As is traditional, I've compiled my top 10 albums of the last year. These are my top ten discoveries, not necessarily albums which came out in 2006. After reviewing the list, I've concluded that this was the year of the 'the', as bands seem to have run out of normal names and are now resorting to obscure nouns and adjectives. Here goes:
10. The Long Blondes - Someone to Drive You Home
This album is ridiculously catchy, especially the first three songs. Great post-punk-pop (I love that label) that gets stuck in your head yet avoids merely being catchy drivel. I felt like they tried to hard to make every song on this album worthy of being a single, however, and at points ended up sounding rather forced and calculated.
9. The Knife - Silent Shout
I don't usually like electronic music, but this album left me wowed. Its simple, dissonant and surreal, and the vocals are amazing in their varied bizarre twists. Neverland is by far my favorite song from the album, and would be my favorite electronic song of the year, except that...
8. DJ Shadow - Endtroducing
While he's been around forever, I finally got introduced (perhaps 'endtroduced') to DJ Shadow. Wonderful electronic/hip-hop with brilliant sampling and fascinating experimentation. This should be old news to many of you, but 'Building Steam With a Grain of Salt...' may well be one of the hip-hop songs ever.
7. The Pipettes - We Are The Pipettes
In some ways, this CD struck me as silly. I rolled my eyes at the way they reveled in cliches and shamelessly ripped off the girl-band cliche. Yet it's really, really fun and I couldn't stop listening to it. While I hesitate to recommend it on artistic merit, this is one CD which is guaranteed to make me smile.
6. The Streets - A Grand Don't Come for Free
Another piece of old news I didn't discover until the beginning of this year was Mike Skinner. If the Pipettes made me smile, this British rap pioneer made me laugh out loud. There's something incredibly endearing about his stuttered rhythm and simple, blue collar lyrics.
5. The Mountain Goats - Tallahassee
John Darnielle and his songs were probably my greatest find of the summer, and I was completely obsessed for several months. While this year's Get Lonely was quality and All Hail West Texas and the Sunset Tree were great albums, Tallahassee, with its album-long yarn of marital disfunction and conflict was by far my favorite. Nobody that I've yet heard nails narrative songwriting as well as Johnny.
4. The Weepies - Say I Am You
If bands were girls, the Weepies would be the naive, soft-spoken, doe-eyed beauty that every guy secretly swoons over. "World Spins Madly On" and "Gotta Have You" are both great songs, and the whole album is solid. I nominate this one "rainy day album of the year."
3. The Decemberists - The Crane Wife
Proof that the Decemberists didn't sell out. This album is perhaps less monumental that Picaresque, but it still brought me hours of enjoyment and hopefully heralded more fruitful experimentation to come.
2. Danielson - Ships
Daniel Smith is crazy. And I love him. That's all I'm going to say.
aaaaand finally...
1. Josh Ritter - The Animal Years
Wow. This album just will not let me go. I know it got mixed reviews, but I have never in my life felt so impacted by a singer-songwriter. The songs are almost all really strong (with one too-long preachy exception near the end of the album), the music is really good, and as a whole the album just flows.
And that's all for this year.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
"Antichrist Needs Food... Badly"
This has to take a spot on my list of worst ideas ever: as if a good hundred books weren't enough, everyone's favorite premillenial dispensationalist pop culture icons have come out with a video game. That's right, now you can control all those poor souls who weren't fortunate enough to become Christians until after the "rapture". You can do the work of Christ by controlling Prayer Warriors and Battle Tanks - the real front-line soldiers for the kingdom of heaven. I could go on, but I won't. Suffice to say that I disagree with the message and the medium, and fail to see the way that encouraging young men to sit in their rooms wasting their lives while feeling really effective for doing nothing deserves to have the "Christian" monicker slapped on it. Ever.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Rock on, Nation!
Check this out: Decemberists lead guitar player Chris Funk goes toe to toe with Stephen Colbert in a guitar challenge!
Young, Impetuous, Reformed
"So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels."
It was pointed out to me a little while back that these verses from 2 Timothy are probably almost always misapplied. The command of Paul to "flee youthful passions" is usually read "don't have premarital sex." However, the following verse means that Paul probably has something else in mind. In my own life, and in the lives of many of the young and theologically inclined, there is a tendency to abandon faith, love and peace in favor of disputing points of doctrine. In people my age this is doubly dangerous. In the first place, it has led to all sorts of disputes that really aren't important, and while I might well be right, I've been more than happy to leave batter brothers and sisters lying in my wake as I've careened forward on the path to theological "enlightenment." What's more, youth are even more dangerous here because they do not have the perspective and humility that comes with age. I am often willing to jump on a doctrinal bandwagon simply because its novel, exciting or controversial. In my pride I think that I'm just being a student of scripture, but in truth its an ideas newness, rather than its soundness, which usually catches my eye.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not proposing that we shouldn't do theology, nor that there isn't a time for opposing unbiblical teaching. Indeed, Paul also tells Timothy to "watch his... doctrine closely." However, I am convinced in my own life, and probably in the lives of most young men like me, that the following correctives should be applied:
1. Do theology slowly. It took 2000 years to arrive at the conclusions and systems we have today. It is an admirable rather than a bad thing to wait to draw a conclusion on an issue for several months, if not years.
2. Do theology in community. This means two things. First, seek out adults who read and think. Talk to them about the things you're processing, and give their responses at least as much weight as you give your own opinions. I'm afraid that, since many adults have never engaged their minds very much in the study of the word, that I've developed a tendency to be heedless of adult opinions in my theology.
Secondly, always do theology in the community of history. There are hundreds of men who are far smarter, holier and wiser than me. If they are generally in agreement, I ought to only cautiously and with much prayerful study be willing to tender disagreement with them. If they generally disagree, I ought to always hold both sides in tension and not decide that one view is full of morons and heretics, when it may well be mine.
3. Discuss theology carefully. Always pause and consider whether the discussion you are or are about to be engaged in is truly for the edification and building up of the body. If this is not your motive, do not do it.
4. Discuss theology worshipfully. If, at any point in the conversation, you are not able to immediately see something in the topic under consideration which displays the glory of Jesus Christ, cease it immediately. To talk about Him in any other way is at best foolish chatter and at worst blasphemy.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I'm neither claiming that I succeed in these areas nor condemning others for failure; I've simply been thinking in my own life what a humble orthodoxy should look like, and these are a few of my ponderings as to the form it should take.
It was pointed out to me a little while back that these verses from 2 Timothy are probably almost always misapplied. The command of Paul to "flee youthful passions" is usually read "don't have premarital sex." However, the following verse means that Paul probably has something else in mind. In my own life, and in the lives of many of the young and theologically inclined, there is a tendency to abandon faith, love and peace in favor of disputing points of doctrine. In people my age this is doubly dangerous. In the first place, it has led to all sorts of disputes that really aren't important, and while I might well be right, I've been more than happy to leave batter brothers and sisters lying in my wake as I've careened forward on the path to theological "enlightenment." What's more, youth are even more dangerous here because they do not have the perspective and humility that comes with age. I am often willing to jump on a doctrinal bandwagon simply because its novel, exciting or controversial. In my pride I think that I'm just being a student of scripture, but in truth its an ideas newness, rather than its soundness, which usually catches my eye.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not proposing that we shouldn't do theology, nor that there isn't a time for opposing unbiblical teaching. Indeed, Paul also tells Timothy to "watch his... doctrine closely." However, I am convinced in my own life, and probably in the lives of most young men like me, that the following correctives should be applied:
1. Do theology slowly. It took 2000 years to arrive at the conclusions and systems we have today. It is an admirable rather than a bad thing to wait to draw a conclusion on an issue for several months, if not years.
2. Do theology in community. This means two things. First, seek out adults who read and think. Talk to them about the things you're processing, and give their responses at least as much weight as you give your own opinions. I'm afraid that, since many adults have never engaged their minds very much in the study of the word, that I've developed a tendency to be heedless of adult opinions in my theology.
Secondly, always do theology in the community of history. There are hundreds of men who are far smarter, holier and wiser than me. If they are generally in agreement, I ought to only cautiously and with much prayerful study be willing to tender disagreement with them. If they generally disagree, I ought to always hold both sides in tension and not decide that one view is full of morons and heretics, when it may well be mine.
3. Discuss theology carefully. Always pause and consider whether the discussion you are or are about to be engaged in is truly for the edification and building up of the body. If this is not your motive, do not do it.
4. Discuss theology worshipfully. If, at any point in the conversation, you are not able to immediately see something in the topic under consideration which displays the glory of Jesus Christ, cease it immediately. To talk about Him in any other way is at best foolish chatter and at worst blasphemy.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I'm neither claiming that I succeed in these areas nor condemning others for failure; I've simply been thinking in my own life what a humble orthodoxy should look like, and these are a few of my ponderings as to the form it should take.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Jesus Camp
Last night I watched the documentary "Jesus Camp." As I process it, I find myself very angry. The problem is, I don't know what I'm angry about. On the one hand, I felt very much attacked by the filmmakers. The movie had a clear agenda against the Evangelical right. While it cleverly steered clear of any over-the-top sensationalism (a la Michael Moore), this just made it all the more effective as scenes of children babbling in tongues and dancing in grease paint flashed across the screen, clearly aimed at leaving political liberals terrified in their seats.
However, at the same time, I cannot defend the brand of "Christianity" being peddled at the camp which was at the heart of the film. I think the leaders may very well be genuine Christians, but nonetheless what they were peddling was loveless, Christless moralism. A few scenes stick out to me. A little girl handing out Chick tracts to teenagers at a bowling alley and then running back to her father for approval. Another girl, ten years old, already explaining how "Christian" music was the only thing people should listen to. A boy insisting on his prophetic preaching gift as he echoed grown-up religious catchphrases into a microphone. The flagrant violations of Paul's proscriptions for the uses of spiritual gifts. The equally constant refrain that "God needs your generation. You will do great things for Him. Don't be like your parents, get on fire for Jesus." A ten-year-old explaining that there are spiritually dead churches that "sit the whole time, sing three hymns and listen to someone talk for an hour" and that "Jesus doesn't visit these churches. He like churches where people jump up and down and clap and yell." A week-long camp where the gospel is never once mentioned except as the "thing you tell your friends," where children pray before a cardboard cutout of George Bush, where they're taught to speak in tongues, where scripture is at best paraphrased occasionally and at worst completely absent, and where Jesus gets mentioned less that abortion.
Wow, that's more of a list than I thought it would be. Needless to say, I'm a little sore. In many ways, what's hard for me in reflecting on the film is in recognizing that the authors are never in dialogue with the actual message of Christianity. Instead they're taking aim at a variety of things I can hardly condone myself, even though I'm certainly a theological conservative and, theologically, even a charismatic (meaning only that I don't believe things like tongues and prophecy have ceased). Perhaps someday I'll cull more thoughts about what it is, precisely, that drives what I'm reacting so viscerally to. Regardless, however, the movie at least got me thinking and gave me a good taste of the Christendom most of the world is in conversation with.
However, at the same time, I cannot defend the brand of "Christianity" being peddled at the camp which was at the heart of the film. I think the leaders may very well be genuine Christians, but nonetheless what they were peddling was loveless, Christless moralism. A few scenes stick out to me. A little girl handing out Chick tracts to teenagers at a bowling alley and then running back to her father for approval. Another girl, ten years old, already explaining how "Christian" music was the only thing people should listen to. A boy insisting on his prophetic preaching gift as he echoed grown-up religious catchphrases into a microphone. The flagrant violations of Paul's proscriptions for the uses of spiritual gifts. The equally constant refrain that "God needs your generation. You will do great things for Him. Don't be like your parents, get on fire for Jesus." A ten-year-old explaining that there are spiritually dead churches that "sit the whole time, sing three hymns and listen to someone talk for an hour" and that "Jesus doesn't visit these churches. He like churches where people jump up and down and clap and yell." A week-long camp where the gospel is never once mentioned except as the "thing you tell your friends," where children pray before a cardboard cutout of George Bush, where they're taught to speak in tongues, where scripture is at best paraphrased occasionally and at worst completely absent, and where Jesus gets mentioned less that abortion.
