stephen King. It does have some interesting characters, but it was a disappointing book...and I have no idea why I read it, other than it was free.

I am almost done with Blood Meridian and Confederacy of Dunces, but should have been done with those a long time ago. On the horizon of books to read is Don Quixote, The Road, and The Stranger.

Here it is over half way through my "Year of Reading Dangerously and my book count is at 9. Not very dangerous, but that will just make the second half that much more dangerous cause I gotta make up for lost time.

Your Conscience As Your Guide (Part 1)

2008-06-03T15:00:00.010-05:00

One of my earliest memories in life is sitting in the back seat of a car while my father was driving. I remember watching him reach over to the passenger side of the car and grab a can of soda. I then remember my horror as I saw him pop it open and take a big sip from it. I immediately burst into tears over my father's egregious behavior. He was DRINKING AND DRIVING! I had just seen a commercial, I think it was one of those "The More You Know" or McGruff ads about not drinking and driving. To me it was criminal behavior and my dad was engaging in it apparently without a second thought. The real problem was that I had understood the letter of the law, but completely misunderstood the spirit or application of the law.

One area in particular has been of real interest to me growing up and has carried over into my adult life, and it is the area of Christian living. I was always looking for specifics growing up, can I listen to this band? can I watch this specific movie?, etc. Instead of getting specific answers I got questions asked back to me. Is it glorifying God? Is it good and pure?, etc. I was in a constant state of confusion growing up because those answers to me needed further specific answers themselves. The one thing no one ever asked me about was what my conscience was saying concerning these activities, if anything at all.

I grew up in a state of frustration concerning my hobbies, and passions. I was passionate about music, movies and books, but I kept running into "the world" as I pursued these things. The problem was that what I wanted wasn't just a green light for engaging in whatever I wanted. Many things my friends were listening to and watching I felt was wrong and sinful, but when I went to "the other side" say my youth pastor for instance the answer he gave me seemed legalistic and sinful itself. I wanted a solid well researched and thought out biblical perspective so I finally pursued it myself.

I am currently still reading and studying about this, but what the issue seems to boil down to is that we as Christians should have a good, clear, blameless, pure conscience. I kept reading about the Christian's conscience and realized that I had no idea what a conscience really was. The first reality that I stumbled upon is that it seems to be an element of general revelation, because even unbelievers testify to having a conscience that guides and informs their moral choices. This can be understood by reading the Creation narrative when God says that He is going to make man in His own image. This can be known as the Imago Dei, or image of God that is implanted on the hearts of all men. I see the Imago Dei as the reason why two unsaved people can stay married for 50+ years and have a great loving family. Even though they don't acknowledge it, it is because they are made in the image of God that they can experience any good thing including their marriage.

Like a good Southern Baptist I have identified three basic biblical observations about conscience.

1.) Our consciences can be weakened or strengthened. 1 Corinthians 8:7, 1 Cor. 8:10. Our consciences are alive just like any other part of us, and can be deadened and weakened by our actions or lack thereof; or they can be strengthened by our submission to Christ through it. Our conscience should play a large role in our lives especially in all the morally "grey areas" we encounter in our daily lives. I think a great way to strengthen your conscience is to discuss what you feel your conscience is convicting you of with Christian friends. Talk about whatever activity you just engaged in. If you truly felt it was sinful don't allow the threat of "legalism" to be applied to you, and likewise if you feel a lack of sin in an area where someone else is convicted talk about it, test it with fellow Christians. And broaden the scope of your conscience. This issue may not be with the content of the music, movie or book, it may be an issue of time management that you feel convicted of. Too many times people limit the scope of their conscience to issues of morality or content of entertainment.

2.) Our conscience testifies about us to both God and man. Acts 24:16; Romans 2:15. Our consciences convict us not only of sin against God but also convict us concerning our treatment of people. Is it a sin to not donate money to a worthy cause or to those Salvation Army Santa's outside stores at Christmas. Not necessarily, but can our conscience convict us about it? What about the car broken down on the side of the road that you fail to help? This apect seems to have in view any of those activities that would cause a non-Christian to feel morally good. Without Christ (I believe it was) St. Augustine who refered to these good deeds as "excellent vices." We as Christians are to submit ourselves not only to what our conscience is telling us about our sin against God, but also to what it is saying about our social, relational and cultural behavior to others.

As a subpoint to this second observation I would like to reference 1 Samuel 24:5. Here we have David's conscience convicting him for cutting of the edge of Saul's robe. To me this stands as an example of when our conscience convicts us of personal sin that is not explicitly dealt with in Scripture. Whether David was convicted of arrogance, or of disrespect towards God's appointed leader by cutting the edge off of Saul's robe I do not know, but David's conscience was strong enough that when it convicted him he was sensitive enough to feel it and repent.

3.) Our conscience can be evil and defiled and must be cleansed by Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:16; Hebrews 10:22; Hebrews 9:14. Without God our conscience cannot ultimately accomplish anything. Like the Bible says our good works are like "filthy rags." (Isaiah 64:6) Hebrews describe good works apart from Christ as "dead works". As a Christian we must ask God to cleanse our consciences so that they will be pure and strong and so that we can feel and submit to their conviction. I don't think many Christians have sought to do this, I don't think many people are encouraging Christians to seek a clean conscience, but I see this as the most necessary aspect of Christian living.

A real problem still exists with this perspective and that is of the individuality of us as humans and Christians and therefore the individual conviction of our conscience on our lives. What I feel a clear conviction of you may not and vice versa. Out of this dilemma has emerged (for me at least) one of the most infuriating and misused principles in Scripture and that is the argument of the weaker brother. You do not even want a hint of sin on you so you are called to abstain from all sorts of behavior that may or may not be wrong. Hopefully I will be able to deal with this in part 2. I look forward to any thoughts on this and help clarifying my points. I hope it is readable.

