the post by Michael Coward

Christmas and Secularism

2011-12-25T12:28:00.003-05:00

It’s finally Christmas and I yet again find myself wondering what is so special about this holiday. My atheist, apatheist, and Jewish friends all celebrate it. In fact, the only people in this country who do not seem to celebrate Christmas are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who don’t celebrate any holidays or birthdays at any point of the year. I worked last night, waiting tables, and saying “Happy Holidays” seemed contrived, even to those who may or may not have been Christians. So, I started saying “Merry Christmas.” Not in some politically incorrect act of rebellion, rather as a more genuine admission that most everyone will be celebrating today for one reason or another.

And it got me thinking, have non-Christians taken Christmas away from us? This is not an essay about us and them, it will evolve into something quite different. But at the most basic element I think we need to analyze what the secular world has done with Christmas. Department stores, magazines, retail employees, coffee shops, and really all manner of businesses and public matters more or less go with the “Happy Holidays” theme. The pages are splashed with reds and greens but the word “Christmas” will not be found.

Let’s face it: we all know what holiday we are celebrating. Red and green are not the colors of Hanukah, Kwanza, or the New Year. Snowmen and Santa Claus cartoons are also Christmas-specific and let’s not forget that the movie is called A Christmas Story. And strangely all of these things I just listed as associated with Christmas have nothing to do with Christ. Perhaps somewhere in their mythologies they did but that was certainly lost on the December issue of the Macy’s catalogue.

In another point, it is very unlikely that Jesus was even born during the winter season and December 25^th is formerly a pagan holiday. To many, this is an irony, a sad underlying truth that Christianity is nothing more than another false religion come to replace the other silly pagan religions of the past. If Christianity was just any religion that might be true.

Not all, but many other religions share an extremely common culture. There’s a common dress code, specific times and directions to pray, standardized music and liturgy. Judaism, Christianity’s forerunner, is one example. Islam is another. Many fundamentalists Christians or hyper-traditional denominations might be accused of the same thing. There is something to be said for corporate liturgy and tradition, I’m not bashing that, but there is an element of Christianity that defies what many fundamentalist religions and denominations miss.

Christianity is redemptive. Jesus came to redeem cultures, not to convert them. It was to take what they already had and renew it, to show what was so great and rich and good about their lives. Lamin Sanneh says:

Christianity answered this historical challenge by a reorientation of the worldview…People sensed in their hearts that Jesus did not mock their respect for the sacred nor their clamor for an invincible Savior, and so they beat their sacred drums for him until the stars skipped and danced in the skies. After that dance the stars weren’t little anymore. Christianity helped Africans to become renewed Africans, not re-made Europeans.

Timothy Keller comments on this passage:

Sanneh argues that secularism with its anti-supernaturalism and individualism is much more destructive of local cultures and “African-ness” than Christianity is. In the Bible, Africans read of Jesus’s power over supernatural and spiritual evil and of his triumph over it on the cross. When Africans become Christians, their African-ness is converted, completed, and resolved, not replaced with European-ness or something else.

[Both passages are from page 42 of Timothy Keller’s Reason for God]

Africans retained their culture and music, but they redirected it and subjected it to a greater framework. They didn’t put down their drums for pipe organs, rather subjected their drums to a God who could explain and defeat the spirits they worshiped before.

If Christianity is redemptive and therefore Christmas is redemptive, then can it really be taken from us? In some small ways I suppose so. The media and retail stores have done well to sidetrack us all. Even Christians have more or less loss sight of the Christian elements of Christmas.

Even in its secularized form Christmas is still redemptive. Perhaps is Christianity never succeeded as a religion we would still observe some giving-based holiday like Christmas, but we don’t. It’s a time when homeless non-believers can go to soup kitchens and be fed by giving non-believers. It’s a time when people who are selfish are finally scorned and those who are giving, regardless of their creed, are praised. We as a society and culture formally recognize the power of love and giving and family. And we do it on a day that, whether we like it or not, is all because around two thousand years ago the most powerful example of love and giving and family was brought into this world. That's not a slight on non-believers, rather an encouragement to Christians. Because Christmas is rooted in something so powerful, it can't be taken away from us and as long was we remain in Jesus then we have nothing to lose by sharing our holiday with those who don't necessarily celebrate for the same reasons. We should be happy to invite others to the proverbial table.

Interesting enough, Christmas happens right after winter solstice. It happens right after the darkest days of the year. And every day is brighter from here.

Rapture May 21. Bad Theology

2011-05-24T21:58:00.001-04:00

If you haven’t figured it out by now, the rapture did not occur on May 21st 2011 as predicted by Harold Camping. There were those who took him seriously. They gave up their jobs, savings, and euthanized their pets. Camping’s ministry Family Radio put millions of dollars into a campaign to bring awareness of the rapture worldwide. There were those who didn’t believe him and most of us—myself included—spent our supposed pre-rapture days joking about it. Even the most serious media attention was covered with an undercurrent of comedic disbelief. Aside from a very good article by my friend Jeff, almost no one has actually given the event any serious attention.

The truth is that the Christians who believe in the rapture are a very loud minority. It would have been great if other believers had utilized this media attention to actually talk about what we really believe about eschatology (the study of the end times). I want to discuss eschatology and how it relates to the behavior of Christians.

I have met a lot of Christians obsessed with the end times and what bothers me most is how divisive they are about it. They are repeating history. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus completely blindsided the Jewish community at the time. The Jewish leaders had very strong opinions about how the Messiah would come about and none of them were even close in spite of it being right in front of their faces. It was obvious and they still got it wrong. Yet we seem to think that we can get it right. So before I get too ambitious I want to take a step back and admit that there’s a good chance we’re all wrong about this whole deal. But I also think my take on eschatology leaves a lot of room for error while also centering on what is the Gospel.

As I said, eschatology is the study of end times or—literally—last things. Christians believe that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus—God incarnate—made the way for them to be right with God. Jesus also claimed he would come again. The details are primarily outlined in Revelation, a book that is written in the form of traditional apocalyptic literature making it a little difficult for the 21st century reader. The interpretation of this and other eschatological Biblical texts is very divided. Some believe in the rapture—primarily based on a I Thessalonians 4 verse—an idea that somewhere in the future Christ will return and some or all of the believers will be lifted to Heaven to be with him.