Wow, that's more of a list than I thought it would be. Needless to say, I'm a little sore. In many ways, what's hard for me in reflecting on the film is in recognizing that the authors are never in dialogue with the actual message of Christianity. Instead they're taking aim at a variety of things I can hardly condone myself, even though I'm certainly a theological conservative and, theologically, even a charismatic (meaning only that I don't believe things like tongues and prophecy have ceased). Perhaps someday I'll cull more thoughts about what it is, precisely, that drives what I'm reacting so viscerally to. Regardless, however, the movie at least got me thinking and gave me a good taste of the Christendom most of the world is in conversation with.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Many, Many Questions
My thoughts have been awhirl the last few weeks, as it seems like somehow my ability to contemplate one idea at a time has been completely robbed, and instead a dozen different issues are all bouncing around at once. Here recorded are some ponderings or questions, any of which I'd welcome dialogue on.
1. The New Perspective on Paul. Depending on the day, I feel like I'm somewhere between buying it without hesitation and burning Tom Wright at the stake. Okay, that's an exagerration, but I've realized that, at the least, I need to figure out my theology of imputation, deal with the fact that Wright is correct, at least to some extent, in how much Paul's letters are concerned with ethnic exclusivism rather than legalism, and decide what importance a "general gospel" of Christ coming as the Davidic messiah and building a kingdom and a "specific gospel" of justification by faith have in Christendom.
2. The Church and Church Discipline. Why do we allow gossip, divisiveness and other more internal sins in the body when Paul says to have "nothing to do with them"? What are the grounds for church discipline, really? Is the PCA practice of "barring people at the table, not the door" a good and biblical way to allow sinners to still hear the gospel or a dangerous underestimation of the effects sin and false doctrine can have on the corporate body? How much doctrinal truth, and in what areas, do people really have to have to avoid being a false teacher?
3. Spiritual Gifts. I've come to realize I can't buy cessationism, at all. If I'm right, what is a good model for the exercise of spiritual gifts like tongues, prophecy and miracles? What do these things even mean?
4. Biblical vs. Systematic Theology. Is the distinction really valid? How do we approach them with balance, with systematics teaching us how to interpret scripture while still keeping scripture as a whole body in authority over systematics?
5. Evangelism. What the heck is it? Why don't I do it? Do I do it, and just don't feel like I do because I have too narrow a definition and am still in the thrall of the fundamentalist-revivalist-parachurch reductionist gospel (my phrase)? For that matter, what is the gospel? What truths have to be communicated? Is it about justification, or the person of Christ, or what?
6. Other random questions. How do believers truly obtain assurance? What does it look like to have a humble and gentle insistence on orthodoxy? What exactly happens in the sacraments? How valid is a Christological interpretation of the Old Testament, and how does this work?
Any thoughts any of you have would be welcome.
1. The New Perspective on Paul. Depending on the day, I feel like I'm somewhere between buying it without hesitation and burning Tom Wright at the stake. Okay, that's an exagerration, but I've realized that, at the least, I need to figure out my theology of imputation, deal with the fact that Wright is correct, at least to some extent, in how much Paul's letters are concerned with ethnic exclusivism rather than legalism, and decide what importance a "general gospel" of Christ coming as the Davidic messiah and building a kingdom and a "specific gospel" of justification by faith have in Christendom.
2. The Church and Church Discipline. Why do we allow gossip, divisiveness and other more internal sins in the body when Paul says to have "nothing to do with them"? What are the grounds for church discipline, really? Is the PCA practice of "barring people at the table, not the door" a good and biblical way to allow sinners to still hear the gospel or a dangerous underestimation of the effects sin and false doctrine can have on the corporate body? How much doctrinal truth, and in what areas, do people really have to have to avoid being a false teacher?
3. Spiritual Gifts. I've come to realize I can't buy cessationism, at all. If I'm right, what is a good model for the exercise of spiritual gifts like tongues, prophecy and miracles? What do these things even mean?
4. Biblical vs. Systematic Theology. Is the distinction really valid? How do we approach them with balance, with systematics teaching us how to interpret scripture while still keeping scripture as a whole body in authority over systematics?
5. Evangelism. What the heck is it? Why don't I do it? Do I do it, and just don't feel like I do because I have too narrow a definition and am still in the thrall of the fundamentalist-revivalist-parachurch reductionist gospel (my phrase)? For that matter, what is the gospel? What truths have to be communicated? Is it about justification, or the person of Christ, or what?
6. Other random questions. How do believers truly obtain assurance? What does it look like to have a humble and gentle insistence on orthodoxy? What exactly happens in the sacraments? How valid is a Christological interpretation of the Old Testament, and how does this work?
Any thoughts any of you have would be welcome.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
An Overdue Update
So yes, I know its been a long time since I've update, and I know that I had intended to be more regular than this. Still, the best-laid plans of mice and men...
I thought I'd give a brief, random update. First, I have to say that winter is finally here. I realized it yesterday when, in the five minutes it took me to walk back from parking may car, I ended up shivering uncontrollably and wasn't able to feel my ears. Now I just wish there was some snow on the ground, to make the bitter cold worth it.
I've been reading a couple of books:
Christ, the Lord's Supper, and Baptism by Leonard J. Vander Zee - An interesting read; Vander Zee is basically making a case first for the importance of Protestants regaining a high view of sacramentalism, and then discusses how both sacraments could or should be implemented. I'm only 60-odd pages in, so I don't have a final analysis, but I like it this far.
Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy - A good novel, very grim and depressing, but enjoyably so.
As far as new musical discoveries:
Danielson - Ships - This album is brilliant. I'm completely in love with it right now. Daniel Smith, one of the progenitors of the most modern incarnation of the alt-folk movement, is actually best-known for producing Sufjan Stephens and for his bizarre blend off eccentricity, Christianity and art music. This CD is a little hard to get into, thanks to both the musical complexity and the quirkiness of most of the songs. However, giving it a couple dedicated listens is well worth it. High points include "Bloodbook on the Halfshell," "Did I Step On Your Trumpet," and "Two Sitting Ducks."
The Long Blondes - Someone to Drive You Home - Pop music at its greatest. Sure, this album feels like a bunch of singles strung together. Sure, the lyrics are often shallow and overused. But its just so fun! While the album slows down a little bit as it progresses, it's all pretty good, and I'd recommend at least buying the first three songs off iTunes.
Ray LaMontagne - Last week I went to hear this guy live at the Rococco with a couple friends. I had all of two songs by him on my computer which I downloaded just to listen to him. However, at the concert I fell in love, and so Ray has, for the time being at least, become my relax-after-a-hard-day favorite. His best album is probably Trouble, if anyone's interested.
And with that, I need to get ready to head to class. Bon voyage!
I thought I'd give a brief, random update. First, I have to say that winter is finally here. I realized it yesterday when, in the five minutes it took me to walk back from parking may car, I ended up shivering uncontrollably and wasn't able to feel my ears. Now I just wish there was some snow on the ground, to make the bitter cold worth it.
I've been reading a couple of books:
Christ, the Lord's Supper, and Baptism by Leonard J. Vander Zee - An interesting read; Vander Zee is basically making a case first for the importance of Protestants regaining a high view of sacramentalism, and then discusses how both sacraments could or should be implemented. I'm only 60-odd pages in, so I don't have a final analysis, but I like it this far.
Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy - A good novel, very grim and depressing, but enjoyably so.
As far as new musical discoveries:
Danielson - Ships - This album is brilliant. I'm completely in love with it right now. Daniel Smith, one of the progenitors of the most modern incarnation of the alt-folk movement, is actually best-known for producing Sufjan Stephens and for his bizarre blend off eccentricity, Christianity and art music. This CD is a little hard to get into, thanks to both the musical complexity and the quirkiness of most of the songs. However, giving it a couple dedicated listens is well worth it. High points include "Bloodbook on the Halfshell," "Did I Step On Your Trumpet," and "Two Sitting Ducks."
The Long Blondes - Someone to Drive You Home - Pop music at its greatest. Sure, this album feels like a bunch of singles strung together. Sure, the lyrics are often shallow and overused. But its just so fun! While the album slows down a little bit as it progresses, it's all pretty good, and I'd recommend at least buying the first three songs off iTunes.
Ray LaMontagne - Last week I went to hear this guy live at the Rococco with a couple friends. I had all of two songs by him on my computer which I downloaded just to listen to him. However, at the concert I fell in love, and so Ray has, for the time being at least, become my relax-after-a-hard-day favorite. His best album is probably Trouble, if anyone's interested.
And with that, I need to get ready to head to class. Bon voyage!
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Naturalized American Citizens
This is funny.
I would like to lodge a formal complaint against the pitiful state most people's grammar has reached. I'm editing together a group paper for a class, and am cringing in abject horror at some of the sentences. Commas are left out or added unnecessarily, tense and voice keep changing without rhyme or reason, there have been multiple incomplete sentences, and five-dollar words are thrown around without any attention paid to little things like their definition. The phrase "which may not be as clear to everyone as to what it means" is barely English. I realize my grammar has slipped since high school, but it makes me wonder if we're headed back to the days of "Ye olde publeek Univirsitie."
And with that, I have three more pages of a paper to edit.
* * *
I would like to lodge a formal complaint against the pitiful state most people's grammar has reached. I'm editing together a group paper for a class, and am cringing in abject horror at some of the sentences. Commas are left out or added unnecessarily, tense and voice keep changing without rhyme or reason, there have been multiple incomplete sentences, and five-dollar words are thrown around without any attention paid to little things like their definition. The phrase "which may not be as clear to everyone as to what it means" is barely English. I realize my grammar has slipped since high school, but it makes me wonder if we're headed back to the days of "Ye olde publeek Univirsitie."
And with that, I have three more pages of a paper to edit.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Books and Movies, as Usual
“The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.”
I took a break from Ayn Rand, halfway through Atlas Shrugged, to read some Bukowski. Nothing provides relief from epic, superhuman characters who bend the world to their ends by sheer force of will than a bunch of useless alcoholics who find time for plot and character development in between glasses of wine and doubles of vodka. I actually enjoy Bukowski quite a bit; there's something believable and extremely sad about his listless characters, too burned out on life to realize the futility of their empty existence.
I took a break from Ayn Rand, halfway through Atlas Shrugged, to read some Bukowski. Nothing provides relief from epic, superhuman characters who bend the world to their ends by sheer force of will than a bunch of useless alcoholics who find time for plot and character development in between glasses of wine and doubles of vodka. I actually enjoy Bukowski quite a bit; there's something believable and extremely sad about his listless characters, too burned out on life to realize the futility of their empty existence.
* * *
I watched "the Edukators," a superb German film about a trio of socialist vandals caught somewhere between idealism and the real world. Highly recommended. I'm not sure what it is, but Eurpoean cinema does a superb job of capturing a realness in their actors, settings and stories that their American counterparts.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Kicking, Screaming and Tears of Repentance
"Oh, I've been to Prague. Well, I haven't 'been to Prague' been to Prague, but I know that thing, that, 'Stop shaving your armpits, read the Unbearable Lightness of Being, date a sculptor, now I know how bad American coffee is thing...'"
"They have good beer there."
"... now I know how bad American beer is thing."