Understanding my trip to the Obama gift shop...I mean Urban Outfitters

2008-05-16T13:42:00.008-05:00

The other day I went into an Urban Outfitters with Elise and a friend. She went to the the women's section and my friend and I resigned ourselves to the small corner of the store that constituted the men's section. the problem was that when we walked into the men's section I felt like I had walked into a Barrack Obama gift shop. His mug was on mugs, and his face was plastered on the majority of their shirts, with short quotes of adoration framing his beaming hope filled face. I was wondering if I had missed the press conference announcing Obama's new clothing line or his Urban Outfitters endorsement.

Urban Outfitters seems to me to be one of the leading clothing stores for people who identify with the same cultural things I do. The music they play is the music I listen to, the clothing they design is the clothing I like to wear, but their ideology is completely different than mine. There was an immediate sense of pressure to conform, followed by a sense of alienation because I could not. Apart from ideological differences when I look at Obama I see a man who is playing a political game like all the other politicians despite what he claims. The way I feel about Obama is perfectly summarized in this article by the decidedly left publication The Progressive. You can read it here, but I digress.

I find this to be the reality in many of the things that I engage in. The radio programs, television shows, music and movie reviews that I read watch and listen to all present ideas that I disagree with, but they all represent some of the best minds out there working today. Even the shows that I disagree with the most I end up listening to because the writing is so sharp or the satire so funny, but I am left wondering where all the socially sharp satire is that I can agree with on an ideological level?

At first I was frustrated, because I appreciated these programs and songs and the people who produced them. My dilemma was that I liked the style but hated the substance. So I resigned myself to just be patient and to keep waiting and hoping for a show or clothing line to emerge that equalled or exceeded the production value of what I have been currently exposed to. Until then I have no choice but to put up with these shows that I, at times, vehemently disagree with. After years of waiting I have now come to the realization that this will not happen on it's own, and I am now faced with the dilemma that the longer one waits for the system to change itself the more the system will instead drift farther away. Instead the reality is that more people are being influenced by these shows, bands, clothes, etc. to think the way they do and adopt their ideology. One person walks into Urban Outfitters with a completely ambivalent view towards politics yet walks out not only with a cool Obama t-shirt but also with a defined political opinion, both of which are overpriced. It reminds me of a story my friend told me in college. It was around the time when the Che shirts were really popular, and he was walking around campus and saw a kid wearing one of these shirts. My friend walked up to the kid and started asking him about his shirt. Finally my friend realized that the kid had no idea who was on his shirt and asked the kid who it was; the kid replied, "It's Jesus".

Instead of being frustrated at those shows, companies, and bands I'm frustrated with the lack of production coming out of a smart, young, creative, conservative Christian community. Francis Schaeffer was committed to producing good Christian art and thought, but he has largely been lost. Today the Emergent Church has become the loudest "Christian" voice out there, but they operate on the same platform as Obama, all feeling with no substance.

Instead we need to awaken the need and desire for Christians to deepen their theology as well as their creativity. I can wait around for a hundred years for a radio program to rise up that operates at the same production value level as This American Life, but represents a worldview that I can subscribe to, or I can try to affect it myself and create something. There is also a third option I have not yet written about, but which I am currently applying. Instead of actually changing it myself I will just blog about it and hopefully encourage someone else to create a respectable alternative and hope that they hire me in the future.

New Blog

2008-05-01T10:38:00.002-05:00

I have started a new blog that is strictly about movies. A link is over in my family of blogs section. Enjoy.

Bringing Reason to Our Dissatisfaction

2008-04-29T13:07:00.005-05:00

There seems to be a cultural movement concerning Christianity in which one's personal relationship with Jesus is emphasized over their knowledge of the doctrines of Jesus. I think one of the main reasons for this is the observation that there appears to be no clear winners when it comes to the area of doctrine. Denominations argue and split over worship style, baptism, Church government, etc. The struggles and arguments have worked in bringing frustration to those who observe these battles, usually from a safe distance, and think that the arguments all seem silly and pedantic. The reaction of this frustration has been to devaluate doctrine and theology and instead focus on the relationship aspect of Christianity, because that allows one to emphasize an individualistic theology, one that suits the individual believer and makes a structured denominational Christianity seem archaic. In the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer "Costly grace is abandoned for cheap grace."

The slogan "Jesus is my Homeboy" has become less of a meaningless t-shirt slogan and more of a declaration of one's theological beliefs. The focus is on a nebulous relationship in which Jesus ends up looking more like the individual than a real person who deserves worship. Jesus is easy going, he's able to morph depending on the crowd he's in or on who is claiming him, he's a very fluid guy. People who think like this many times abandon the Word and wing their theology as they go. They become stunted in their understanding.

Francis Schaeffer gives a perfect example of how this thinking looks in real life and then offers a perfect critique of it. In his book "The God Who Is There" he writes, "At first acquaintance this concept gives the feeling of spritiuality. 'I do not ask for answers, I just believe.' This sounds spiritual, and it deceives many fine people. These are often young men and women who are not content only to repeat the phrases of the intellectual or spiritual status quo. They have become rightly dissatisfied with a dull, dusty, introverted orthodoxy given only to pounding out the well-known cliches. The new theology sounds spiritual and vibrant, and they are trapped. But the price they pay for what seems to be spiritual is high...The answer is not to ask these people to return to the poorness of the status quo, but to a living orthodoxy which is concerned with the whole man, including the rational and the intellectual, in his relationship to God."