I could spend pages discussing why this belief is categorically false. Other, better studied writers have expounded elsewhere and I think it best to leave it to them. What I’d rather talk about is why we can’t predict the Second Coming and why predicting it doesn’t matter.

The favorite passage to dispel any prophecy about the Second Coming is Mark 13:32-33: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.” This could be interpreted that Jesus was only speaking about his present time, that when he said this no one knew, but now in the 21st century we can know. I think that’s stretching the truth and of all the Bible passages to debate, this one seems pretty concrete. But it is the other part of this verse that interests me.

Let us say that the rapture does exist and that we can predict it. For some people who believed Camping it meant giving up money, jobs, school, work, family. For Camping it meant $100 million dollar ad campaign to raise awareness about the rapture. Yet they believed in the Second Coming before they thought they knew when it would be and here is Jesus in Mark 13 telling them to always be ready. “Be on guard! Be alert!” Given this, how does knowing the date make a difference? Shouldn’t we be living as if Jesus could come back at any moment? Yet we still take on our jobs, pets, savings, and normal lives. Are they all made meaningless if Jesus comes back? If Camping was right, shouldn’t all Christians everywhere have done like Camping’s followers all along? There’s an even bigger problem that interest me.

Most evangelicals, Camping included, would agree that to be saved one must believe that Jesus died and was resurrected for their sins. And that someone who believed that but didn’t know about the Second Coming could still saved. Yet, Camping spent his time raising awareness about the supposed rapture. What good is knowing about the rapture if you don’t know who it’s really about? I would much rather someone believe in Jesus than know the date of the rapture. The money and efforts were a waste and that’s a greater sin than getting the date wrong.

What happens in the end times and what should we do about it? As I said, there’s a lot of debate and about the only thing Christians agree on is that there will be a second coming. Some views of the end times suggest that God will destroy the world. So, what’s the point of anything? Tell everyone about Jesus and don’t worry about climate change, world hunger, having a job, or obeying Matthew 25. Other views think that Jesus is going to come back one day and just fix everything. Again, what’s the point? Some believe that since the Resurrection everything is improving all of the time. Thanks to some recent natural disasters and wars that’s a dying theology.

When do the end times start and when do things get better? Well, kind of now and kind of not yet. Here’s the conventional Gospel story: Christ died for your sins. It’s true, but it’s not the whole story. The whole story is that God created a good and perfect world. That world became imperfect when humans first sinned. This sin allowed death and decay into a world that really wasn’t meant for those things. It was meant for good. God answered this pain and suffering in the most unimaginable way possible. He became one of us and endured the same pain and suffering. He lived a perfect life and dealt with the pain and suffering in this world by enduring the worst part of it: Death. He died and three days later he returned from the dead, resurrected. Through this act, sinners who believe this story are now made right with God.

What’s different about this version? The Resurrection. It’s a very important part and it is often forgotten or ignored. But it’s important. The Resurrection means the end times are now: God’s Kingdom has come. Jesus coming back to life means that all of creation is no longer under the rule of death and decay but now given the chance of new life. It’s in the Lord’s Prayer “Thy Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven.” And it is prophesied in Revelation 21 where the new heavens and earth collide and God says “See, I make all things new.”

Jesus is resurrected, which is the first glimpse of what is here and what is coming. But people still die and bad things still happen. God’s Kingdom is here and now, but not yet. How is that? Paul makes sense of this in Romans 8. He talks about how all of Creation is redeemed in Christ. It has been conceived but it’s not yet born. We are in between the pregnancy and the birth. Yes, new life is coming but we are in the labor pains. It is exciting. Scary. Thought provoking.

Religion makes people do things so that they can be saved. It is a means to an end and that end is ultimately ourselves. Christianity can be made into a religion, but the message of Christ is not religious. If you are asking “How can I not go to hell?” you are asking the wrong question. Christianity is about a gift. It’s about God giving us a redeemed life. You don’t have to believe anything about the end times or rapture. You certainly don’t have to (and can’t) be a good person. You just have to want relationship with God.

“Love that will not betray you
Dismay or enslave you
It will set you free
To be more like the man
You were made to be”

Mumford and Sons “Sigh No More”

We have meaning. Our jobs, environment, life, stuff: it all matters. I’ve outlined how God is redeeming Creation. Now for what it signifies to us. Before Christ, God’s presence on earth dwelled in a very sacred part of the Jewish temple. Humans are sinners and God cannot be among sin because he is perfect. After Jesus, those who believed could now be viewed as clean by God. So, what did God do? I Corinthians 6 says that our bodies are the new temple (this happens in the events of Acts 2).

So, God is redeeming Creation and God dwells in believers. Therefore, God is redeeming Creation through believers. It’s not to say that he needs believers to redeem Creation. It is a gift to us.

The message of the Gospel is Jesus and the implication is that all things are made new. Christians are to carry this message and live out the implication. We are to make all things new. What does that look like? Love your neighbor (everyone, particularly the people you come into contact with) and love God and show it. Love your enemy. Leave things better than you found them: your relationships, your environment, your life, the lives of others. Be nice to the barista even if they don’t deserve it, pick up trash on the sidewalk, excel at your job (that you may not like), play great music, paint a picture. Read Matthew 25. It says to help the least fortunate people. Take what is broken and make it new. Create and restore.

“There’ll be no shelter here
The front lines are everywhere.”

Rage Against the Machine “No Shelter”

I doubt Rage Against the Machine had Christianity in mind, but it’s quite applicable to evangelism. The mission field is wherever you go. It’s not about knocking on doors or running up to strangers and telling them about Jesus. It’s not about bombarding our friends with tracts and Bible verses. It’s about no-strings-attached relationships with people. Jesus loves you, you love Jesus, you love your friends.

Most of my friends are non-Christians. I have found that it’s almost impossible for me to have an in-depth conversation without talking about Jesus. Sometimes they get uncomfortable and I evaluate whether I’m being insensitive or if they are actually too sensitive. I want to push boundaries, but I certainly don’t want to create them. If my non-Christian friends never converted to Christianity I would still love them and treat them the same. It’s no-strings-attached friendship, yet I desperately want them to know Jesus.