This evening I watched a spectacularly entertaining movie, Kicking and Screaming, directed by Noah Baumbach (not to be confused with a Will Ferrel comedy of the same name.) The movie is about a group of educated guys who just graduated from college are spending their time drifting aimlessly waiting for real life to kick in. The movie has virtually no plot, and the sets are merely peripherals. What this film is about is dialogue, and this is absolutely glorious. Lines like the above quote, or "And I say, to paraphrase myself, if Plato is a fine red wine, then Aristotle is a dry martini," or "I'm nostalgic for conversations I had yesterday. I've begun reminiscing events before they even occur. I'm reminiscing this right now. I can't go to the bar because I've already looked back on it in my memory... and I didn't have a good time." As the characters drift through the semester, appropriately divided into now-meaningless phases like "midterms" and "winter break", the essentially subsume their lives in pointless conversation and alcohol. Perhaps there is something akin here to the classis pointless stoner flick, except that the stoners are all Yale graduates strung out on apathy instead of pot. All in all, it was a great film.
"They have good beer there."
"... now I know how bad American beer is thing."
This evening I watched a spectacularly entertaining movie, Kicking and Screaming, directed by Noah Baumbach (not to be confused with a Will Ferrel comedy of the same name.) The movie is about a group of educated guys who just graduated from college are spending their time drifting aimlessly waiting for real life to kick in. The movie has virtually no plot, and the sets are merely peripherals. What this film is about is dialogue, and this is absolutely glorious. Lines like the above quote, or "And I say, to paraphrase myself, if Plato is a fine red wine, then Aristotle is a dry martini," or "I'm nostalgic for conversations I had yesterday. I've begun reminiscing events before they even occur. I'm reminiscing this right now. I can't go to the bar because I've already looked back on it in my memory... and I didn't have a good time." As the characters drift through the semester, appropriately divided into now-meaningless phases like "midterms" and "winter break", the essentially subsume their lives in pointless conversation and alcohol. Perhaps there is something akin here to the classis pointless stoner flick, except that the stoners are all Yale graduates strung out on apathy instead of pot. All in all, it was a great film.
* * *
In the realm of spiritual musings, I'm wondering if the church hasn't lost all sense of biblical repenteance. We have been so dominated by the pragmatic, "practical" approach to life that we interact with sin like Weber's man interacts with the rock in his backyard. "It's there, now how do I utilize the tools I have to move it." You struggle with pornography? Develop psychological tricks to beat it. A pastor is in sin? Fire him. You lack in love for God? Read your bible more.
Don't misunderstand; some of these things are good and useful ideas. However, the biblical response to sin always begins (and oftentimes ends) with repenting of it. In greek, the word "to repent" is "metanoeo," a combination of "meta," which is "to change," and "noeo," which means "perception or understanding." In essence, biblical repentance is to change our understanding of our sin so that it matches God's. This should be our first response whenever we face struggles.
As an example, I remember reading Every Man's Battle a few years ago. The book addresses dealing with lust in the believer's life. While the book had some good and bad things to say, I felt like its ultimate failing was not in what it said but in what it didn't say. The first act a believer should take in confronting lust is not "bouncing your eyes" or "building fences." Instead, it should be to confront the sin in your heart for what it is and grieve it. A believer should look at lust and see that its ugly and objectifying. It is born of selfishness, pride and insecurity. It misunderstands God's plan for good and joy-filled sexuality, and it turns women made in God's image into conquests or playthings. What's more, it trades the image we should have in our minds of Christ's faithful and selfless love of His Bride for a hollow sham. To truly repent, a believer should take all these things to heart and meditate on them. He should be broken in seeing his own depravity as a righteous God sees it and grieve the wickedness in his heart. This is the chief response to sin the Bible commands, and should be our chief response as well.
Don't misunderstand; there is a place for these practical strategies. However, without true repentance they are simply hollow legalism, which simply increases our guilt. In beginning to change our perception of sin to conform to that of God, many of the practical struggles will fall into place on their own.
Don't misunderstand; some of these things are good and useful ideas. However, the biblical response to sin always begins (and oftentimes ends) with repenting of it. In greek, the word "to repent" is "metanoeo," a combination of "meta," which is "to change," and "noeo," which means "perception or understanding." In essence, biblical repentance is to change our understanding of our sin so that it matches God's. This should be our first response whenever we face struggles.
As an example, I remember reading Every Man's Battle a few years ago. The book addresses dealing with lust in the believer's life. While the book had some good and bad things to say, I felt like its ultimate failing was not in what it said but in what it didn't say. The first act a believer should take in confronting lust is not "bouncing your eyes" or "building fences." Instead, it should be to confront the sin in your heart for what it is and grieve it. A believer should look at lust and see that its ugly and objectifying. It is born of selfishness, pride and insecurity. It misunderstands God's plan for good and joy-filled sexuality, and it turns women made in God's image into conquests or playthings. What's more, it trades the image we should have in our minds of Christ's faithful and selfless love of His Bride for a hollow sham. To truly repent, a believer should take all these things to heart and meditate on them. He should be broken in seeing his own depravity as a righteous God sees it and grieve the wickedness in his heart. This is the chief response to sin the Bible commands, and should be our chief response as well.
Don't misunderstand; there is a place for these practical strategies. However, without true repentance they are simply hollow legalism, which simply increases our guilt. In beginning to change our perception of sin to conform to that of God, many of the practical struggles will fall into place on their own.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
"All right, Mr DeMille, I'm ready for my close up"
I'm gonna live forever. I'm gonna learn how to fly.
I feel it comin' together. People will see me and cry.
I'm gonna make it to heaven. Light up the sky like a flame.
I'm gonna live forever. Baby, Remember my name.
I've apparently taken another step down the road to fame, glory, disillusionment and an eventual decline into rampant drug use and nihilism. Today in the Union, my normal reading of the Times was inturrupted by a girl wanting to take my picture for her "fashion blog." While the exact purpose of such a blog evades me, I am indeed now on the internet, complete with the dorky flipped up scarf and fake smile totally at odds with the story about North Korean refugees I was reading.
I feel it comin' together. People will see me and cry.
I'm gonna make it to heaven. Light up the sky like a flame.
I'm gonna live forever. Baby, Remember my name.
I've apparently taken another step down the road to fame, glory, disillusionment and an eventual decline into rampant drug use and nihilism. Today in the Union, my normal reading of the Times was inturrupted by a girl wanting to take my picture for her "fashion blog." While the exact purpose of such a blog evades me, I am indeed now on the internet, complete with the dorky flipped up scarf and fake smile totally at odds with the story about North Korean refugees I was reading.
* * *
A few brief entertainment-related notes to anyone who's interested:
The Pipettes - We Are the Pipettes: This album keeps growing on me. If you exclusively like complex technical music, powerful emotive lyrics, or anything like opera or free jazz, steer clear. However, if you can see the joy in doo-wop harmonies coming from three girls in polka-dotted dresses with songs about boys and breakups with a decidedly feminist spin, all backed by indy-pop, dancable music, give them a listen.
The Knife - Silent Shout: Brilliant, brilliant Swedish electronic music. I'm just beginning to delve into this album, but its dark and moody, and does a brilliant job of keeping things fairly minimalistic while still having lots of creativity and dissonance.
Renaissance: A great little art-theatre entertainment, this movie animates over live-action captured characters to get a graphic novel look that's a cross between Sin City and a Richard Linklater film. The plot is fairly intriguing, the near-future setting is brilliant, and the cinematography is both impressive and immersive. My one gripe is that the voicing/acting of some of the characters is sketchy, but its hardly noticeable.
Bunny: I rarely mention my love of webcomics, but I find this one to be a particular gem. Forget about characters, plots, and often even a basic ability to be understood; Bunny is essentially a single inked, surrealist fram with an amusing caption. Its hit or miss, but when it hits I have been known to be reduced to helpless laughter at my keyboard.
A few brief entertainment-related notes to anyone who's interested:
The Pipettes - We Are the Pipettes: This album keeps growing on me. If you exclusively like complex technical music, powerful emotive lyrics, or anything like opera or free jazz, steer clear. However, if you can see the joy in doo-wop harmonies coming from three girls in polka-dotted dresses with songs about boys and breakups with a decidedly feminist spin, all backed by indy-pop, dancable music, give them a listen.
The Knife - Silent Shout: Brilliant, brilliant Swedish electronic music. I'm just beginning to delve into this album, but its dark and moody, and does a brilliant job of keeping things fairly minimalistic while still having lots of creativity and dissonance.
Renaissance: A great little art-theatre entertainment, this movie animates over live-action captured characters to get a graphic novel look that's a cross between Sin City and a Richard Linklater film. The plot is fairly intriguing, the near-future setting is brilliant, and the cinematography is both impressive and immersive. My one gripe is that the voicing/acting of some of the characters is sketchy, but its hardly noticeable.
Bunny: I rarely mention my love of webcomics, but I find this one to be a particular gem. Forget about characters, plots, and often even a basic ability to be understood; Bunny is essentially a single inked, surrealist fram with an amusing caption. Its hit or miss, but when it hits I have been known to be reduced to helpless laughter at my keyboard.
A Long-Delayed Return
The man wearily rose to his feet and stepped through the door into the hot desert air. With the weight of three-score years and a thousand disappointments, he walked to the west, as he had every day. The winding path carried him up and over the weathered ridge near his home. He descended the other side, half-there, half-lost in memory, and stepped out into the familiar bed of the stream. It was dry; it was always dry; he didn't have to look to know that it was dry, just as it had been for the last twenty years.
He felt something cool trickle into his sandal and around his foot. Not daring to look, he sunk to his knees and stretched out his hand. Tiny rivulets of precious water danced through his fingers. "It had returned. At long last, it had returned!"
So yes, after a prolonged hiatus I have decided to return to the wonderful world of blogging. I think it will once again be a semi-regular occurence for me to post, so if you wish you can check back more often.
As for a brief update: I spent this Fall Break in Saint Louis, which was enormously enjoyable. I went down with a couple of RUFers and stayed with them, which was great, because they were very chill about the whole trip. I also got to hang out some with Nathaniel and Melynda, and visit with a few more Covenant students. It definately made me more sure that is probably where I am headed after school, barring unforseen events intervening.
Highlights of the trip would include: going to an art movie, shopping on the loop, having a long conversation with Nathaniel outside the St. Louis Art Institute, attending a party with Melynda hosted by a bunch of seminarians and picking their brains, sampling beer at the brewery where Nathaniel works, and visiting with people on the drives down and back. All in all, it was everything I could have wanted out of a road trip.
On the trip, I also started reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. I've always had a love-hate relationship with Rand, both as an author and as a philosopher. I find her ideas immensely inspiring, and yet so clearly wrong that I can barely stand them. The thing about Rand is that, while her ideal characters tend to be egotistical bastards, they also appeal to some of the basest myths ingrained into the human psyche. I'll leave my thoughts on the text there for now; seeing that the book is over a thousand pages and I'm on 178, there will be lots of time in the future for more thoughts.
He felt something cool trickle into his sandal and around his foot. Not daring to look, he sunk to his knees and stretched out his hand. Tiny rivulets of precious water danced through his fingers. "It had returned. At long last, it had returned!"
* * *
So yes, after a prolonged hiatus I have decided to return to the wonderful world of blogging. I think it will once again be a semi-regular occurence for me to post, so if you wish you can check back more often.As for a brief update: I spent this Fall Break in Saint Louis, which was enormously enjoyable. I went down with a couple of RUFers and stayed with them, which was great, because they were very chill about the whole trip. I also got to hang out some with Nathaniel and Melynda, and visit with a few more Covenant students. It definately made me more sure that is probably where I am headed after school, barring unforseen events intervening.
Highlights of the trip would include: going to an art movie, shopping on the loop, having a long conversation with Nathaniel outside the St. Louis Art Institute, attending a party with Melynda hosted by a bunch of seminarians and picking their brains, sampling beer at the brewery where Nathaniel works, and visiting with people on the drives down and back. All in all, it was everything I could have wanted out of a road trip.