In his quote Schaeffer does not dismiss the feelings that give rise to these ideas, but his answer is completely different. Instead of shunning the "system" and trying to reinvent Christian theology to fit your own frustrations, gain a living orthodoxy. Don't be put off by the problems you see or all the different interpretations that are being presented, it is all clearly written in the Bible, and basic foundations for Christian belief are and have been eternal. They have not changed through time and they are clearly written and recorded in the Bible. And when it comes to plethora of differences within Christianity identify which doctrines are necessary to fight for and which are just superficial differences. Be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 and check everything said with the Word.

I do not mean to dismiss those who are frustrated with the theological wranglings within Christianity, I am frustrated many times myself. The problem is with the reality of spiritual debate, the problem is that instead of discussing real issues of importance Christians many times end up arguing over many of the same issues, usually dealing with specific ethics. Is it alright to watch this, or to say that. Meanwhile confusion and bad theology have slipped in unnoticed and have taken the place of real theology.

The reality of spiritual disagreements and debate is inevitable because we are all still sinful, but when I find myself disagreeing with many of my professors over specific theological or ethical issues, I find that we are firmly planted on the same side when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. The same is true with issues of Jesus Christ's divine and human nature, and Jesus Christ being the only way to the Father and salvation. Recently these categories have become confused. The doctrine of the virgin birth gets demoted to and debated as though people were debating the preference of boxers or briefs. In Rob Bell's mind ("Velvet Elvis") the doctrine of the virgin birth is a brick in a wall that can stay or leave, his faith is "strong" enough to not be built on one doctrinal rock. I wonder if it is strong enough to not have to rely on two stones or three...I wonder what doctrine his wall does rest on, if any? The Scripture lays out clearly the stones that must be in place if one is to have a solid, firm and lasting faith; but the only way we can know what these are is to read the Bible and read it right. Concerning Rob Bell's teaching on the virgin birth or any other teaching denying the Trinity or divinity of Jesus, those beliefs must be fought against and cannot be allowed to stay within the realm of Christianity.

The problem that arises is that the Jesus people inevitably end up worshipping looks very much like the people who are "worshiping" him. Francis Schaeffer writes about the use of connotation words in his book "The God Who is There". In it he writes, "Every word has two parts. There is the dictionary definition, and there is the connotation...An illusion of communication and content is given so that when a word is used in (a) deliberately undefined way, the hearer 'thinks' he know what it means." (i.e. "There is connotation, as in the word god, but there is no definition.") Schaeffer goes on to write that we as Christians, "must show the reality of true Christianity. This is real because it is concerned with the God who is there and who has spoken to us about Himself, not just the use of the symbol god or christ which sounds spiritual but is not." We must seek to give definition to the person who we claim to have a relationship with. It is not enough to say, "I believe in God" or even "I believe in Jesus". Who is Jesus? Who is God?

The second problem that we encounter in this line of thinking is that by rejecting the reality for the need of spiritual growth not only do we never know who it is we are actually worshipping, but we prove ourselves to be lazy servants of a God who we claim exists in word, but who actually has little or no impact on our personal lives.

Hebrews 5:12-6:2, "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

The author of Hebrews says it perfectly, if we do not progress in our faith we are "unskilled" and unable to "distinguish good from evil." Chapter 6 goes onto to talk about the danger that exists for many who profess Christ and receive some understanding and knowledge, but abandon it for error.

We must seek to work out our faith and progress in understanding. A vague faith will not do. There are many false teachers out now, many of whom sound extremely spiritual and many who appeal to our frustrations and observations of "organized religion". But the answer is not to get lazy in our understanding or to abandon orthodox theology, we must instead recapture a living orthodoxy that eliminates all the problems we see in Christianity and gives spiritual and intellectual substance to our faith.

Great books to read regarding this topic:
"Trilogy" by Francis Schaeffer - Three of his foundational books in one volume. I suggest starting with "Escape From Reason"
"Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know" by Wayne Grudem - This is a short book and solid.
"Knowing God" by J. I. Packer
"Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis

A Reflection on the Latest Post-Modern Contribution to Cinema - "Torture Porn"

2008-04-13T23:24:00.006-05:00

I just feel led to preface this post with a mild warning that this topic made me feel sick writing about, so don't feel the need to read it if it does the same to you.

Elise and I have been watching a lot of film noir lately. Film noir refers mainly to those "hardboiled" crime/detective movies in the 30's and 40's. Film noir emphasizes lighting, a lot of grey tones are used and heavy shadows. The atmosphere also speaks to the moral grayness displayed in many of it's characters in the stories. On the last film noir dvd we watched it had a little retrospective on the noir genre and outlined it's history. What struck me were all the cultural factors that influenced the genre itself. For me great gangster noir films explore similar themes. Fate or providence, temptation, good and evil, acceptance of one's situation or circumstances, morality... (There are more but morality seemed like a good place to stop). Many of the themes of noir have direct reference points to cultural influences. It's what that particular culture wanted to say expressed in film. It's also like the birth of jazz or the blues. All these forms speak to the values and ideas of the specific culture and time period that produced them. Blues is not just a good sounding style of music, it is the expression of a comprehensive worldview. That is how I see film noir, as a representation of a comprehensive worldview.

I was thinking about this because I think not only does film noir have something to say philosophically and ethically, but I think it is an extremely beautiful expression in film. That train of thought got me thinking about what our culture is producing. We have currently created our own genre of film in the last 10 years or so, and it's name is commonly referred to as "Torture Porn". I know that it is taboo to critique society based on the art that it produces (I don't really know why), I think it is because so many people are quick to throw blame on video games or movies whenever there is a violent act in our culture. I think that is an over reaction, but I do think it is beneficial to reflect on what our culture is producing from time to time. This is an area that seems long overdue for some reflection.