The End Times aren’t about the rapture. They aren’t about Postmillennialism or Premillennialism. They are about the Gospel. The Resurrection of the Jesus means new life for everything. It means that when done right things like art, sex, nature, and life are God’s Kingdom breaking through. They are celebration of Christ and when that is realized it truly fulfills us and gives us freedom.

*For the purposes of brevity my point is ultimately watered down, however much of it is expounded on in N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope.

Minnesota Happenings

2011-03-11T01:50:00.000-05:00

The purpose of this blog was basically to express by opinion about art, music, theology, and various other interests in my life. I created another blog strictly for the purpose of keeping friends and family up-to-date on our happenings since we moved so far away. Anyone wanting to know our situation would do well to make their way over. Life's been crazy lately. Got in a car wreck, had frozen pipes, working a lot!

Here it is
http://cowardstwincities.blogspot.com/

The Dark Side

2010-04-03T09:17:00.001-04:00

Back in the 1960s a Yale psychologist named Stanley Milgram began an experiment on memory. In one room he hooked a subject (the learner) up to an electroshock device and in the other room he sat the subject (the teacher) in front of a device that could shock the learner in 15 volt increments up to 450 volts. The teacher then asked the learner a series of questions and if learner got any wrong the teacher was instructed to administer shocks in increasing voltages. When the voltage got to a certain level, the learner would complain that it was too much and eventually go silent altogether. The teacher was instructed to continue.

You, of course, would be relieved to know that the learner was in on the experiment. It wasn’t an experiment in memory at all, and the learner’s electroshock machine was phony. Rather, it was an experiment to see how people responded to orders, even when they had nothing to lose. But don’t get too attached to your sense of relief because over 60% of participants went all the way to 450 volts. Feel free to scour YouTube for videos and Wikipedia for details.

It has been replicated since—though usually to lesser degree—and shown similar results. One such replication occurred quite recently on a faux French TV game show. You can see for yourself: click for video.

64 of the 80 teachers completed the test. 80%. What’s worse is that there was a crowd present cheering on the participant. Not only is one person capable of going all the way, but a crowd could actually enjoy it.

And so, given the pressure of real life, just what are we capable of as humans? Do we believe that people are basically good? Granted most of the participants felt horrible about what they had done, but I don’t think their bad feelings were some sort of remorse about their actions. I think it was much deeper. I think they were horrified at themselves. Very few people are given the chance to face their dark side.

And it’s this dark side of humanity that interests me. That not only can we be pushed to do horrible things, but that we can get caught up in the excitement of it. We have our excuses, we have our theories (“Well, I would never do that!”), and we have our hopes, but at the end of the day we have a much bigger scale version of a real life incident. This experiment proves that the Holocaust is repeatable. On a micro-level it shows what we as individuals are capable of. It shows that we have a nasty bit of us that will simply follow orders or get caught up in the moment. On a macro-level it shows that that nasty bit of us is very accessible and exploitable.

And I don't think it's just accessible and exploitable in the way the Holocaust was. Nazi Germany was a vision of Orwell's totalitarian 1984 future. But I think the real risk is in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World where people are controlled by entertainment. This game show proves that our dark side is easily tapped by our desire for fulfillment and pleasure and today's media can provide that.

Simply believing the right thing is not enough, though it is a good start. And it is not enough to simply go about life being “good.” One must counteract the dark side. One must do good: make the right choices, treat their fellow man and woman with respect (for if we all have this potential in us, then no one person is better than another), help those who can’t help themselves, give even if it hurts. I know what I think these things look like when we practice them. What do you think they look like?

But it's not just how we govern ourselves, but how we let others govern us. Surely you've heard the political one-liners Thoreau's "The best government is that which governs least" and another favorite of mine attributed to Jefferson "When people fear their governments there is tyranny; when governments fear the people there is liberty."

While these quotes are unhealthy in their extremes, I do think there is something to them that rings true. That we can avoid having our dark side exploited if we are aware that we have one and that it easily manipulated. And with that awareness, the choices we make in our political and world views would likely be a bit more conservative. Who we give power to and how much we give matters.

What I've Learned

2009-11-29T23:27:00.004-05:00

Dear Friends and Family,

The Results

Many of you were worried about me this semester as I took on the atheism/agnosticism class at UTC. Before this class I was relatively ignorant on the subject of apologetics, and taking the subject at a secular university from a non-believing professor must have seemed scary to you. It was scary to me, and I confess at times even I flirted with unbelief (atheism/agnosticism). I flirted with giving up. I have never in my life felt so isolated from God. The arguments were challenging and even daunting at times, and I—like everyone else—don’t have all of the answers.

It is in that fact—that I don’t have all the answers—that I found a certain consolation. We can’t always know why God does things, commands things, or let’s bad things happen. We can’t always reconcile our beliefs with science or philosophy, but part of being a Christian is being in a relationship with Christ and knowing that our hope is beyond science and philosophy. That isn’t to say that we should abandon our reason for blind faith, but only realize that all faiths—believing and unbelieving—lack explanation in certain areas. Both atheists and Christians have unanswered questions; the difference is that Christians are in a very deep relationship with a very complex and loving God.

You can stop worrying now. I doubt this will be the darkest challenge that I face in life, but it is one that I believe has bettered me as a person and a Christian. Timothy Keller says a faith without doubts is like a body with no antibodies. If as a child you had chickenpox, the good news is that you are now immune to chickenpox. Thankfully our body is designed in such a way that once our body learns to fight an illness it can guard against it in the future. The bad news is that chickenpox can return in the form of shingles which are much more painful. Our doubts are like chickenpox in that we can eventually master them and guard against them in the future. They are also like chickenpox in that those doubts may lie dormant for a long time and later manifest in a much nastier more painful way. The best we can do is prepare for the storm.

In reality, it turns out the likelihood of me being converted by the class is relatively low. At the beginning of the semester the professor had each student rank their belief on a scale from one to seven. A student who identified as a one was a complete unbeliever and atheist. A student who identified as a four was an agnostic, right in the middle. The sevens like myself were those who considered themselves almost 100% sure that an Ultimate (a god of some sort) exists. My professor identified as a three or four, as he considered himself a skeptic (meaning he believes it is impossible for anyone to know) but also preferred God didn’t exist. He took the same survey from the class at the end of the semester and the number looked much the same. Things shifted a bit between the atheists/agnostics (some twos became ones, etc), but it didn’t appear that any believer had lowered their number. In fact, there was one more seven (presumably from the six category) than there had been at the beginning of the semester.