On the trip, I also started reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. I've always had a love-hate relationship with Rand, both as an author and as a philosopher. I find her ideas immensely inspiring, and yet so clearly wrong that I can barely stand them. The thing about Rand is that, while her ideal characters tend to be egotistical bastards, they also appeal to some of the basest myths ingrained into the human psyche. I'll leave my thoughts on the text there for now; seeing that the book is over a thousand pages and I'm on 178, there will be lots of time in the future for more thoughts.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
The City Sleeps Around Me
I love downtown Lincoln in the early morning, after the bars have closed down. You can look down a street and there are no cars, no people. Just buildings, devoid of their human context, sitting as obtruse edifices whose purpose is for the moment forgotten. Even better after a shower of rain, when the streetlamps reflect in the puddles and you feel like you could sink into the streets and walk through some distorted ghost-city of wavering lights and dreams.
This is what happens when I decide to blog at 3 in the morning.
This is what happens when I decide to blog at 3 in the morning.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Billy Graham Crusades are Not the Great Commission
I recently heard a very passionate sermon about evangelism. In essence, its challenge was that the mission God had given us while on this earth was to communicate the gospel to people so that they might be saved and do the same thing. The preacher spent a great deal of time belaboring the so-called "Great Commission" as his primary text. This sermon reminded me of many others I've heard over the years.
Quite frankly, I think it was largely wrong.
Don't misunderstand; I do think communicating the gospel to lost people is part of the Christian's calling. But its much larger. Indeed, If you really examine the great commission, it is not a call to evangelism but to building up the church. Consider the four clauses it contains.
Make disciples (matheteuo) - I'm putting this one first because in the original text it is the key imperative and the others all connect to it. Much has been said about this; many people correctly identify it as a higher call than simple evangelism, but I'd at least propose that the best way to understand it is to look at the two components this verse lists:
Baptizing them (baptizo) - While few evangelicals get it, this is probably the part of discipling which their conception of evangelism falls into. While avoiding precise disputes about sacrament, biblically baptism was clearly a sign of a person's entering the body of Christ in its visible form. Thus, it would be accurate to say that our job in interacting with unbelievers is not simply to "get them saved", but to bring them into the church visible as fellow believers.
Teaching them (didasko) - However, bringing people into the body of Christ is only half of disciple-making. The second half is in teaching them to grow in love for Christ and the holiness which results from this. If this is not going on, then even the most impassioned evangelist is failing to fulfill the call of Scripture.
Go (poreuomai) - Lastly, the command is to go do these things. What is interesting is that, in Greek, this work could perhaps be more accurately translated "continue on your way" or, more roughly "while going on your way". Thus, this isn't simply a call to missions but to be building the church as you go about your life.
Its also worth noting that this command was given to the apostles corporately, not individually. They were expected to pursue this calling together, as part of a community of believers which already exists, rather than alone.
I feel that this is a critical distinction for two reasons. First, it deals a blow to the just-me-and-Jesus thinking which dominates Christianity today. God's call is for us to build the church, not just save individuals.
Secondly, this tends to impact how I process missions. All too often we approach missions with a short-term, soul-winning view rather than the long-term, church-building view the bible demands. In addition, it demonstrates why I think missions should primarily be done by the church. Trying to do it outside of the structure of authority and doctrine which a bible-believing church has established is a very bad idea.
Quite frankly, I think it was largely wrong.
Don't misunderstand; I do think communicating the gospel to lost people is part of the Christian's calling. But its much larger. Indeed, If you really examine the great commission, it is not a call to evangelism but to building up the church. Consider the four clauses it contains.
Make disciples (matheteuo) - I'm putting this one first because in the original text it is the key imperative and the others all connect to it. Much has been said about this; many people correctly identify it as a higher call than simple evangelism, but I'd at least propose that the best way to understand it is to look at the two components this verse lists:
Baptizing them (baptizo) - While few evangelicals get it, this is probably the part of discipling which their conception of evangelism falls into. While avoiding precise disputes about sacrament, biblically baptism was clearly a sign of a person's entering the body of Christ in its visible form. Thus, it would be accurate to say that our job in interacting with unbelievers is not simply to "get them saved", but to bring them into the church visible as fellow believers.
Teaching them (didasko) - However, bringing people into the body of Christ is only half of disciple-making. The second half is in teaching them to grow in love for Christ and the holiness which results from this. If this is not going on, then even the most impassioned evangelist is failing to fulfill the call of Scripture.
Go (poreuomai) - Lastly, the command is to go do these things. What is interesting is that, in Greek, this work could perhaps be more accurately translated "continue on your way" or, more roughly "while going on your way". Thus, this isn't simply a call to missions but to be building the church as you go about your life.
Its also worth noting that this command was given to the apostles corporately, not individually. They were expected to pursue this calling together, as part of a community of believers which already exists, rather than alone.
I feel that this is a critical distinction for two reasons. First, it deals a blow to the just-me-and-Jesus thinking which dominates Christianity today. God's call is for us to build the church, not just save individuals.
Secondly, this tends to impact how I process missions. All too often we approach missions with a short-term, soul-winning view rather than the long-term, church-building view the bible demands. In addition, it demonstrates why I think missions should primarily be done by the church. Trying to do it outside of the structure of authority and doctrine which a bible-believing church has established is a very bad idea.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
A question on my heart
Ok, I'm looking for some feedback here. Over the past week or so I've had a question on my heart that I've been unable to answer my self. It's not that deep or anything just something that's been eating at me. so here goes.
As you may or may not know I'm active in University Lutheran Chapel here on campus, my main focuses have been on Worship and out reach through the "Freshman night" Bible studies that we do the first semester of the year. As of late, I've had a strong desire for outreach, Freshman night being a strong way to help affirm believers of their salvation. But the thought has occured to me that I could be much more effective at welcoming people into the family of Christ if I weren't on the Worship team. This is a great struggle for me because I deeply love God and rejoice in every opporunity to worship him. I love being on the worship team because it gladdens my heart to lead and see others in worship of the Lord.
But from being on the Worship team I have been able to look out over the people, and I see those who come in quickly, sit by themselves, and leave as soon as the service is over with. I am filled with a desire to know these people, to reach out as part of the body of Christ. I also feel that I would be more capable of inviting others to come to a service if I didn't have to say, "Oh you want to come? Great! The service is at 10:45, But I can't sit with you or great you when you get there because I've got to be in at 8 for worship team practice."
I want to be there for people so they maybe more willing to encounter God. Yet I don't want to let down my brothers and sisters on the Worship Team. Any thoughts? I'm up to discusion.
As you may or may not know I'm active in University Lutheran Chapel here on campus, my main focuses have been on Worship and out reach through the "Freshman night" Bible studies that we do the first semester of the year. As of late, I've had a strong desire for outreach, Freshman night being a strong way to help affirm believers of their salvation. But the thought has occured to me that I could be much more effective at welcoming people into the family of Christ if I weren't on the Worship team. This is a great struggle for me because I deeply love God and rejoice in every opporunity to worship him. I love being on the worship team because it gladdens my heart to lead and see others in worship of the Lord.
But from being on the Worship team I have been able to look out over the people, and I see those who come in quickly, sit by themselves, and leave as soon as the service is over with. I am filled with a desire to know these people, to reach out as part of the body of Christ. I also feel that I would be more capable of inviting others to come to a service if I didn't have to say, "Oh you want to come? Great! The service is at 10:45, But I can't sit with you or great you when you get there because I've got to be in at 8 for worship team practice."
I want to be there for people so they maybe more willing to encounter God. Yet I don't want to let down my brothers and sisters on the Worship Team. Any thoughts? I'm up to discusion.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
A Thought on Busy-ness
I was listening to a sermon today and was particularly struck by a thought.
"Do you want proof that Christians in America are obsessed with doing? Here's how to tell. Go into a good, bible-teaching church in America and preach a sermon about sexual purity, and they'll say 'Yeah!' Preach a sermon about biblical authority, and they'll say 'Yeah!' But preach a sermon on the Sabbath, and they'll say 'Whoa. Hold on a minute. That sounds an awful lot like legalism.'"
This stopped me in my tracks. It really is amazing that, in circles which constantly hound people to evangelize, give, pray, and study their bibles every day, a command simply to rest, to not do anything, raises this sort of reaction.
"Do you want proof that Christians in America are obsessed with doing? Here's how to tell. Go into a good, bible-teaching church in America and preach a sermon about sexual purity, and they'll say 'Yeah!' Preach a sermon about biblical authority, and they'll say 'Yeah!' But preach a sermon on the Sabbath, and they'll say 'Whoa. Hold on a minute. That sounds an awful lot like legalism.'"
This stopped me in my tracks. It really is amazing that, in circles which constantly hound people to evangelize, give, pray, and study their bibles every day, a command simply to rest, to not do anything, raises this sort of reaction.
Monday, July 17, 2006
In Defense of the Seperation of Church and State
One of the major talking points for the religious right has always been the idea of the "seperation of church and state." The ideas discussed range from perceived discrimination to traditional values to, in some cases, a desire for something tantamount to theocracy. To be quite honest, I think much of the desire to tear down church-state seperation is idiotic.
If anything, I wish that the American church would further distance itself from ties to the national government. The bible is clear that our "citizenship is in heaven," and that while we owe submission to the ruling authorities of the world, our allegiance lies ultimately with God and His kingdom. Indeed, I think that in forgetting this the American church has been guilty in the past of bowing down to the nation as an idol and adopting its ideals as Christendom's. Democracy is not Christian. Neither is capitalism, imperialism or American history. Indeed, we have crippled our interactions with Christians in the rest of the world because we cannot grasp that we are their fellow countrymen before our American peers.
We have profoundly misunderstood God's covenants in the Old Testament because of this. The honest truth is that, unless you are Israel, there is no grounds for taking any biblical promises and applying them to a nation, regardless of your theological bent. God is not obligated to honor a nation because it has a lot of moral people. Heck, as a Christian I would say God is not even going to honor people for being moral, unless they follow him. Sure, I think that there is a benefit to people if they live within the moral grounds set forth in Scripture. But there is no promise that a nation will be blessed because of it. What's more, even these benefits should not be our aim as Christians in the world. Our calling is to make disciples, not heterosexual monogamous pro-life Republican pagans.
Case in point: the ten commandments being posted in courthouses. First of all, claiming that these are the moral rules used to govern our nation is silly. Nations don't forbid murder or theft because God told them to, but because it protects their citizens. This is why essentially the same laws govern lots of different countries with lots of different religious heritages. Its just the way God has designed government to run. Besides which, I don't see (or want to see!) any laws about coveting or keeping the sabbath passed by our nation, and as for bowing down to graven images, Christians get awfully fiesty at the thought of a piece of cloth they swear allegiance to every day in grade school being lit on fire.
However, this is only the surface. The root of the problem is that, in fighting about the public posting of the ten commandments, Christians have only perpetuated misconceptions about what we're about. When the rich young ruler tells Christ he has kept all of these commands, his answer is not "What a great Roman you are," but "go, sell everything to the poor and follow me." By hanging these commandments in the public view as the heart of what we Christians will defend, we are not fighting for the gospel but for moralism.
Another case in point: marriage. I'm not just talking about the gay marriage controversy, although that's the latest manifestation. The church has done itself immeasurable harm by linking the state and religious institutions of marriage. By equating them, we have allowed things like no-fault divorce to creep into the church. The problem is not that the state lets people get divorced, its that we tell people that the state's standards of marriage and divorce are God's. While I have issues with how the Catholic church issues annulments (read: their frequency), they at least have the right idea. Marriage in the state's eyes is a legal status. Marriage in the church's is a union of two people before God. We need to sharply fight to keep them different, rather than let them fuse.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point (and probably several people rather angry). A few caveats before I go. I do think that Christians should be involved in our nation. However, it is not because we owe it our service, but because we are commanded to love our fellow man. It is a worthy calling to pursue justice, care for the downtrodden, and defend the helpless in the halls of government. I also think that, because of the way God has designed the world, a just and equitable state will function better than and injust or corrupt one. However, since the world is fallen, no nation will last forever, no matter the intentions of its founders.