So the topic of discussion today is the so called "Torture Porn" flicks of the last 10 years. I believe that these films have had their genesis in the more obscure (until recently) "Grindhouse" and horror films of the 70's, so it is not like these films have sprung up out of nowhere, but I do believe something has shifted in our culture especially in the way we receive these pictures and demand more mainstream ones to be made. I have in mind here the Hostel films, Wolf Creek, perhaps the latest Halloween, The Hills Have Eyes 1 & 2, etc. There are too many to name but these are just some off the top of my head. I must admit here that I have not, nor do I have any desire, to see these films, although I do enjoy a good horror film from time to time. The difference I see with these films is that they glory in the carnage with no real thought or idea of redemption in their depictions of horror and specifically torture. The question to ask is what is the motivation for making these films and what are the motivations for watching them? What does this say about the culture that creates this and thrives on it? Almost all these films have occupied the #1 slot in cinemas at one time or another. And I find the level of realism depicted as well as the level of desire in the culture alarming.

There is a film coming out called The Poughkeepsie Tapes. The whole idea behind this movie is that there was a serial killer who videotaped all his murders and someone has found his tapes. So what do they do? They cut all the footage together to make a movie, of course! So basically it is over an hour of people acting like they are getting murdered and you get to watch it from the perspective of the murderer. Who are they appealing to here? People who wish they were serial killers? I just feel like perhaps we are past the point of discernment as a society here, but I see no redemptive purpose for these films and it makes me feel dirty just writing about them. Film Noir reflected the ideas of a generation, it was a new, innovative and beautiful addition to cinema. So what does Torture Porn reflect? What is it's legacy to cinema?

Here is an article from a film critic (David Edelstein) who is reflecting on this new genre of film. His summation of the genre is that, "Some of these movies are so viciously nihilistic that the only point seems to be to force you to suspend moral judgments altogether." In his article he expresses a negative view on The Passion of the Christ that I strongly disagree with, but overall I think he has a good point. Be careful he has some strong explanations of some of what these movies depict. I think we just need to be discerning of what are we take in, but I think we should also be discerning of what art we put out. I would hate for "Torture Porn" to be the cinematic contribution that my generation is known for.

For a counter-point to David Edelstein you can read this article that shows the opposing view to these films here.

Soul Sleep - What happens after you die?

2008-03-23T14:28:00.002-05:00

Recently I have encountered an idea that I knew a little about but never researched, and that is the idea of "soul sleep". The technical term for this belief is psychopannychism but I prefer the term "soul sleep". This belief states that between death and the final judgment of Christ the believer's spirit or "inner man" is in a state of sleep in Christ's presence, but the soul or spirit is unconscious and awaiting the time of the final judgment. I hope I have accurately represented this belief and if I have not feel free to post revisionary comments.

This post is mainly to show the counter arguments to soul sleep since a comprehensive post on this issue would be too long and I'm positive I wouldn't even be able to talk my wife into reading it. So these points come mainly from my study and out of The New Dictionary of Theology edited by Sinclair Ferguson, David Wright and on which J.I. Packer consulted.

I will lay out the four points of objection to soul sleep addressed in the New Dictionary and then I will conclude with some verses and thoughts of my own:

1.) The Greek word Paul uses to reference Christians who die as having "fallen asleep" (koimasthai) is in reference to the fact that "they cease to have any active relation to the present world. If this common euphemism for the act of dying has any further implications, it is that a resurrection 'awakening' is certain, not that the intermediate state is one of unconsciousness or suspended animation." (339)

2.) "Immediately after death the Christian is 'with' the Lord (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23), which refers to active inter-personal communion, not passive spatial juxtaposition." (339)

3.) As one can read in the two passages above (2 Cor.; Phil.) Paul writes that he desires to depart and be in God's presence. "He would hardly have viewed unconscious rest with Christ in heaven as 'far better' than conscious communion with Christ on earth." (340)

4.) "Luke 16:19-31 suggests that in the intermediate state there is (at least) awareness of circumstance (vs. 23-24), memory of the past (vs. 27-28) and rational thought (v. 30; Revelation 6:9-11)." (340)

This next quote is in specific relation to the Luke 23:43 verse. This is an excerpt from a sermon preached by John Piper where he addresses the thief on the cross that Jesus addresses. As we know there was a penitent thief and a unrepentant thief, in this section John Piper is discussing Jesus' response to the repentant thief:

"But to the penitent Jesus says: 'Today you will be with me in Paradise.' This was almost too good. There would not even be a delay. Today the Spirit of Jesus and the renewed Spirit of the thief would be in union in Paradise. The promise would be without delay.

What is this paradise? The word is found in two other places in the New Testament. First, in 2 Cor. 12:3: Paul says, 'I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven - whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know; God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise -- whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God knows -- and he heard things which cannot be told, which man may not utter.' Thus Paradise is the heavenly abode of God where there are found things prepared by God for those who love him, which are utterly indescribable (1 Cor. 2:9). The second place the word 'Paradise' is found is in Rev. 2:7. Here Jesus says to the church at Ephesus, 'To him who conquers, I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God.' And if we look at the end of the book of Revelation we find that the tree of life is in the heavenly city of God. In Rev. 22:1 John said, 'Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.'

But in all this, the one thing that Jesus chose to mention to the repentant thief on the cross (if you can only say one thing, what do you say?) 'You will be with me today.' You have to love and admire Jesus a lot for that to be a solace when you leave this life behind. It reminds me of that great spiritual, 'When I come to die, give me Jesus… You can have all this world, give me Jesus.'"