What I’ve Learned: The Church is Part of the Problem

We read from many unbelievers this semester. Some were nice and diplomatic, others venomous and bitter. Among the unbelievers we read and some of the students I found that most of them had been hurt in some way by the church.

In some cases it was simply that the church didn’t have the answers to their questions. This is why I took this class, not just so I would have the answer for myself, but that I would have an answer to anyone with serious and legitimate questions about faith. Jesus does not allow for a passive faith. Tim Keller also says that the church is a hospital for sinners (Christians and non-Christians alike), not a museum of saints. A church without answers is like a hospital without doctors.

Many had been hurt by the church directly or indirectly. Some were the victims of hypocrisy and self-righteousness on part of members of the church. Others witnessed it and it scared them off. I see people on the street corners with signs that say drunkards and whores go to hell. It’s not difficult to open a book and find a long bloody history in the name of Jesus. It’s all too often we treat sinners like they are the sin. In keeping with Keller’s analogy, we are medics that have been commissioned to heal the least, the lonely, and the lost. To spite the sinner is not only hypocrisy, but it is as if the hospital locked you out because you were sick. It is as we are the task force sent to free the hostages from terrorists, but instead we shoot the hostages.

I could list my sins, but I’m sure you could do it for me. It’s not hard to guess. The real sin is that if I did list my sins I would feel a sort of self-righteous pride in my brutal honesty. I would feel prideful for my own humility. My greatest sins aren’t related to lust, alcohol, drugs, adultery, or murder. My greatest sin is my own pride and how arrogant and self-righteous and hypocritical I am. I can’t even write this with humility. Everything I do right is tainted by my very sin nature. What I’d like to know is how I can walk into a church with a fellow sinner of any type and think I’m in any position to throw a stone. Don’t get me wrong, I do it all the time. I have little faith in people, as if I thought that if everyone in the world were like me it would be a better place. You would think I know better, yet I don’t act like it.

In a sense, the problem with atheists isn’t that they don’t believe as we do, the problem is that the Church has left some very deep wounds. So, when the atheist says they don’t like church because it’s full of hypocrites, I agree. And when they see the preacher on the corner with a sign that says “turn or burn” I’m just as angry as they are. Sometimes I get the silly idea that I’m the doctor in Keller’s hypothetical hospital, but I’m really a just a patient. In a sense, Christians are God’s medics, but in another sense we’re patients.

I think I’ve made the case clear that theology and philosophy are vital. I think obedience, particularly the call to humility is essential. I think if we know the truth then we should be humble. And if we are humble it’s not so hard to love the least, the lost, and the lonely. In a sense, humility seems impossible for us, but in another sense God has credited us with more Grace and Love than we could possibly hope for. If we could spare a fraction of the grace and love, what difference would it make?

I have the keys to open any door
Give all my possessions to the poor
But I don’t know the first thing about love

Moving mountains ain’t no thing to me

Have faith enough to cast them to the sea

But I don’t know the first thing about love

I give my body up into the flames
And never once did I deny your name
But I don’t know the first thing about love

Thrice “Moving Mountains” (I Corinthians 13)

Thanks
Speaking of grace and love, I must thank my friends and family. First, my father, who offered more than just advice in the midst of this semester, but who is also responsible for any good that might be in me. If he hadn't been there, who knows what I would have made of things. Also to my pastors during this time: Jeff, Dale, and Josh. You were and still are patient with me. My father lives six hours away, and Vineyard has more than made up for it. I hope one day your influence will inspire me to bring the Kingdom that much closer. I have to also thank Dr. Brian Ribiero for his patience and his ability to communicate the hard stuff with clarity. I couldn't have asked for a better professor.

I also thank Sam Harris for being a total jerk to Christians in his book Letter to a Christian Nation. In all seriousness, the book shook me at times, and it put me in the pressure cooker. Thanks to Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson for making a very entertaining documentary (Collision, now available on DVD). A big thanks to Van Til and those he inspired like Richard Pratt, John Frame, and my father. A major reference this semester was Timothy Keller's The Reason for God. I'm still reading it and have found it more than a mere handbook for apologetics.

Most of all I have to thank Jesus for such a powerful and compelling story that I couldn't possibly fall out of love. It's not that I could never let go of God, but that He would never let go of me.

There are, of course, countless others: Brad, my wife Brittany, Bud, my family, Vineyard, and others I have forgotten.

A World Without Religion

2009-08-27T18:29:00.003-04:00

As the New Atheism movement gains momentum, philosophers and public intellectuals are making known their strong feelings against religion. No longer passive or content to tolerate religion, the likes of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, et al have launched some of the most venomous attacks against religion. They are quite warranted in their cynical skepticism as many of the modern tragedies are inspired by faith and religion. Furthermore, statistics show that many of the most educated and wealthy nations have a relatively high percentage of atheists and agnostics and this would seem to confirm the Sam Harris notion that utopia is absent of religion. It would also seem that the irreligious groups have cornered the believers, drawing the correlation between religion and destruction. After all, ask one person to name atrocities in the name of religion and seldom is he or she pressed to remember the Crusades, 9/11 terrorists attacks, and other holocaustic examples. Ask the same individual to recall acts of violence—big or small—in the name of atheism and it would seem surprising if they could think of anything at all.

The Christian lens views atheists as malicious and vulgar. This is in-part due to scriptural interpretations that supposedly depict nonbelievers as violent nihilists. It is also due to the philosophical belief that without a god that is good and true that there is no basis for morality or reality. The former is a falsehood as a closer look at the Bible teaches that the human condition in general is violent and nihilist. Their god’s supposed wrath against nonbelievers actually extends to all of humanity (“for all have sinned…”). Of course, it is a debate between the various denominations on how one is made right with God. The latter perception—whether true or false—believes all atheists to be evil. This is obviously hypocritical as religion has been quite the destructive force over space and time. In fact, Sam Harris flips the philosophy on its head and “argues that, unless we renounce faith, religious violence will soon bring civilization to an end.”