This being said, however, I think that Christianity needs to support a right view of church/state seperation. In the words of Isaac Backus, a Baptist minister in New England in 1773, "[When] church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued." Tear the flags off the walls and "God Bless America" from the hymnal and pursue the kingdom of God, rather than that of the United States.
If anything, I wish that the American church would further distance itself from ties to the national government. The bible is clear that our "citizenship is in heaven," and that while we owe submission to the ruling authorities of the world, our allegiance lies ultimately with God and His kingdom. Indeed, I think that in forgetting this the American church has been guilty in the past of bowing down to the nation as an idol and adopting its ideals as Christendom's. Democracy is not Christian. Neither is capitalism, imperialism or American history. Indeed, we have crippled our interactions with Christians in the rest of the world because we cannot grasp that we are their fellow countrymen before our American peers.
We have profoundly misunderstood God's covenants in the Old Testament because of this. The honest truth is that, unless you are Israel, there is no grounds for taking any biblical promises and applying them to a nation, regardless of your theological bent. God is not obligated to honor a nation because it has a lot of moral people. Heck, as a Christian I would say God is not even going to honor people for being moral, unless they follow him. Sure, I think that there is a benefit to people if they live within the moral grounds set forth in Scripture. But there is no promise that a nation will be blessed because of it. What's more, even these benefits should not be our aim as Christians in the world. Our calling is to make disciples, not heterosexual monogamous pro-life Republican pagans.
Case in point: the ten commandments being posted in courthouses. First of all, claiming that these are the moral rules used to govern our nation is silly. Nations don't forbid murder or theft because God told them to, but because it protects their citizens. This is why essentially the same laws govern lots of different countries with lots of different religious heritages. Its just the way God has designed government to run. Besides which, I don't see (or want to see!) any laws about coveting or keeping the sabbath passed by our nation, and as for bowing down to graven images, Christians get awfully fiesty at the thought of a piece of cloth they swear allegiance to every day in grade school being lit on fire.
However, this is only the surface. The root of the problem is that, in fighting about the public posting of the ten commandments, Christians have only perpetuated misconceptions about what we're about. When the rich young ruler tells Christ he has kept all of these commands, his answer is not "What a great Roman you are," but "go, sell everything to the poor and follow me." By hanging these commandments in the public view as the heart of what we Christians will defend, we are not fighting for the gospel but for moralism.
Another case in point: marriage. I'm not just talking about the gay marriage controversy, although that's the latest manifestation. The church has done itself immeasurable harm by linking the state and religious institutions of marriage. By equating them, we have allowed things like no-fault divorce to creep into the church. The problem is not that the state lets people get divorced, its that we tell people that the state's standards of marriage and divorce are God's. While I have issues with how the Catholic church issues annulments (read: their frequency), they at least have the right idea. Marriage in the state's eyes is a legal status. Marriage in the church's is a union of two people before God. We need to sharply fight to keep them different, rather than let them fuse.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point (and probably several people rather angry). A few caveats before I go. I do think that Christians should be involved in our nation. However, it is not because we owe it our service, but because we are commanded to love our fellow man. It is a worthy calling to pursue justice, care for the downtrodden, and defend the helpless in the halls of government. I also think that, because of the way God has designed the world, a just and equitable state will function better than and injust or corrupt one. However, since the world is fallen, no nation will last forever, no matter the intentions of its founders.
This being said, however, I think that Christianity needs to support a right view of church/state seperation. In the words of Isaac Backus, a Baptist minister in New England in 1773, "[When] church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued." Tear the flags off the walls and "God Bless America" from the hymnal and pursue the kingdom of God, rather than that of the United States.
Busy weeks and good music
My life has been a happy, hectic mess these last few days. Lets see...
Thursday after work I traveled with several friends out to Ord, NE to hang out and briefly attend Comstock Rock. The concert was typical for Comstock: Jackyl, a one-hit-wonder band from back in the day, screamed "rock and roll" to a bunch of drunk rural Nebraskans who really believed him when he told them they were the biggest badass rockers in the country. I actually rather enjoyed the show, in a primitive, visceral way. They played Johnny Cash, which wins anyone kudos from me.
Friday was great fun. We rode around on decades-old bikes which I wound call retro except that antique would probably be closer to the truth. That afternoon we went 'tanking', a great example of bucolic western Nebraskan life. Essentially, we floated down a river in a huge plastic drinking trough for cattle which had a picnic table in it. Good times.
Saturday I worked all day, but also made a great discovery for lunch. At 48th and R they just put in a new food joint called "Raising Cane's". Its out of Louisiana, and is essentially a slightly classier version of Chic-Fil-A. However, they serve sweet tea, perhaps my favorite beverage and one of the South's few redeeming features. The food was good; yummy chicken and a good special sauce which is rather hard to describe.
Next week I have to drive up to Ogallala to play for a friend's wedding, which puts me out of commission for Friday and Saturday, and then Sunday evening at my old church in Milford I have to preach. So no rest for the weary, but it should be a lot of fun.
My most recent purchases for music are Jens Lekman's "When I Said I Wanted to Be Your Dog" and the Mountain Goats' "All Hail West Texas." Jens is one of those boyish crooners who wins you over with a naivety which seems to ridiculous to be feigned ("Yeah I got busted/So I used my one phone call/To dedicate a song to you on the radio") He also has a great voice. As usual, I love the Mountain Goats. The songwriting is brilliant, the lo-fi production fits perfectly, Darnielle's voice is delightfully raw, and I find myself yelling along with the lyrics already ("When you punish a person for dreaming his dream/don't expect him to thank or forgive you/the best ever death metal band out of denton/will in time both outpace and outlive you" or "whoa-whoa/whoa whoa/the pirate's life for me"). All in all, both highly recommended albums.
Thursday after work I traveled with several friends out to Ord, NE to hang out and briefly attend Comstock Rock. The concert was typical for Comstock: Jackyl, a one-hit-wonder band from back in the day, screamed "rock and roll" to a bunch of drunk rural Nebraskans who really believed him when he told them they were the biggest badass rockers in the country. I actually rather enjoyed the show, in a primitive, visceral way. They played Johnny Cash, which wins anyone kudos from me.
Friday was great fun. We rode around on decades-old bikes which I wound call retro except that antique would probably be closer to the truth. That afternoon we went 'tanking', a great example of bucolic western Nebraskan life. Essentially, we floated down a river in a huge plastic drinking trough for cattle which had a picnic table in it. Good times.
Saturday I worked all day, but also made a great discovery for lunch. At 48th and R they just put in a new food joint called "Raising Cane's". Its out of Louisiana, and is essentially a slightly classier version of Chic-Fil-A. However, they serve sweet tea, perhaps my favorite beverage and one of the South's few redeeming features. The food was good; yummy chicken and a good special sauce which is rather hard to describe.
Next week I have to drive up to Ogallala to play for a friend's wedding, which puts me out of commission for Friday and Saturday, and then Sunday evening at my old church in Milford I have to preach. So no rest for the weary, but it should be a lot of fun.
My most recent purchases for music are Jens Lekman's "When I Said I Wanted to Be Your Dog" and the Mountain Goats' "All Hail West Texas." Jens is one of those boyish crooners who wins you over with a naivety which seems to ridiculous to be feigned ("Yeah I got busted/So I used my one phone call/To dedicate a song to you on the radio") He also has a great voice. As usual, I love the Mountain Goats. The songwriting is brilliant, the lo-fi production fits perfectly, Darnielle's voice is delightfully raw, and I find myself yelling along with the lyrics already ("When you punish a person for dreaming his dream/don't expect him to thank or forgive you/the best ever death metal band out of denton/will in time both outpace and outlive you" or "whoa-whoa/whoa whoa/the pirate's life for me"). All in all, both highly recommended albums.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Adventure John, signing in!
Perhaps I am just a simple man driven by the primal urges that dwell with in me, but I LOVE camping. I went camping this weekend out by lake Ogalalla. It was just me and my girlfriend. Which, admittedly, is perhaps not the greatest of ideas, but fear not. We've both seen our fair share of horror movies and knew that any misbehaver on our parts would certainly be cut short by the local psychotic axe-wielding murderer. There's just something about being out in nature that allows me to cut loose. It frees my mind and allows my soul to soar. Between hiking, canoeing, swimming, chopping wood, building fires, roasting food over an open flame, and sleeping out under the stars (for all you Wild at Heart fans out there) you can really see that there is something wild about God. It was fantastic to get away from everyone.(nothing against my fellow apartmentateers)
Though this camping trip was a little odd in the fact that on saturday night we drove into town to watch the new Pirates movie. I though it was very entertaining and full of action, though it left off with a HUGE set up for the next movie. Also I was a bit disappointed by some the the Disney style cheesey-ness and how simple it was for the key to be retrived. (i'm attempting to be as vauge as possible to avoid ruining things for thouse who have yet to see it) Overall I feel that it was a worthwhile movie and rather enjoyed it.
Though this camping trip was a little odd in the fact that on saturday night we drove into town to watch the new Pirates movie. I though it was very entertaining and full of action, though it left off with a HUGE set up for the next movie. Also I was a bit disappointed by some the the Disney style cheesey-ness and how simple it was for the key to be retrived. (i'm attempting to be as vauge as possible to avoid ruining things for thouse who have yet to see it) Overall I feel that it was a worthwhile movie and rather enjoyed it.
Christian Patriotism
I found this to be an interesting thought, one which I've long held but never expressed so eloquently.
Sufjan is going on tour, playing a number of his songs reworked symphonically with a group of string and horn players. Anyone interested in driving to St. Louis or Chicago with me to check it out?
And my lunch break nears completion, so I'm off.
Sufjan is going on tour, playing a number of his songs reworked symphonically with a group of string and horn players. Anyone interested in driving to St. Louis or Chicago with me to check it out?
And my lunch break nears completion, so I'm off.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
"Here in this empty house where nothing stays buried"
So I've been out of touch with the blogosphere (I always wanted to use that word) for quite some time; this is largely the result of the fact that our apartment seems to get and lose free wireless access on a random basis. Another contributing factor is probably the fact that I'm now working six days a week. And when I'm not working, I tend to be reading or hanging out with people. Still, I'm going to try to keep things a little more up-to-date in the future.
Tomorrow at 1:00 is the world cup final between Italy and France. Italy has my bet, since France had a shaky start and last game. However, I'm not strongly rooting for either team.
My obsession with the Mountain Goats is continuing to deepen. John Darnielle is a phenomenal songwriter; I wish I could some even close to capturing the way he uses simple symbols and ideas to create huge impact and communicate deep ideas and characters. I've also been listening quite a bit to the Drive-By Truckers and Jens Lekman.
I'll write more later, but now I need to go take a shower.
Tomorrow at 1:00 is the world cup final between Italy and France. Italy has my bet, since France had a shaky start and last game. However, I'm not strongly rooting for either team.
My obsession with the Mountain Goats is continuing to deepen. John Darnielle is a phenomenal songwriter; I wish I could some even close to capturing the way he uses simple symbols and ideas to create huge impact and communicate deep ideas and characters. I've also been listening quite a bit to the Drive-By Truckers and Jens Lekman.