You can read the whole text of the sermon here if you like.

I also want to post another link to a sermon by John Piper. This is the beginning of a four part series on what happens to you after you die. He specifically deals with the issue of soul sleep at the end, but he never does directly, still what he says puts the whole issue in perspective I believe. You can read and listen to it here

Now this is just a brief overview and I hope that the conversation will be shaped in the comment section or in personal conversation, but I wanted to give a overview of the issue here. I hope this is helpful and I am sure I may post about this again shortly or revise this post soon.

Zeitgeist (The Movie)

2008-03-15T16:28:00.002-05:00

The blessing and the curse of the Information Age is that the speed at which ideas and information can be disseminated is only slowed by the speed at which one can think and type. The problem is that it is difficult to (quality) control the information that gets disseminated. So with all the online access that people gain with primary sources and the ability to communicate with resources a half a world away when researching; there also is a danger of people having the ability to post their conspiracy theories or personal views on anything that they want, and there is technology and software available that can make the information look and seem a lot more credible than it is. Mix that with a general malaise when it comes to the area of personal study, a culture that grows less and less literate everyday as well as other cultural influences (many of which Francis Schaeffer wrote on 30+ years ago) and you have a recipe for disaster or at least confusion.

One example of this is the online movie Zeitgeist. This film attempts to link the Christian religion to pagan origins. It then predictably expands it's scope to broader conspiracy theories including 9/11. The preparation for this movie appears to have been perhaps a few hours of gathering sketchy sources and surfing wikipedia, combined with however long it took the narrator to work out a tone of voice that makes it sound like he is very convinced that what he is saying is true.

Instead of trying to lay out my own argument against this film I just want to link you to a great podcast that my friend Justin put me on to. It is a radio show linked to website called apologetics.com. The guys are great and provide a sound critique of this film. I can't recommend it enough. You can listen to the specific podcast here, so please do. You can also check out the film for free on google video. Just search "zeitgeist the movie". Feel free to post any thoughts of the film or the podcast and please listen to the show, their motto is "Challenging thinkers to believe, and believers to think" and I can't support that mission statement enough. All Christians need to be encouraged to really think and work through their faith diligently and support their beliefs with reasoned and rational arguments. Reason is by no means the enemy or antithesis of faith, so we should be striving to provide people with a reasonable explanation of our faith in Christ. Enjoy the podcast(s).

Top 10: Movies

2008-03-05T15:36:00.008-06:00

I've been trying to make lists of things that I watch, read and listen to, that way I can remember what they were about and be a little more reflective on the things that I am watching. So after months of deliberation and debate here is my belated top 10 films of '07 list. So if you're not into movies here are ten really good ones that you can feel confident about watching. Also feel free to use the links on the right to check the content of any of these films that way you can be informed as well as avoid any awkward situations that may occur when watching a Hollywood film.

10 - Into The Wild
9 - The Darjeeling Limited
8 - Zodiac
7 - 3:10 to Yuma
6 - The Diving Bell And The Butterfly
5 - Sunshine
4 - The Lives Of Others
3 - The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
2 - There Will Be Blood
1 - No Country For Old Men

Weaker brother (Pt. 2) - Read Pt. 1 below

2008-03-01T13:59:00.004-06:00

Today it seems that the exegesis of this passage focuses on the abstinance portion of the verse, but neglects any idea of us building each other up in the faith and of using issues like eating meat or drinking as a forum to help encourage and build each other up in the faith. The idea seems to be that in order to be faithful to the weaker brother you do whatever you want to do, just don't let them know. And if, or when, you get caught THEN you address the reality of your freedom in Christ. The question seems to be: is it better to abstain all together from such a practice, such as eating meat in the presence of a weaker brother, or is it better to continue eating whatever you like privately and behind closed doors and try to prevent any encounter where a fellow Christian, especially one that you don't know too well, discovers that you drink or eat meat sacrificed to idols? Can we not address these issues earlier by stressing the reality of Christ's Lordship earlier in the development and discipleship of Christians? I am not saying that we should not abstain from certain potentially offensive behavior in the presence of young Christians or in large gatherings of Christians, but I am suggesting that to this reality we must add an element of discipleship and growth to their lives so that these issues do not dominate their Christian experience and do not aid to a community of secrecy within a church body.

By focusing solely on the reality of our need to be thoughtful of the weaker brother have we created an equally dangerous lifestyle where things are covered up and done in secrecy even in the presence of fellow believers, with the justification that it is for the greater good, or for their good, when in reality are we not guilty of being deceptive in our actions with others, just by trying to cover up the reality that we do certain things that are lawful to do Scripturally?

John Calvin makes a distinction between the weaker brother and the Pharisees in the Institutes. Perhaps an accurate summary of his postition is that we are to not offend the weaker brother but we are called to offend the Pharisees (thanks Joe). By this I mean that Jesus ate at the table with sinners, worked on the Sabbath Day, and drastically changed the perception of the Law that was held by the religious leaders of that day. Have certain restrictions that have been placed on the Christian lifestyle, laws put in place to protect the weaker brother or to protect the Pharisees? By Pharisees I mean people who have begun to identify the Christian lifestyle as something defined by works and actions, rather than by faith?

I'm not sure if my meaning is clear, and so I want to dialogue about these ideas and shape them better. Please ask questions and help me formulate a biblically informed view of all these things. I am viewing this blog as a rough draft.

'08 the year of "reading dangerously"

2008-03-01T12:56:00.008-06:00

This post will have a dual purpose: First, to declare my serious intention to blog regularly even if my only readers are related to me, or are surly like Billy. Second, I figure I will update some of the books I have been reading since Jan. 1, 2008 and provide a brief review. Seems like a nice first post.