Statistics show that nation with a higher concentration of atheists tend to be more educated and wealthy. According to Phil Zuckerman in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Japan are in the top five of the countries with the highest level of atheism. They are also known to be remarkably well off in economy and academics. Sam Harris fantasizes of a utopia with “a religion of reason” in which “We would have realized the rational means to maximize human happiness. We may all agree that we want to have a Sabbath that we take really seriously. [I]t would be a rational decision…We would be able to invoke the power of poetry and ritual and silent contemplation and all the variables of happiness so that we could exploit them…[W]e would have prayer without bullshit.”

Upon taking a closer look at the Contemporary Numbers and Patterns in the Cambridge Companion one finds a rather interesting phenomenon. While Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Japan are in the top five countries with the highest percentage of nonbelievers the number two country is Vietnam. Vietnam remains a peripheral country, so obviously there is a difference. To explain this Zuckerman separates atheism into two categories: “coercive atheism” and “organic atheism”. In coercive atheism, the belief is forced. All such countries— Vietnam, North Korea, Soviet Union, et al—are/were “marked by all that comes with totalitarianism: poor economic development, censorship, corruption, depression, and so on.” In organic atheist states, “nonbelief has emerged on its own… [and] are among the healthiest, wealthiest, best educated, and freest societies on earth.”

Once atheism is institutionalized the violence begins. Just the mention of North Korea brings to mind imprisoned or murdered Christian martyrs, not to mention the nonreligious oppression. Atheism as an institution isn’t so harmless anymore. Though Sam Harris might argue that he wouldn’t intend to institutionalize atheism, it does give one pause to his terminology “the religion of reason.” And even if all of the irreligious public intellectuals fought against the institutionalization of atheism, it has already begun with atheist churches and the so-called New Atheism.

Obviously Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins—no matter how bitter they may be—are physically harmless. As are most Christians. It is the institutionalization of such beliefs—atheism, Judeo-Christian religions, and others—that leads to radicalism and violence, not the beliefs themselves.

It may be argued that there’s a difference: That violence is mandated by scriptures, where as Reason has intrinsic accountability. In some cases this is true. Various religions, including Judaism (and Old Testament Christianity), have supposedly involved God-mandated war and slaughter. I would argue that there is no modern call to violence on part of Jewish or Christian scriptures. Reason has been known to be flawed given a chance. The failure of the Communist system attests to humanity’s tendency to abuse a good thing, and it may even be argued that Russia’s trial in Communism was a natural experiment in Harris’ fantasy. A world without religion, where reason was God, that ended in disaster. Believers and nonbelievers alike engage in irrational criminal behavior sometimes out of desperation, passion, or blatant disregard for the greater good. Sam Harris’ “religion of reason” cannot save humanity.

It is further arguable that reason alone is not anymore self-sustaining than faith. Reason is required to prove that reason exists, and therefore is presuppositional. Of course, it might be argued that I just used reason to prove reason does not exist, but I have not said reason doesn’t exist, only that it is presuppositional. Not all that is presuppositional is unreasonable.

It is not unfair to call Christians to a moral obligation to deinstitutionalize (to one degree or another). The church community is valuable, but the dogma and superstition is rightfully attacked by New Atheists. Right belief in the Bible, God, and Jesus should be no more harmful or unreasonable than the unbelief in those things. Harris and others are legitimate in their call to reason. Blind faith is no longer fair game and Christian evidentialism has failed, but with the rise of New Atheism and the widespread public intellectualism technology has afforded humanity, it is time everyone on both sides came to the table with educated opinions, critical thought, and sharp minds.

References
Phil Zuckerman, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism.
Romans 3:23
Gary Wolf, “Battle for the New Atheism”. - Quite a bit referenced this fantastic article on Richard Dawkins website by Gary Wolf.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,228,Battle-of-the-New-Atheism,Gary-Wolf--Wiredcom

I Don't Know the First Thing About Love

2009-05-11T10:38:00.004-04:00

Most of the time I post music on here because they are great performances and favorite songs of mine. I'm mostly posting this song because I think the lyrics are incredibly relevant and meaningful, particularly to Christians.

Before we view the video there are a couple of things you should know about Thrice and this album. They as one of those bands who screams a lot in their songs. Their most recent two albums were comprised of four parts of the total Alchemy Index: Fire and Water for volume (album) one; Air and Earth for volume (album) two. Fire is an album of heavily distorted guitars and raging drums, Water is thought provoking electronic music (synth, digital beats, etc), Air is a lot of clean tones, and Earth is an acoustic driven album. The following is "Moving Mountains" the first song from the Earth portion of The Alchemy Index.

I speak in many tongues of many men
Argue with angels and they always win
But I don’t know the first thing about love
I prophesize and know all mystery
All living things are opened up to me
But I don’t know the first thing about love
I don’t know the first thing about love

I have the keys to open many doors
Give all my possessions to the poor
But I don’t know the first thing about love
I’m moving mountains and have faith in me
Have faith enough to cast them to the sea
But I don’t know the first thing about love
I don’t know the first thing about love

All other things shall fade away
Love stands alone and still holds sway
All other things shall fade away
Into the ground into the grave

I give my body up into the flames
And never once did I deny your name
But I don’t know the first thing about love
I don’t know the first thing about love

Wasting and burning outFading like a Dead Star

2009-04-18T11:41:00.001-04:00

I'm Getting Sentimental

2009-04-15T17:56:00.002-04:00

Embedding disabled, so to view the video you'll have to go on a trip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z0h1NNk1Ik&fmt=18

April Fools

2009-04-02T10:14:00.003-04:00

Just to remind everyone that there are worse things than having a tattoo, my last year's April Fools joke was that I was voting for Hillary. You can rest easy, I do not have a tattoo at all. Some of you are probably relieved for a couple of reasons:
1) That I didn't get a tattoo in the first place
2) That I didn't get that tattoo

In all honesty, I have no problems with tattoos. My associate pastor is decked out in tattoos and I have immense respect for him. I envy him others who have the wisdom to pick tattoos that not only have meaning, but that he others can still appreciate over time. I'm not sure I could pick out something I would still like even one year down the road.

I'm using his picture without permission, but it's public on Facebook so I hope he doesn't mind. As you can see, my associate pastor is far better at doing the tattoo thing than I am:

If I were to get a tattoo I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a cross. If I did a get a cross it would look a lot cooler than that borderline leopard print in the picture. I also would probably avoid phrases like "You Gotta Have Faith." No offense to the person who got the tattoo, but it is a George Michael lyric that was later adapted by Limp Bizkit. My cross would probably say something like "Semper Reformanda."