I'll write more later, but now I need to go take a shower.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Heraldings of Another Apartment-Dweller
To bring to end all the questionings and musings of all those who read this blog, No Eric is not the only person that lives in the apartment. The other three persons are really quite real. Apparently they just don't have much to say. But then Eric usually does have plenty of his own to say so perhaps no one else has the need to post. ;) (I'm sure that's the sort of comment that with get me a "Screw you, John" from Eric later)
Well, I was mostly just excited to post something and didn't really have anything to say. So long for now, and may you rest easily knowing that Eric's tyrannical rule over the blog is coming to a swift and timely end. Toodle Pip!
Well, I was mostly just excited to post something and didn't really have anything to say. So long for now, and may you rest easily knowing that Eric's tyrannical rule over the blog is coming to a swift and timely end. Toodle Pip!
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Keillor on Liturgy
Some interesting thoughts about liturgy, based off of a quote by none other than Garrison Kiellor.
An amusing story I once heard in high school speech and remember to this day.
And M Ward is coming to Omaha this fall! He's perhaps one of the best folk singer/songwriters around today. Once again, 1% productions impresses me with the caliber of acts they can bring in to Sokol for an affordable price. If anyone is interested in buying tickets with me and going, let me know.
An amusing story I once heard in high school speech and remember to this day.
And M Ward is coming to Omaha this fall! He's perhaps one of the best folk singer/songwriters around today. Once again, 1% productions impresses me with the caliber of acts they can bring in to Sokol for an affordable price. If anyone is interested in buying tickets with me and going, let me know.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
A Prairie Home Companion
I went and watched "A Prairie Home Companion" last night. It was a fun movie, and it brought to mind evenings sitting in the kitchen as a family listening to the show (at least until it got shut off by mom for a few too many bawdy jokes).
In some ways, I'm not quite sure what it was about. Ostensibly, it was about the show's fictional last broadcast, and we got a look into both the lives of the characters making the show and what goes on behind the stage at the real PHC. The show's host, a man named GK (and really Garrison Keillor playing a version of himself), and many in the rest of the cast refuse to even acknowledge this as the end. "They're midwesterners," observes Guy Noir (the backstage security man who is an incarnation of the fictional character on the radio show), "And midwesterners believe that if you don't talk about a problem, maybe it'll just go away." However, events both internal and external are conspiring to make these character's last broadcast memorable.
But to recount this plot isn't really to tell what the movie is about. It's more about everything-about life and death, memory and regret, the past and the future. In many ways, it is the story of a bucolic, bygone world which has been subsumed by the drive of modern culture. Everyone on the show is caught between a generation where you looked out for your neighbors and spent evenings and weekends socializing on front porches and at pot lucks, and one which wants to buldoze the theatre for parking space. However, "A Prairie Home Compainion" isn't preachy. It would shudder at the thought. It's not advocating a return to the simpler life that perhaps never was. Instead, it is simply a eulogy of sorts for a midwestern way of life which has been cast by the wayside without really considering what it was being exchanged for was really any better.
As cinema, the show was well done. The writing was brilliant, as one should expect with Keillor sharing screenwriting credit. The acting was also good. The high point here were a pair of sister singers named Yolanda and Rhonda Johnson, played by Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin. Anyone who saw the Oscars can imagine how these two worked together. Kevin Kline also put in a good performance, and Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly are a hoot as a roguish cowboy duo. Surprisingly, I thought Lindsay Lohan put in a good performance as well, albiet as a girl who for at least part of the movie was getting laughs purely at her own expense. The movie also featured a host of people from the radio show, which will be exciting for anyone who has listened to the show.
The directing and cinematography are also effective. The camera work does a great job of moving between worlds, from backstage to the audience to the glass-enclosed box, in a way which is subtle bet effective. The setting itself is also great; the old theatre they're in is a self-contained world with a life of its own. And the music, for those who enjoy folk and old country, is great. The fun songs had my foot tapping with the guitar and banjo, and the mournful vocal harmonies moved me in just the ways they should.
All in all, "A Prairie Home Companion" was a great movie. I'd recommend watching it to anyone. If you used to listen to the radio show, however, it is a must see.
In some ways, I'm not quite sure what it was about. Ostensibly, it was about the show's fictional last broadcast, and we got a look into both the lives of the characters making the show and what goes on behind the stage at the real PHC. The show's host, a man named GK (and really Garrison Keillor playing a version of himself), and many in the rest of the cast refuse to even acknowledge this as the end. "They're midwesterners," observes Guy Noir (the backstage security man who is an incarnation of the fictional character on the radio show), "And midwesterners believe that if you don't talk about a problem, maybe it'll just go away." However, events both internal and external are conspiring to make these character's last broadcast memorable.
But to recount this plot isn't really to tell what the movie is about. It's more about everything-about life and death, memory and regret, the past and the future. In many ways, it is the story of a bucolic, bygone world which has been subsumed by the drive of modern culture. Everyone on the show is caught between a generation where you looked out for your neighbors and spent evenings and weekends socializing on front porches and at pot lucks, and one which wants to buldoze the theatre for parking space. However, "A Prairie Home Compainion" isn't preachy. It would shudder at the thought. It's not advocating a return to the simpler life that perhaps never was. Instead, it is simply a eulogy of sorts for a midwestern way of life which has been cast by the wayside without really considering what it was being exchanged for was really any better.
As cinema, the show was well done. The writing was brilliant, as one should expect with Keillor sharing screenwriting credit. The acting was also good. The high point here were a pair of sister singers named Yolanda and Rhonda Johnson, played by Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin. Anyone who saw the Oscars can imagine how these two worked together. Kevin Kline also put in a good performance, and Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly are a hoot as a roguish cowboy duo. Surprisingly, I thought Lindsay Lohan put in a good performance as well, albiet as a girl who for at least part of the movie was getting laughs purely at her own expense. The movie also featured a host of people from the radio show, which will be exciting for anyone who has listened to the show.
The directing and cinematography are also effective. The camera work does a great job of moving between worlds, from backstage to the audience to the glass-enclosed box, in a way which is subtle bet effective. The setting itself is also great; the old theatre they're in is a self-contained world with a life of its own. And the music, for those who enjoy folk and old country, is great. The fun songs had my foot tapping with the guitar and banjo, and the mournful vocal harmonies moved me in just the ways they should.
All in all, "A Prairie Home Companion" was a great movie. I'd recommend watching it to anyone. If you used to listen to the radio show, however, it is a must see.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Billy Liar's got his hands in his pockets...
The Decemberists are coming out with a new album! This is perhaps the happiest news I have heard in the last 153 hours or so, and I'm quite excited. If, by some fluke, you don't know who they are, you should listen to them. Or check out their web site. They're one of the few bands which has stuck with me for more than a couple months as recurring favorites.
Wow, I feel like such a fanboy.
In other news, I went to Lincoln's culture festival and enjoyed some reggae and celtic rock last night. It was an enjoyable time.
We bought some new art for the apartment, so it increasingly feels like my home.
I was recently listening to some Okkervil River and was struck by the song "West Falls". I was intrigues by the thesis that "evil don't look like anything", which drives the story about a boy who, seemingly for no reason, ends up murdering a girl and then looks at the public's reaction to the event. I think its very tempting for us to try to make certain people "evil" so that we can console ourselves because we're not like them. I remember hearing a reference to an interview with a man who had killed three people and was in jail for life. When asked if he felt guilty for the act, he responded that in prison "we know who the really bad people are. The child molesters. I'm nothing like them." Everyone has a tendency to find sin in people they're not like so as to console themselves. Whether those people are murderers, child molesters or religious hypocrites, its easy to look at them rather than at ourselves. However, the truth is that any lines we draw among people to make them good and evil end up being arbitrary and false. A Christian view of the world is not to differentiate between ourselves and sinners, but instead to humbly recognize the wickedness in our own hearts and, as a result, to grow in love for our fellow man and revel in Christ's grace. When Paul says "and such were some of you," we ought to meditate on its truth in our own lives. Or, as another song puts it about an infamous murderer, "On my best behavior/I'm really just like him/Look underneath the floorboards/For the secrets I have hid."
Wow, I feel like such a fanboy.
In other news, I went to Lincoln's culture festival and enjoyed some reggae and celtic rock last night. It was an enjoyable time.
We bought some new art for the apartment, so it increasingly feels like my home.
I was recently listening to some Okkervil River and was struck by the song "West Falls". I was intrigues by the thesis that "evil don't look like anything", which drives the story about a boy who, seemingly for no reason, ends up murdering a girl and then looks at the public's reaction to the event. I think its very tempting for us to try to make certain people "evil" so that we can console ourselves because we're not like them. I remember hearing a reference to an interview with a man who had killed three people and was in jail for life. When asked if he felt guilty for the act, he responded that in prison "we know who the really bad people are. The child molesters. I'm nothing like them." Everyone has a tendency to find sin in people they're not like so as to console themselves. Whether those people are murderers, child molesters or religious hypocrites, its easy to look at them rather than at ourselves. However, the truth is that any lines we draw among people to make them good and evil end up being arbitrary and false. A Christian view of the world is not to differentiate between ourselves and sinners, but instead to humbly recognize the wickedness in our own hearts and, as a result, to grow in love for our fellow man and revel in Christ's grace. When Paul says "and such were some of you," we ought to meditate on its truth in our own lives. Or, as another song puts it about an infamous murderer, "On my best behavior/I'm really just like him/Look underneath the floorboards/For the secrets I have hid."
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Varios Ramblings
I bought an espresso machine with eight cups and saucers for $2. Score.
Last night was one of those random, relaxed evenings I adore. The high point was when a bunch of drunk european foreign exchange students splashed us with water from the union fountain and we wreaked wet vengeance on them.
I've been slipping into an alt-country mood lately. Lots of Okkervil River, Neko Case, Elliott Brood and Billy Bragg w/ Wilco.
Work has been excellent; I've really enjoyed it. It's nice to be somewhere that I care about, like the people I work with and can help build the business. Its also nice to drive around all day thinking and listening to music.
The world cup has started; if anyone cares, I think we might have a shot at breaking out of our group; we should be able to beat Ghana, probably not Italy, and maybe the Czech Republic. If we win two of those games, we'd have a shot at going on, although if Italy wins all three (a distinct possibility) it won't matter. Our best bet would be to draw against Italy and win the other two, which would give us seven points and at least a tie for points.
In other brackets, I'm rooting for England and Brazil. England because they've improved a lot and are fielding a good team, Brazil because they always win and I like rooting for a winning team :)
And with those random thoughts, I'm heading out.
Last night was one of those random, relaxed evenings I adore. The high point was when a bunch of drunk european foreign exchange students splashed us with water from the union fountain and we wreaked wet vengeance on them.
I've been slipping into an alt-country mood lately. Lots of Okkervil River, Neko Case, Elliott Brood and Billy Bragg w/ Wilco.
Work has been excellent; I've really enjoyed it. It's nice to be somewhere that I care about, like the people I work with and can help build the business. Its also nice to drive around all day thinking and listening to music.
The world cup has started; if anyone cares, I think we might have a shot at breaking out of our group; we should be able to beat Ghana, probably not Italy, and maybe the Czech Republic. If we win two of those games, we'd have a shot at going on, although if Italy wins all three (a distinct possibility) it won't matter. Our best bet would be to draw against Italy and win the other two, which would give us seven points and at least a tie for points.
In other brackets, I'm rooting for England and Brazil. England because they've improved a lot and are fielding a good team, Brazil because they always win and I like rooting for a winning team :)
And with those random thoughts, I'm heading out.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Scooby Doo, what have they done to you?
I need a gun.
The WB is bringing back Scooby Doo, with a few minor changes. Like getting rid of the gang, other than shaggy. And having them live in a mansion which they describe as being 'blinged out'. And the Mystery Machine can transform. And Scooby Snacks are " infused with nano-technology that allows Scooby to fly or turn into a giant robot".