I have been reading a mixture of fiction and religious works so here is the list so far (5 star rating system):

The Terror (Dan Simmons) - I read this to help get me back into reading for fun. It is not for the faint of heart and has too much questionable material for my taste or anybody else's who would probably read this blog. But it did the trick and now I am back into reading. Not recommended. This was my first Simmons novel. **

All Families Are Psychotic (Douglas Coupland) - Interesting read. It is a shame when you read something that is written from the perspective of our "postmodern" culture, and every sad or sordid thing that is in the book is even more sad and sordid because you realize it's actually an accurate picture of our society. It is an examination of a postmodern family full of divorce, affairs, disease, betrayal and at the end some redemption. I recommend this, although it does have language and some "adult themes". This was my first Coupland novel. ****

Survivor (Chuck Palahniuk) - This is perhaps a more sordid author than Douglas Coupland, but he writes of some similar themes. Coupland writes more from a Christain understanding and Palahniuk's novels are more secular in nature. This story details the life of a man who is the last surviving member of a massive suicide cult and who becomes a sort of cultural celebrity. It is a complete surreal look at fame, religion, 21st Century America, etc. I suggest reading Coupland over Palahniuk. Warning: not for children. This was my first Palhniuk novel. ***

His Dark Materials Trilogy (Philip Pullman) - This is the source material for the movie the Golden Compass. I finished these books two days ago and am shocked at how seemingly oblivious the Christian community can be when something truly dangerous comes out. Forget Harry Potter, these books barely work as stories and work more like diatribes against Christianity. Pullman attacks all aspects of Christian life and doctrine. In his world the angels who rebelled are the heroes and sin is what makes humanity and life interesting. All of this is of course linked to our sexual awakening and self discovery. On a side note Pullman said he was writing in response to the fantasies of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien yet he fails to develop a truly believable world or interesting and unique characters. Do not let your children read them, but if you want, read them first and you will see the New Atheist philosophy as clearly as in any of the books by Dawkins or Hitchens. These were the first three books I've read by Pullman. *

What's So Great About Christianity (Dinesh D'Souza) - This is great to read during or right after the "His Dark Materials Trilogy". He gives good sound arguments against the aggressive Atheist agenda, and he is a great apologist of the faith. I would highly recommend reading this. Even if you are walking through a bookstore stop and read the first chapter. This is an important book.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (Jules Verne) - I'm almost halfway done with this book. It is amazing how brilliant many writers of fiction were even just 50 years ago...they look even smarter I think compared to contemporary fiction writers. The detail in this book is ridiculous, but it's a great read.

Blood Meridian (Cormac McCarthy) - He wrote the book "No Country for Old Men" and I was so moved by the movie I had to read one of his book. This has been described as the "bloodiest American novel ever written". I forget by who...but I'm enjoying it so far...and I wouldn't agree with that view yet.

A Confederacy of Dunces (John Kennedy Toole) - Love this book. This won its author a Pulitzer Prize. By my understanding it was published posthumously because the author committed suicide in his early thirties. His only other novel is called "The Neon Bible". Please comment if you know if this is a reference to the latest Arcade Fire album. I'm maybe a fifth of the way through it.

Well there it is. '08 is off and running. I'm also reading some text books, but I'll save those reviews for my classes. Suggest some good books to me...I'll read them.

A Lament

2007-10-10T17:13:00.002-05:00

I would be remiss if I did not mention one of the most important messages concerning the emerging church delivered by Mark Driscoll at Southeastern Seminary recently. You can access his message here, or you can find it on itunes under the Southeastern's podcast section. Listen to it, it is clear, loving and true.

When I was a kid I used to listen (exclusively) to oldies. One of the positive/negative's was that it never took long for the oldie radio station to replay a song since most of the artists were retired from music or had literally retired. There were a few songs that I would always look forward to, one song in particular was Mrs. Robinson by Simon and Garfunkle. One lyric always used to catch my ear. Toward the end of the song Simon would ask the seemingly profound question, "Where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio?" and later both he and Garfunkle would lament that "Joltin Joe has left and gone away". Well at the time I had no idea who Joe Dimaggio was, but I would always find myself getting very nostalgic and mourning the loss of a man who was memorable enough to be immortalized by Simon and Garfunkle.

Now that I am older I have compiled my own list of men I mourn. The farther I progress in my Seminary education the longer my list gets. Not only do I see confusion in the Christian life today, I feel it. There are so many voices out there, so many distractions in our lives, and many people who's voices are loudest in our culture have the least to say. Not naming any names, but the other day I opened the door at Lifeway and practically knocked over the front display of Joel Olsteen's new book. "Where have you gone Francis Schaeffer?"

Optional interactivity: In your post include people who you mourn. They don't all have to be theologians. (Ex. When I listen to modern day rap it makes me lament, "Where have you gone Lauryn Hill.")

Certified interesting

2007-09-07T15:52:00.002-05:00

Here are a few links of things I have found helpful, fun, interesting...since I haven't done this before some are old. I hope they will get more recent as I post these more. Enjoy.

Hear the Appalachian State radio announcer show us what true happiness sounds like (Tip: turn your volume down before you do.)

Watch Al Gore as he forgets to practice what he preaches.

(In case you haven't already) Listen to my wife's intimate exchange with one of her heros on the phone...she says "hello" near the end.

Visit the memorial site for Dr. D. James Kennedy.

Read Dr. Al Mohler's view on Richard Dawkins' (noted Atheist) campaign to "Out Atheists" and get them to attempt to convert others to Atheism.

Watch an absolutely amazing performance by the band Wilco on Conan (I get to see them on the 14th...thanks Elise!)