In short: I don't have a tattoo, if I did it wouldn't be a cross, and even if it was a cross it wouldn't say "You Gotta Have Faith." I always imagined a tattoo of a lion (like Aslan) would be really cool, but I've never seen a picture I thought would be great to put on my body and I wouldn't really know where to put it.

Well, I'm sorry if I caused anyone any stress. Cathy and Cassie both seemed to have caught on that it was a joke. As an apology please accept this totally awesome video:

The Unveiling

2009-04-01T08:45:00.000-04:00

Hey folks, I know it's been a while, but I've just been so busy I don't know what to do with myself. Over the past month I've been discussing an idea I had with a professional artist and when my tax return came in last week I finally had the money and time to make that idea come true. It's something I've always wanted but never had the guts to do.

Last week after classes I went to Standard Ink where a buddy from my church works. It took a few hours, but when it was all said and done the pain was worth it.

There is nothing in the Bible against tattoos and I felt like getting this would really strengthen my walk as a Christian as a constant reminder to be faithful. I chose the phrase "You Gotta Have Faith" because I felt like it would not only inspire me but the people around me to have faith too.

And don't worry it covers up nicely if need be:

One Thing

2009-03-22T20:59:00.001-04:00

If you watch one video I post on my blog, this is it. Tony Campolo:
<

Keeping Up

2009-03-13T10:22:00.002-04:00

I guess I really don't keep up much with this thing anymore. It's not so much out of neglect as it is a lack of time and even a lack of material as I continue to think about some new ideas. Hopefully, I'll have some new content soon. In the meantime I've added a few links to the right and taken a few away.

Poker

2009-02-28T14:13:00.003-05:00

For those of you who kept up with my blog while I was in India, you know that I was recruited by Bollywood to be an extra in a Portuguese TV series called Equador (the Portuguese word for "equator). I met all of the cast that you see in scenes I'm in, and had a couple of decent conversations with Marco, the main actor. This was filmed in May of 2008 when Daniel Day Lewis' acting in There Will Be Blood was all the rage. You can certainly see the influence.

I finally found the videos to the two scenes I was in. The videos are about 10 minutes long, but the actual scenes are a lot shorter as the videos include multiple scenes. I'm posting them in High Quality, which still isn't that great. They are probably best viewed fullscreen.

This first scene is some sort of party. They failed to capture the beauty of the fort and the scene, but all the same you can get the idea. I'm more prevailent in the next video, but we'll start here:
The scene starts at 3:50.
At 5:05 you can see me enter from the left accompanying a girl in a white dress (she was recruited with me, and was a tourist/backpacker from Canada).
At 6:43 you get a brief glimse at the back of my head and then when the scene cuts you briefly see me walk by.

This is a poker scene. I found it quite funny because everytime they reshot the scene where he lays down four aces he would say "Poker" (as if the game were Uno) in this Daniel Day Lewis voice. From the beginning it does the fort great justice. It was really neat because it was filmed in an area normally blocked from tourist.
The actual scene starts at about 3:45 and I'm in it throughout the scence.
You see me right off the bat at 4:15 as the first guy on the left in the line of three guys (both cool guys I'm Facebook friends with). You see me shake hands quickly with Marco at 4:39.
At the 5:00 mark you get a pretty good shot of me.
At 5:36 I'm in the background as the camera pans.
The scenes cuts out to the ladies, but does come back to the poker game at 7:00.
At 8:05 comes the all-comedic "Poker" line giving away the fact that no body (except us American extras) had a clue how to play poker.
At 8:25 I'm in the back on the left (with a much less-awkward stance) and again on the right-ish at 8:47 (which cuts in and out until the end of the video).

The poker scene abruptly ends, but I can't find a video where it picks back up (the next video in the sequence is unrelated to this scene).

The Harp Guitar

2009-01-02T11:29:00.002-05:00

Captivating indeed. Andy McKee with his "Into the Ocean" piece:

Hey Guys It's Christmas Time

2008-12-25T21:14:00.002-05:00

I hope you've all had a great Christmas. This one of my favorite Christmas songs:
Sufjan Stevens - Hey Guys It's Christmas Time

Happy Something

2008-12-16T12:52:00.003-05:00

This is the one time of the year that most preachers agree. They all stand at their pulpits on Sunday morning condemning the materialists travesty Christmas has become and use that all-to-familiar phrase "the true meaning of Christmas." Yet many of the same pastors would fight the "evils" of materialism in odd—if not childish—ways. Maybe it is because America isn't ready to give up Santa, Christmas trees, or presents, which all have little or nothing to Christ. Maybe our childish ways of keeping "the true meaning of Christmas" help us feel better about our own materialism. Maybe you and I aren't ready to hear that.

Let's talk about the holiday season. You have Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, and a few other holidays all celebrated in this month-long period, yet for as long as I can remember we have always said "Merry Christmas." These days it is important to be politically correct, because the problem with offending someone is not that they are over-sensitive but that you are insensitive. For this reason we say "Happy Holidays." But wait: We have offended the Christians!

This is a dichotomy I get stuck in the middle of every year. As a server I am expected to leave my guests with some sort of holiday oriented valediction, yet I never know what to say. Should I not depart from them with a certain seasonal farewell I would be a Grinch or a Scrooge. What I do say could be as bad as not saying anything at all. Often times I will say "Merry Christmas" and I will be corrected with "Happy Holidays." There are those who simply respect my "Merry Christmas" and in accordance with their own traditions say "Happy Holidays", which I'm fine with. But it's the people who give me glare like a teacher correcting a student (it is quite belittling) that I get that chill in my that I have grossly offended them. The Christmas celebrators do it to. I thought the term "Happy Holidays" was safe, but Christmas celebrators will have nothing of it! Same glare, same chill.

What do we do? Do we simply "Scrooge" ourselves and not say anything? Do we fight the good fight and say whatever it is we believe in. In my pondering I do believe I found the answer. Get over it. That's right, take in a deep breath and stop caring. The whole purpose of the term "Happy Holidays" was meant to not offend anyone. Obviously it does. The whole "true meaning of Christmas" thing means that we are celebrating the birth of Jesus and not some sort of silly victory over the wicked people who don't celebrate Christmas. Why do we bicker so? It truly is childish. Adults respect one another.