I'm at a loss for words.
The WB is bringing back Scooby Doo, with a few minor changes. Like getting rid of the gang, other than shaggy. And having them live in a mansion which they describe as being 'blinged out'. And the Mystery Machine can transform. And Scooby Snacks are " infused with nano-technology that allows Scooby to fly or turn into a giant robot".
I'm at a loss for words.
Heroes, Heaven and a Good Book
The new trailer for Superman Returns is in the process of transforming me from a skeptic to a believer in the possibilities of this new movie. Kevin Spacey looks like he may well be Lex Luthor as I've always imagined, and Brandon Routh may well pull off our steely-eyed, kryptonite-allergic hero despite my misgivings.
I am also listening to Jean Larroux's sermons on glorification, which are excellent. Perhaps I'll write some thoughts when I'm done with them, although I'm wont to make promises I can't follow up on.
I don't think I've ever mentioned him in the internet realm, but if you have never read something by Umberto Eco, you ought to remedy that situation immediately. He's absolutely brilliant as a medievalist, a philospher, and an author. I found a nice copy of "The Name of the Rose" at Blue Stem Books yesterday and am diving in. I'd heartily recommend it, as well as "Foucalt's Pendelum" (the best book on conspiracy theories and the hermeneutical principles behind them I have ever read, perhaps one could call it a "DaVinci Code" for intelligent people) and The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana (a brilliant look at the experience of culture and how it shapes us). "The Name of the Rose" is a murder mystery of sorts centered around a monastary and more particularly the library therein, but what makes it phenomenal is the meticulous detail of the portrayal of medieval life, politics and heresies. One could read it and write a competent paper on Europe of the 14th century without batting an eye.
I am also listening to Jean Larroux's sermons on glorification, which are excellent. Perhaps I'll write some thoughts when I'm done with them, although I'm wont to make promises I can't follow up on.
I don't think I've ever mentioned him in the internet realm, but if you have never read something by Umberto Eco, you ought to remedy that situation immediately. He's absolutely brilliant as a medievalist, a philospher, and an author. I found a nice copy of "The Name of the Rose" at Blue Stem Books yesterday and am diving in. I'd heartily recommend it, as well as "Foucalt's Pendelum" (the best book on conspiracy theories and the hermeneutical principles behind them I have ever read, perhaps one could call it a "DaVinci Code" for intelligent people) and The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana (a brilliant look at the experience of culture and how it shapes us). "The Name of the Rose" is a murder mystery of sorts centered around a monastary and more particularly the library therein, but what makes it phenomenal is the meticulous detail of the portrayal of medieval life, politics and heresies. One could read it and write a competent paper on Europe of the 14th century without batting an eye.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Another Anti-Corporate Rant
Today delivering flowers I dropped some off at Russ's Market and met one of the ladies working in the small, underpaid florists' shop there. I later found out that this lady had once owned William's Nursery, which sold shrubbery and flowers. It had been around for more than a hundred years, and been very loyal to the community. However, thanks to competition from big stores like Wal-Mart, with their own flower and lawn sections, the nursery had to close several years ago and auction off the land it had occupied for more than a century. Now, a lady who had once proudly owned a business in our town and poured herself into it is selling cheap bouquets of flowers at a big store. Great example of why I so often get on my anti-corporate, pro-local trip.
On a happier note, I pulled off a 4.0 this semester (although I took Hebrew pass/no pass, so it doesn't exactly count.) Looks like my scholarships are intact for another year. Woo-Hoo!
On a happier note, I pulled off a 4.0 this semester (although I took Hebrew pass/no pass, so it doesn't exactly count.) Looks like my scholarships are intact for another year. Woo-Hoo!
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The Empire Strikes Back
After a rather long absence, here's another entry. In the intervening time I've finished school, finished moving out of the dorms, and spent a week in Florida for RUF Summer Conference. John Stone, the main speaker, was phenomenal, especially the first two nights. If anyone wants to listen, the talks are up as a podcast. Just search for "RUF Summer Conference."
I've been reminded again lately that Christianity sounds much easier that it really is. It's easy to talk about how the Christian life is still messy and full of hurt and struggle. However, when hard times come, my first reaction is to shake my fist at Christ in frustration rather than flee to Him. Being broken sounds romantic in theory, but in practice it sucks. Still, I've also been reminded of the goodness of the gospel. It is only when the idols I engineer fail me that I can clearly see how
needful of His persistent grace that I am.
I just picked up the Islands' new CD, "Return to the Sea, " and Mastodon's "Leviathan." While neither album has had enough spins for me to give a good opinion, I like them both, and the combination of happy indie-pop and intelligent heavy metal has made a delightful mixture in my brain. Eric H. also gave me Gnarls Barkley's "St. Elsewhere," a pairing of Cee-Lo Green and DJ Danger Mouse. I haven't had time to listen to it, but it sounds like fun. Next on my list is probably The Raconteurs, although we shall see when pay day comes.
"Evangelism does not consist in the rehearsal of what has happened in the evangelist's own soul. Christian evangelism does not consist in a man's going about the world and saying "Look at me, what a wonderful experience I have, how happy I am, what wonderful Christian virtues I exhibit. You can all be as good and as happy as I am if you just make a complete surrender of your wills and obedience to what I say." That is what many religious workers seem to think that evangelism is. But they're wrong. Men are not saved by the exhibition of your glorious Christian virtues. They're not saved by the contagion of your experiences. We cannot be the instruments of God in saving them if we preach only ourselves. Nay, we must preach to them the Lord Jesus Christ, for it is only through the gospel that sets him forth that men can be saved."
-J. Gresham Machen
As much as I favor postmodern relatability and theology which connects with experience, I think there's a lot of truth in this statement. Common wisdom among evangelical circles today is that evangelism should consist almost solely of sharing your testimony. "After all, they can't argue with your experience." However, the problem is that you can't really argue with theirs, either. Examining the biblical model, we see this sort of thinking really start to break down. In proclaming the gospel to unbelievers, the apostles rarely spoke about their own experiences. Rather, they spoke of the person of Christ and his atonement. Personal experience was just one of several evidences they gave to point to Christ.
It just strikes me as ironic that modern Christians feel it would be presumptious to invite people to Christ based on who He is, and that instead we ought to base His credibility on ourselves.
I've been reminded again lately that Christianity sounds much easier that it really is. It's easy to talk about how the Christian life is still messy and full of hurt and struggle. However, when hard times come, my first reaction is to shake my fist at Christ in frustration rather than flee to Him. Being broken sounds romantic in theory, but in practice it sucks. Still, I've also been reminded of the goodness of the gospel. It is only when the idols I engineer fail me that I can clearly see how
needful of His persistent grace that I am.
I just picked up the Islands' new CD, "Return to the Sea, " and Mastodon's "Leviathan." While neither album has had enough spins for me to give a good opinion, I like them both, and the combination of happy indie-pop and intelligent heavy metal has made a delightful mixture in my brain. Eric H. also gave me Gnarls Barkley's "St. Elsewhere," a pairing of Cee-Lo Green and DJ Danger Mouse. I haven't had time to listen to it, but it sounds like fun. Next on my list is probably The Raconteurs, although we shall see when pay day comes.
"Evangelism does not consist in the rehearsal of what has happened in the evangelist's own soul. Christian evangelism does not consist in a man's going about the world and saying "Look at me, what a wonderful experience I have, how happy I am, what wonderful Christian virtues I exhibit. You can all be as good and as happy as I am if you just make a complete surrender of your wills and obedience to what I say." That is what many religious workers seem to think that evangelism is. But they're wrong. Men are not saved by the exhibition of your glorious Christian virtues. They're not saved by the contagion of your experiences. We cannot be the instruments of God in saving them if we preach only ourselves. Nay, we must preach to them the Lord Jesus Christ, for it is only through the gospel that sets him forth that men can be saved."
-J. Gresham Machen
As much as I favor postmodern relatability and theology which connects with experience, I think there's a lot of truth in this statement. Common wisdom among evangelical circles today is that evangelism should consist almost solely of sharing your testimony. "After all, they can't argue with your experience." However, the problem is that you can't really argue with theirs, either. Examining the biblical model, we see this sort of thinking really start to break down. In proclaming the gospel to unbelievers, the apostles rarely spoke about their own experiences. Rather, they spoke of the person of Christ and his atonement. Personal experience was just one of several evidences they gave to point to Christ.
It just strikes me as ironic that modern Christians feel it would be presumptious to invite people to Christ based on who He is, and that instead we ought to base His credibility on ourselves.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Apartments, Politics and Playlists
I'm all moved in to the apartment building which gave this blog its name. Its quite marvelous; being able to describe my morning as "taking a shower in my bathroom, then walking downstairs to my kitchen to have a cup of tea and look out my window" is a joyful thing indeed. The only downside was the fire alarm going off at 5 this morning, rudely waking me up and keeping me there for several hours.
We are without internet in the apartment, and so the hours I typically waste online are being spent doing other things. I'm re-honing my reflexes and coordination through liberal doses of video gaming, and pursuing a deeper understanding of our culture by watching television for the first time in two years. This will probably last about a week, but in the meantime I'm realizing that simply cutting out one way in which I waste my day does not of necessity mean I will use said time constructively.
I recently was introduced to White Horse Inn by Bryan Becker, and am enjoying it immensely. Basically, its talk radio. With four guys arguing. About theology. If that sounds like your cup of tea, check it out.
I normally abhor online quizzes, but I found this one to be quite interesting. It rates your political beliefs (Centrist, Capitalist, Libertarian, Anarchist, Democrat, Totalitarian, Fascist, and Socialist). Suprise suprise, I'm strongly socialist, particularly on the economics axis of the chart. If you feel like it, check it out and tell me what you are, so I can decide whether or not we can still be friends.
Just kidding.
But seriously.
Here's my actual results, if you're curious:
A couple of music bits:
-I bought Indelible Grace 4 last week, and am digging it. It definately continues in the vein of the third CD, rather than a throwback to the heavy country of the second one. High points include songs 5-7, all of which I'm really digging, especially "Lead On O King Eternal."
-Today I intend to drop by Homers and pick up "Yes, Virginia", the Dresden Dolls' new sophmore album. I've always considered them a guilty pleasure band; I don't know what the angsty post-goth piano-drums duo does for me, but hearing Amanda Palmer angrily sing about insanity, murder, rejection and coin-operated boys has always been an oddly enjoyable diversion.
-I also discovered Soltero, an indie rock band from Philadelphia with horns and singer/songwriter sensibilities (say that five times fast). I'm really into the songs they have online, and besides, any group with an album titled "Defrocked and Kicking the Habit" wins points with me.
-And, for those of you who find such things interesting, here's my latest mix CD, a mix of a couple new discoveries and some old favorites:
1. Communist Love Song - Soltero
2. Up Above the Sea - John Vanderslice
3. I'll Believe in Anything - Wolf Parade
4. Art is Hard - Cursive
5. Lover, You Should've Come Over - Jeff Buckley
6. Prison on Route 41 - Iron & Wine/Calexico
7. Fell Down the Stairs - Tilly & The Wall
8. Rapture Rapes the Muses - Of Montreal
9. Building Steam With A Grain of Salt - DJ Shadow
10. Sky Is Falling - Blackalicious
11. Fit But You Know It - The Streets
12. In This Home on Ice - Clap Your Hands Say Yeah!
13. All the Wine - The National
14. The Greatest - Cat Power
15. Dance to Your Daddy - Colin Meloy
16. The Night's Disguise - Rocky Votolato
17. Roses - Kanye West
18. The Widow - The Mars Volta
We are without internet in the apartment, and so the hours I typically waste online are being spent doing other things. I'm re-honing my reflexes and coordination through liberal doses of video gaming, and pursuing a deeper understanding of our culture by watching television for the first time in two years. This will probably last about a week, but in the meantime I'm realizing that simply cutting out one way in which I waste my day does not of necessity mean I will use said time constructively.