Read John Piper's insightful comments to the bridge collapse in Minneapolis last month.

Check out a report of all the questionable content in the movie you may be thinking about watching this weekend before you go see it.

Read a review that truly takes into account the movie it is reviewing and does it justice.

Read Dr. Mohler's insightful review of Brian McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy".

Read 9-Marks (Ministry site of Pastor Mark Dever) review of Blue Like Jazz. Also look around their site it is full of interesting useful information.

Check out this site that allows you to play time consuming games, but with the promise of prizes.

A Meditation on the Weak Brother (1 Cor. 8) Pt. 1

2007-08-27T14:46:00.004-05:00

I am writing this in light of splitting the ideas that I am wrestling with into at least two parts. In these first two parts I want to just write out some observations and questions I have concerning this text and I am asking for feedback to help shape the application portion of this post which will hopefully be Pt. 3.

Here are the two verses that I wish to deal with in this post, "yet, for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled." - I Cor. 8:6-7 (ESV).

Paul identifies two problems that are apparent in the weak brother. First, they do not possess the knowledge expressed in verse 6. Second, they have weak consciences that are "defiled" (vs. 7) because of their lack of knowledge. The first issue identified seems to be the root of the problem, the second seems to be the symptom of the root issue. Because the weak brother does not possess the knowledge that there is one God who is over all things, and through whom all things have their existence, that there is no such thing as unclean food. (Especially because the idols that the food was sacrificed to have "no real existence" (vs. 4) in light of the existence of the one true God. That is a separate issue.)

The solution to the specific problem put forward by Paul is to not eat the meat, but there is also a charge to the other Christians at the church in Corinth to address this brother's lack of knowledge concerning Jesus' Lordship over all creation, and over all things. There appear to be two parts to this command to not eat the meat and therefore cause a brother to stumble. First, is the abstinance. Do not cause your brother to stumble. But the second part seems to be more unspoken and that is the need for this brother to be encouraged and challenged in his faith to the point where he can proclaim that Christ is over all and through him things that once were unclean become clean. The point is not to get this brother to a place where he can eat the meat, but the point is to get him to a place where he can identify and testify to the reality that is expressed in verse 6. Once he identifies with this reality it appears that the struggle with meat will be resolved. Again, this does not mean that he will ever eat the sacrificial meat, but it does mean that his conscience will no longer become defiled by watching others eat meat.

The question is this: by just abstaining from a potentially offensive activity are we being faithful to the command in Scripture to build each other up in love and in knowledge of the Lord? Or is just abstaining from a behavior in the presence of a weaker brother or in the presence of a large gathering of Christians the full fulfillment of the charge of 1 Cor. 8?

If the reason this brother's conscience is defiled is because he lacks knowledge concerning the Lordship of Christ than that is an issue that must be addressed. If the church at Corinth spent the entire time avoiding eating meat sacrificed to idols in the presence of this brother will that aid his maturity in faith and his walk with Christ?

A Musing on The Good Samaritan

2007-08-04T22:26:00.000-05:00

I was listening to an album today and it got me thinking about the parable of the good samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). I've always been struck by the level of avoidance the religious leaders showed to a hurt and wounded man who was laying in the middle of their path. He was not hidden or concealed by anything but was exposed and the only way to not see him would be to knowingly block him out. This always bothered me because it represented a blatant disregard for humanity and for the injured, how could anyone, religious or non-religious do this? (1-see link below) And I realized that this same type of avoidance that the religious leaders were guilty of in the parable many Christians are guilty of today, except our neglect looks far different today. It is largely a neglect of ideas, but it is just as serious as avoiding a physically wounded and dying man.

(In relation to all this musing) Recently I've been thinking about the death of Ingmar Bergman (do not confuse with Ingrid, especially in front of Elise) and I was thinking about his body of work and how many people it has impacted. And I realized that within his body of work we can encounter a man who's art stands as one the most transparant struggles with faith ever captured on film. His art was his way of expressing himself, and particularly, his personal struggles with faith and God. With regard to Bergman, the way to see this man's need is to look at his art. Bergman himself was not laying in the middle of the road physically beaten, but his art was there and is still there. I don't believe, and I don't mean to suggest, that all Christians need to engage the work of Bergman, but for some ignoring the work of a man like Ingmar Bergman is like stepping over the wounded traveler in the parable. For some their love for music or painting or even architecture will (or can) bring them across a different worldview than the one expressed in the Bible, and in order to ignore that idea or worldview you would have to ignore an entire person's existence. It is important also that we realize that, with art, it is not just the artist who we ostracize by ignoring their work, but we are also isolating all the people who relate to it. Bergman stands as a testiment to thousands, maybe millions who think like he does, in order to begin a conversation with these ideas, and therefore the entire Bergman community one must begin by engaging the art. By doing that you are engaging the man. The danger to be like the religious leaders in the parable exists in all areas of life. Where does the danger lie in your life? and are you already guilty of not loving your neighbor like the Samaritan?

How many people are in need and are showing it through their art and yet no one will give them the time required to listen or to understand? The way to connect with people like this is easy, partake in the art! Use it for it's purpose, as a conversation and dialogue with the ideas that are expressed. This is true of Bergman, cinema, music, literature, paintings, sculpture, whatever it is...there is a dialogue to be had, an idea or concept to engage biblically, and at the end of the line is somebody who is connecting with it. Because a piece of art is dark or difficult does not mean that our initial response should be to immediately cross to the other side of the street and carry on our way. Instead we should minister, all people need the truth, and we have the power of Christ with us, we need not be afraid. Romans 10:15 says, "...How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"

In some ways I think it is easier to knock on random doors and talk with strangers than is to engage one individual personally; because when you go door-to-door you have a set game plan, you are going there with something to offer them and if a door is slammed in your face you go the next one, that's it. What is difficult is taking the time to listen to one person or engage one idea deeply, attempt to understand it/them, and do it without the idea that this person is just another house on this block that i have to cover. I am not knocking door-to-door evangelism, but by doing that exclusively while ignoring the prevailing worldview of our culture and not finding your own personal connection with the culture is ineffectual and i would go as far to say that it is unbiblical (this is perhaps another blog so I will stop here).