400 rupees

2008-12-02T22:24:00.002-05:00

I just want it known I paid ten bucks for a table identical to this one in Udaipur (Rajasthan, India). We bought as a present for friends we met there:

World Market's Stupid Expensive Balaji Folding Table

It's Christmas Time

2008-12-01T08:57:00.007-05:00

In the few weeks before Christmas I am always reminded just how generous and greedy people can really be. I'm pretty sure you've heard it all before. Your pastor probably has a catalog of sermons about Christmas being a time of giving or a time to remember Jesus instead of freaking out over presents or how American consumerism is the devil. I'm not going to tell you that. The truth is, there are varying extremes of those principles and if a person doesn't understand the common "meaning" of Christmas, I can't change their mind.

In pondering exactly what it means to celebrate any holiday I constantly come back to common human decency as the easy answer, which I imagine is a mentality that we could profit from year-round. As a server I could tell a million stories that have happened to both my friends and me. The point is that everyone has bills to pay, a family to feed, and feelings. We'd all rather be somewhere else not being treated like a dog for a substandard tip. I don't know anyone who would still wait tables if they won the lotto. While I use serving as an example, it extends to anyone you come in contact with. The Wal-Mart greeter (please folks, don't run the poor guy over), Starbucks Bistro, Macy's cashier, or McDonald's drive-thru operator (they can't understand a word you say either). All of these people are humans and deserve respect.

As we grow closer the holidays I hope you will consider that giving goes beyond our families. We are to give to the strangers around us. I'm not asking anyone to tip their server $100. It's pretty simple: 20% (after tax) for good service. When a server is tipped what they deserve it cost the customer a couple of bucks (on a $40 bill it's a $2 difference between 15% and 20%), but that is not only the money a good server has earned but it is how that server makes a living. All I'm asking is that we give good servers what we owe them for the services they render.

I expect any human to treat their fellow man or woman with respect, but I particularly expect it out of Christians. Christians are the most feared customers in the restaurant business as they tend to be degrading and poor tippers. I've heard stories about Christians who had the audacity to tell their server they shouldn't be working on Sunday all while sitting at the server's table on Sunday after church. No wonder no one wants to be a Christian: We aren't doing what we're supposed to be doing. On a side note: Tracts are not tips. I can't pay my power bill in tracts.

In short: The holidays aren't just about giving stuff to our family. It's about giving to everyone in our lives. Also, giving isn't just about stuff, but it's about respect and love. For Christians, it's about being Christ-like.

I won't lie, these days restaurants get desperate for help during the busy winter season and hire some real idiots. I can't tell you what to tip them, and while you should respect them, it's no sin to expect mistakes to be fixed. There are a few principles I find really help any server. I dread some of the tables that I get, but I try to put that aside. If you treat a table like they aren't going to tip you, then they aren't going to tip you. If you give a table great service and they don't tip you (or simply tip poorly) then it shows they have no moral fiber and are one of those people who should simply stay home. The server is no longer the bad guy.

Because I'm a Christian and my job requires a lot of human interaction, I think it's really important that I show that I am Christ-like to my tables. I can't proselytize to my tables and I would think it would do more harm than good. Instead, I try to implement "feet-washing" in my every day life. Please know how much I fail at it. Please know I'm not good at it. But when I asked myself as a Christian "How should I treat my tables?" or "How should I treat my coworkers?" I kept coming back to the word "love." Then I asked myself "What does that love look like?" I think that love is really exemplified in the passage where Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. In John 13 Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, which was a practice normally reserved for the lowest of the servants or slaves. I think great leaders and great people alike know what it means to serve.

I know this isn't the most expository or deep thing I've written, nor is it well organized, but I think it makes the case. You would think after 2000 years of "do unto others" we would have figured it out, but we are doomed to be slow to perseverance. Though controversial and possibly overrated, Che Guevara has many great quotes he may or may not have said. Even still, this quote—which is attributed to Che—really struck me: "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, you are a comrade of mine." Fight injustice with righteousness even if it hurts, because Christ suffered to stop the greatest injustice of all.

No BellsNo whistles

2008-11-24T21:31:00.002-05:00

NBC increasingly shows absurd amounts of commercials for Rosie O'Donnel's new show. I'm not superstitious, but I figured I'd do everyone the favor of refraining from posting any links or pictures. I also thought I'd do the world the common courtesy of telling them that if you see anything that looks like Rosie, it probably is. Whoever at NBC decided to do this is an idiot. They are ruining their career. We don't want to see it. On top of this, they are showing the commericals for it during one of the worst episodes of Heroes ever. Seriously: Why do I try?

Dear Heroes,You suck and I still watch you

2008-11-17T21:24:00.002-05:00

Not that you actually read it, Heroes, but it's not like anything I wrote wasn't common sense. With each minute of your newest episode I kissed reconciliation away. Just stop erasing memories, taking powers, going in circles, expediting people to other continents, and well...just stop.

Over the Hills and Far Away

2008-11-12T13:49:00.002-05:00

Sorry for all of the videos lately. It may not have much substance to you, but I love this stuff:

The Ghost of Tom Joad

2008-11-11T14:06:00.000-05:00

Bruce Springsteen and Tom Morello:

Remember Remember the 5th of November

2008-11-05T00:05:00.000-05:00

Happy Guy Fawkes' Day

Casting the Ballot

2008-11-04T15:17:00.011-05:00

Perhaps it is because I am young, but each election seems to be more relevant and important than ever. With that has come more media bias (or even worse media bias) and candidate trash talk than ever. In an economic crisis, drawn out wars, and increasingly unconstitutional government system who we elect is so crucial that the next president could be one of the most influential presidents in American history. I don't claim to be the most educated person in politics, and as you'll soon find, I don't claim to know all that much. Several topics have come to my attention lately and I think they all kind of tie into one general point: Are we asking the right questions? First of all, "Are we asking the right questions?" may very well be the most important question we can ask and it is one that is seldom considered.

I've heard several family and friends state that they simply can't see how anyone would vote Obama. Just looking at a few of the most recent Democratic candidates—the two-dimensional Al Gore, sketchy used car salesman John Kerry, or either of the Clintons—I can see why any Democrat would jump at the feet of Obama. Let's face it: The guy is the best candidate the Democrats have had in several elections.