I recently was introduced to White Horse Inn by Bryan Becker, and am enjoying it immensely. Basically, its talk radio. With four guys arguing. About theology. If that sounds like your cup of tea, check it out.
I normally abhor online quizzes, but I found this one to be quite interesting. It rates your political beliefs (Centrist, Capitalist, Libertarian, Anarchist, Democrat, Totalitarian, Fascist, and Socialist). Suprise suprise, I'm strongly socialist, particularly on the economics axis of the chart. If you feel like it, check it out and tell me what you are, so I can decide whether or not we can still be friends.
Just kidding.
But seriously.
Here's my actual results, if you're curious:
| You are a Social Liberal (66% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (10% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
A couple of music bits:
-I bought Indelible Grace 4 last week, and am digging it. It definately continues in the vein of the third CD, rather than a throwback to the heavy country of the second one. High points include songs 5-7, all of which I'm really digging, especially "Lead On O King Eternal."
-Today I intend to drop by Homers and pick up "Yes, Virginia", the Dresden Dolls' new sophmore album. I've always considered them a guilty pleasure band; I don't know what the angsty post-goth piano-drums duo does for me, but hearing Amanda Palmer angrily sing about insanity, murder, rejection and coin-operated boys has always been an oddly enjoyable diversion.
-I also discovered Soltero, an indie rock band from Philadelphia with horns and singer/songwriter sensibilities (say that five times fast). I'm really into the songs they have online, and besides, any group with an album titled "Defrocked and Kicking the Habit" wins points with me.
-And, for those of you who find such things interesting, here's my latest mix CD, a mix of a couple new discoveries and some old favorites:
1. Communist Love Song - Soltero
2. Up Above the Sea - John Vanderslice
3. I'll Believe in Anything - Wolf Parade
4. Art is Hard - Cursive
5. Lover, You Should've Come Over - Jeff Buckley
6. Prison on Route 41 - Iron & Wine/Calexico
7. Fell Down the Stairs - Tilly & The Wall
8. Rapture Rapes the Muses - Of Montreal
9. Building Steam With A Grain of Salt - DJ Shadow
10. Sky Is Falling - Blackalicious
11. Fit But You Know It - The Streets
12. In This Home on Ice - Clap Your Hands Say Yeah!
13. All the Wine - The National
14. The Greatest - Cat Power
15. Dance to Your Daddy - Colin Meloy
16. The Night's Disguise - Rocky Votolato
17. Roses - Kanye West
18. The Widow - The Mars Volta
Monday, April 24, 2006
Barth and Liturgy
I've noticed that the ongoing discussion about contemporary vs. traditional liturgy can in some ways be aided if in approaching liturgy we borrow a card from Karl Barth. In approaching scripture, Barth argued for a position that has become known as neo-orthodoxy. He refuses to defend the historical and scientific inerrancy of scripture, but instead argues that the purpose of the bible is to bring people into an encounter with Christ.
Obviously, I have some issues with this. However, if we replace the Word of God in this discussion with liturgical elements in worship, we have something truly insightful. The problem most people have in arguing about them is that the discussion is about the elements themselves. Thus, for example, modern evangelicals disdain things like creeds and public confessions of sins as dead and lifeless, while more traditional churches defend them as good and historically important. This is where Barth's understanding is helpful. The truth is that, independent of anything else, liturgical actions are empty and dead. However, they don't exist as ends in themselves but rather as means to bring people into encounter with God. This is why traditional liturgies can be extremely powerful. They provide a framework soaked with meaning and specifically designed to bring the worshipper into God's presence and communicate over and over the truth of his gospel of grace to their hearts. In this role, that of providing a means by which people encounter Christ, liturgy is seen to be both good and useful; but without this as its end and aim all of the criticism contemporary evangelicals level are true.
ET
Obviously, I have some issues with this. However, if we replace the Word of God in this discussion with liturgical elements in worship, we have something truly insightful. The problem most people have in arguing about them is that the discussion is about the elements themselves. Thus, for example, modern evangelicals disdain things like creeds and public confessions of sins as dead and lifeless, while more traditional churches defend them as good and historically important. This is where Barth's understanding is helpful. The truth is that, independent of anything else, liturgical actions are empty and dead. However, they don't exist as ends in themselves but rather as means to bring people into encounter with God. This is why traditional liturgies can be extremely powerful. They provide a framework soaked with meaning and specifically designed to bring the worshipper into God's presence and communicate over and over the truth of his gospel of grace to their hearts. In this role, that of providing a means by which people encounter Christ, liturgy is seen to be both good and useful; but without this as its end and aim all of the criticism contemporary evangelicals level are true.
ET
Thursday, April 20, 2006
I Don't Want To Play Football
"I don't want to play football
I don't understand the rules of the game
I don't want to play football
I don't understand the thrill of the running, catching, throwing
Taking orders from a moron
Grabbing for the sweaty crotches
Getting hit by people I don't know
Sugar, I'd rather play a different sort of game"
-Belle and Sebastian
This song has always resonated with truth for me :)
"My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?"
-James 2:1-7
I remember reading a book this summer called "Under the Overpass" in which two Christian college students decided to live as homeless people for six months. One of the things that amazed me in the book is the way the two of them were treated when they tried to go to church. They were at best avoided and treated with suspicion, and on several occasions they were actually forced to leave because they were bothering the other people there.
We love to talk about "helping the poor," but we like to think about it in this sterile, seperated way. The truth is that the poor aren't attractive, well-groomed chaps. Those Jesus calls us to love can be ugly, dirty and sometimes dangerous. We congradulate ourselves when we give a homeless guy a couple of dollars or a burger. But this isn't showing them sacrificial love. Lets wait to pat ourselves on the back until we are instead taking them into our churches and homes.
I've somehow fallen in love with the Streets. I don't understand it, but there's something about their proper, awkward British hip-hop tunes about smoking splints and forgetting to return movies that I really enjoy.
I don't understand the rules of the game
I don't want to play football
I don't understand the thrill of the running, catching, throwing
Taking orders from a moron
Grabbing for the sweaty crotches
Getting hit by people I don't know
Sugar, I'd rather play a different sort of game"
-Belle and Sebastian
This song has always resonated with truth for me :)
"My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?"
-James 2:1-7
I remember reading a book this summer called "Under the Overpass" in which two Christian college students decided to live as homeless people for six months. One of the things that amazed me in the book is the way the two of them were treated when they tried to go to church. They were at best avoided and treated with suspicion, and on several occasions they were actually forced to leave because they were bothering the other people there.
We love to talk about "helping the poor," but we like to think about it in this sterile, seperated way. The truth is that the poor aren't attractive, well-groomed chaps. Those Jesus calls us to love can be ugly, dirty and sometimes dangerous. We congradulate ourselves when we give a homeless guy a couple of dollars or a burger. But this isn't showing them sacrificial love. Lets wait to pat ourselves on the back until we are instead taking them into our churches and homes.
I've somehow fallen in love with the Streets. I don't understand it, but there's something about their proper, awkward British hip-hop tunes about smoking splints and forgetting to return movies that I really enjoy.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Classic Quote
"Nels likes Easter. It reminds him of the glorious struggle of the proletariat."
-Mark Anderson
-Mark Anderson
Saturday, April 15, 2006
My good friend John
Sarah and I went and watched John Vanderslice at Sokol Thursday night. While the opening acts were sketchy, he was phenomenal. His singing and musicianship were spot-on. The crowd was polite and not full of the high school Omaha emo kids that make Sokol occasionally frustrating. And what impressed me most was how incredibly polite he was. He really seemed grateful to have the crowd there, moreso even than some artists that have impressed me in that regard in the past. Anyway, that's about all I have for tonight, other than to point out tomorrow is EASTER, and that is SWEET :) On that note, here's some pics from the show.
I'm so photogenic...
I'm so photogenic...
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Orthodoxy and the Pursuit of Truth
"Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Timothy 4:16)
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8-9)
Three times this week I have heard people comment in regard to heresy and orthodoxy that "Of course everyone is going to thing their way is the orthodox way." Now, there is certainly some truth in recognizing that we are all naturally biased by our own pride toward our position, but this was more than that. In each case, it was meant to say that the notion of orthodoxy in the church was silly and impossible. A few points occur to me that people who feel this way ought to keep in mind.
1. Heresy is not simply a term meaning "we disagree with them." Instead, it makes a statement about the truth or falsity of the position itself. I might call you a heretic, but our dispute would not ultimately be on political or cultural grounds, but on theological ones. The other factors certainly influenced the modern church, but gnosticism isn't heresy because it lost a power struggle but because it says things which are in tension with the truth of scripture. They might even disagree about what scriptures we use, but that argument can also be settled on objective grounds in pursuit of the truth, rather than arbitrary ones.
2. The process of determining orthodoxy was a careful and thorough one. The councils and creeds which resulted weren't light or arbitrary affairs, but instead consisted of the godliest and most knowledgeable individuals of their day coming together to carefully weigh positions against the weight of scripture and come to a conclusion which they felt was as faithful to God's revealed truth as was possible.
3. If early Christians were incapable of considering and either accepting or rejecting new ideas, there would be no early Christians. The truth is that the missionary enterprise of the church was very much based on a pursuit of theological truth. One cannot read Justin, Clement, Tertullian, Origen and other early apologists and fail to recognize that they were very much interested in arguing about propositional truth about God with those who disagreed with them. To dismiss them as stupidly closedminded would force us to ignore virtually every other historical thinker who actually took a position on issues.
In summary, I think we need to examine early orthodoxy, like every other discussion of truth, in a way which recognized bias but doesn't simply dismiss creedal Christianity as the "lucky sect that beat the others out."
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8-9)
Three times this week I have heard people comment in regard to heresy and orthodoxy that "Of course everyone is going to thing their way is the orthodox way." Now, there is certainly some truth in recognizing that we are all naturally biased by our own pride toward our position, but this was more than that. In each case, it was meant to say that the notion of orthodoxy in the church was silly and impossible. A few points occur to me that people who feel this way ought to keep in mind.
1. Heresy is not simply a term meaning "we disagree with them." Instead, it makes a statement about the truth or falsity of the position itself. I might call you a heretic, but our dispute would not ultimately be on political or cultural grounds, but on theological ones. The other factors certainly influenced the modern church, but gnosticism isn't heresy because it lost a power struggle but because it says things which are in tension with the truth of scripture. They might even disagree about what scriptures we use, but that argument can also be settled on objective grounds in pursuit of the truth, rather than arbitrary ones.
2. The process of determining orthodoxy was a careful and thorough one. The councils and creeds which resulted weren't light or arbitrary affairs, but instead consisted of the godliest and most knowledgeable individuals of their day coming together to carefully weigh positions against the weight of scripture and come to a conclusion which they felt was as faithful to God's revealed truth as was possible.
3. If early Christians were incapable of considering and either accepting or rejecting new ideas, there would be no early Christians. The truth is that the missionary enterprise of the church was very much based on a pursuit of theological truth. One cannot read Justin, Clement, Tertullian, Origen and other early apologists and fail to recognize that they were very much interested in arguing about propositional truth about God with those who disagreed with them. To dismiss them as stupidly closedminded would force us to ignore virtually every other historical thinker who actually took a position on issues.
In summary, I think we need to examine early orthodoxy, like every other discussion of truth, in a way which recognized bias but doesn't simply dismiss creedal Christianity as the "lucky sect that beat the others out."
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Velcome...
Thus begins my fifth blog, and the first for my fellow apartment dwellers. We'll see how this one fares, but hopefully between KJ, John, Kody and me there will be enough content to keep you interested. Bon voyage!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)