Art has created ready made communities of people who are all unified in their identification with a particular piece of artwork or artist, Bergman and his films to express is isolationist theology, or Dylan and his music, or Steinbeck and his works largely exploring the mythology of our nation. All these men express views of thinking about God and culture and life, if any of them touch something that you are already interested in, seek them out or people like them who openly reflect a worldview in their art and see if you can begin a dialogue with it. For many people who do not believe in God their art and expression is a major part of their identity, art should be a major part of ours as Christians, and identifying with art can be a doorway to a community of people who are lost and searching, or at least commenting on things that Jesus speaks to, but (Rom. 10:14-17) "...how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?..."

1.) http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/05/motorists_drive.html

Some thoughts on "Sunshine"

2007-07-30T00:56:00.004-05:00

The basic plot takes place fifty years in the future and the sun is dying out. The sun has begun to wane and has left the earth in a "solar winter" and so a crew of seven (I think) are sent on a mission to reignite the sun. The movie touches on larger topics and issues within the basic movement of it's plot. The idea that the sun is burning out is used as a way to contemplate more existential questions. I discovered on the ride home (alone) that the sun is an amazing thing to contemplate. It is responsible for holding the planets in their orbits, and is the source of all life on our planet, without it we wouldn't be. This is why so many civilizations have worshipped and still worship, the sun. Through all this musing, I found that it is impossible to contemplate the sun without contemplating God, and about half way home I made the first of a few connections with this movie concerning my life. The first being how little my life reflects living "in the light of" (forgive the pun) something(s) bigger than myself.

I have never truly thought about the sun before, but i thought about it last night and i find myself still thinking about it today. I realize that the only time, before this movie, that I thought of the sun was to curse it when it was too hot outside. The sun is largely taken for granted (in my life at least), it is an assumption, something that is and will always be there, why do I need to give it any more thought? That is why when someone asked me about the movie I actually had to stop in the middle of my explanation and catch myself because what I was saying sounded so ridiculous, and i am pretty sure my friend actually giggled out loud at the premise. I thought, and I assume my friend thought, that the sun cannot and could not burn out. Some people's faith in God is similar to my faith and my friend's faith in the sun. It's reality is sure and constant, but our knowledge of the actual sun is extremely limited. During the movie I had to ask myself, why couldn't this happen? Beyond the reality that God is sustaining the sun, I could give no real answer based off of my knowledge of the sun itself. This made me think about some conversations I have had with friends of mine and things that I have read in magazines and articles concerning the spiritual life of people in America. It seems that for many people just accepting the reality of something greater than themselves is enough. In almost any poll that I have seen in America people are willing to admit that they believe in a God, but the "God" that they believe in only requires mental assention to his existence, but does not, seemingly, affect any real lifestyle change. It is enough to believe in a god and then to move on. Some people will fight for the existence of God but their arguments are based off of personal feelings or vague ideas, their knowledge of a true single eternal God is limited...he is just assumed, but not known.

The issue is that accepting the reality of something bigger than ourselves requires responsibilities, the lack of any discernable change in one's life works as a denial of the existence of something larger than yourself, because if something exists outside of us, and if that being created us than we could not and would not view ourselves as the chief moral agents in our own lives. We could at least assume that God would require some level of lifestyle change to fit the reality of his existence. There must be a seeking out of what or who God is, there must be a certain level of curiosity and an attempt to understand all that God is and means. For example the sun, the reality of there being a sun means that people have and are studying it, and have found it to be the center of our galaxy and responsible for changes in the seasons, the moon's glow, ect. Even the sun forces some behaviorial change, we must limit our exposure to the sun or wear sun block unless we want to develop skin cancer. Our use of sun block speaks to our belief in the reality that the sun causes skin cancer. In the movie the study of the sun revealed that is was dying out and that meant that people would have to suffer and sacrifice themselves to save it.

For me the sun is a representation of the acceptance of the reality of God. His reality informs my life, or at least it should, and if my life shows no change then how can I say i truly believe in his existence? Surely he would have something to say concerning my life, his reality would force at least some change in my daily habits, or in my marriage, or in my temperment. All that to say this: The belief in God must touch more than your mind. It must touch your heart and affections, your life and how it is run, and also your mind and intellect. By not affecting all aspects of your life and without God being respected and feared, our belief in God testifies to him being no larger than ourselves. God is greater than the sun, he is the creator of it, and my life does not adequately reflect that truth. Allow this to challenge your level of belief, not by how much you believe but by how much you do. James 2:14-26.

Friends, Romans, Countrymen...

2007-07-28T10:46:00.000-05:00

Welcome! This is the first post in what will (hopefully) be a long lasting and mutually beneficial blog that will help to encourage discourse, debate and thought on issues concerning theology and life. In his book, The God Who Is There, Francis Schaeffer includes a quote which he attributes to Martin Luther, in it Schaeffer writes, "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ..." I never want to be guilty of merely professing Christ and I hope that through this blog and through your interaction with me that the Lord will shape both of us to help confess him better and to constantly be addressing "that little point" that Luther speaks of. Please engage myself and each other on this site and let us spur each other on to love and good works. (Insert doxology), Keith k.