On top of that the nation is increasingly disgruntled with conservative hypocrisy. It doesn't take the Drudge Report or Limbaugh to be a hypocritical conservative. While "hypocritical conservative" might be a strong phrase, don't think I don't apply it to myself. The moralists are anti-gay marriage under some mythical assumption that the government is to protect the sanctity of marriage. Where was that "sanctity of marriage" when 50% of married Christians were filing for divorce? What are we really protecting here? Furthermore, conservatives refuse to compromise through civil unions. Civil unions would open up more than just committed relationships: They would create a new sister market to marriage. People would be having civil unions as well as disolving them—presumably at 50% or more. Both are expensive and would potentially put more money into the economy, which is something we could use right now.

And there's another thing, my fellow conservatives: We have dropped the ball on abortion. Many of us consider abortion a lost cause. It's not because Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act, but because most conservatives are no longer truly "pro-life." If for one second we think that getting a mother to have her child instead of abort it is a complete victory, we would be mistaken. Are we merely pro-birth or truly pro-life? The same people who preach only abstinence and adoption without taking a good, hard look at the broader picture and what other measures might be put forth in the name of Life might ultimately leave the teen mother—albeit unintendedly—to her own destructiveness. It is time we became realists and start taking things like adoption, birth control, sex, and life seriously.

One of my sociology professors mentioned to me (in a private conversation, not to the class) that some think abortions will decrease with Obama's policies. This is because Obama wants to integrate a more realistic sex education plan and wants to make birth control more readily available (a boost in pharmaceuticals would also probably help the economy). Both of those ideas have been implemented in European countries and have been widely successful in reducing teen pregnancy and promiscuity.

Will we be content to cast the ballot on our idealism, or are we truly invested in the Constitution? As you know, I think mixing religion and government is a farce, but I think any self-respecting American will still hold his or herself to voting for righteousness (even in the non-spiritual sense) and voting against injustice. Our government has been corrupted on every level imaginable. Our justice and court system has been infiltrated in the name of political agendas, the legislative branch is busy using our tax dollars on prostitutes, and our executive branch goes unrestrained. The checks and balances are gone. The federalism is gone.

I see a left wing that believes in a bigger government. They want to enlarge a corrupt system with our money. They want to tell us what to do with our money, and it may involve funding things we don't believe in. I see a right wing that doesn't care about the economy, the environment, or the poor.

So, just who did I vote for? Well, I've tried to put my views in a nutshell. You know I'm pro-life, and consider myself even more pro-life than your average conservative. You know I don't like big government because I think their power has already corrupted them. I believe in a non-convoluted, fair, and straight-forward tax system. I believe corporations have too much power in our government. I believe that things like national health-care are unconstitutional and do more harm than good. I don't think that Obama or McCain fits this view. I'd even say, my biggest problem with this election is not the candidates, it is the Republican and Democrat parties that bother me most.

So, we find ourselves choosing the lesser of two evils. I don't really see all that much of a difference. Where one is lacking the other is not. They don't seem all that different to me. Both believe in a big government in different ways. I'm not sure I could in good conscience elect either of these men to the office of president. It's allegedly a horrible thing to vote third party, but I'm not so sure that there is anything wrong with it.

First of all, our current election process disgusts me. It encourages the corruption. John McCain hardly seems like the same person after this election has chewed him up and spit him out. It means your vote makes little or no difference. They say that if I vote third party I'm taking away the vote from the lesser of the two evils, yet is voting third party in spite of this reason any more wrong than the system that prohibits it? Because I spite a corrupt system, I am accountable for the casting a vote for the "bad guy"? I will not take responsibility for the electoral system's flaws. In fact, I will stand proud that I voted for what I believe in, instead of settling for less. It's time America stopped settling for less. If we all vote Democrat or Republican for this reason, we will never break free from the system. This system perpetuates an election in which the two parties aren't really all that different.

I went to GlassBooth.org and I looked closely at each candidate. I even considered Nader. I carefully read Obama's stances on each issue and his quotes regarding them. I looked at the vice presidential candidates. On top of that I've listened to nothing but NPR on the radio for the past three or four months. I've read various articles (thanks to Brad) at RealClearPolitics.com. I've watched YouTube videos. After all of this, there was a point where I thought I might even abstain from voting because I didn't feel like I fit into the Constitutional requisites for voting as being educated enough to make a decision.

As you may know, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. I don't stand by the (pro-life) libertarian position as a permanent solution to the problems in America, but I see it more as chemotherapy for a cancer. Chemotherapy is not something a cancer patient needs permanently, they only need it until the cancer is eliminated. I saw that hope in Ron Paul. He seemed to be an honest politician (as much as one can be, anyway) who genuinely cared about the American public. His policies seemed to make sense in terms of my own convictions. He stood by the Constitution and small government. It was something I could believe in. Ron Paul has gone on to endorse Bob Barr.

To me, Bob Barr comes across as a bit self-absorbed. Perhaps it's not intentional, but sometimes it rubs me the wrong way. In spite of that, he is well spoken and I agree with him on just about every issue. In a state like Tennessee, where McCain is a sure win, it doesn't actually hurt the conservatives (or liberals for that matter) if I "throw my vote away" on an independent party. Perhaps in another state it would be different, but in this case, everybody wins. I can vote with a clean conscience and still not throw my vote away anymore than I was before. Bob Barr it is.

Future Glory

2008-11-03T10:18:00.011-05:00

This sermon blew me away to the point I believed it would be great to share it. It pretty much sums up a lot of the things I've been trying to say. Josh is not only a gifted worship minister at the Vineyard here in Chattanooga, but he is also a great speaker. His message this past Sunday (11.02.08) is a very inspiring summary of the things on my heart. Though I tend to be a bit long-winded in my writing, I usually don't post lengthy media clips. Your time is valuable. With that in mind, I encourage any Christian to consider this recording as a great use of their time.

(posted with permission; I've been having problems embedding this. If it is not listed as"Future Glory" by Josh Gott please click the small X in the top right and see if that remedies the situation. If that doesn't work, let me know)

Blanche

2008-11-01T14:02:00.003-04:00

moar funny pictures

Ladies and Gentlemen

2008-10-30T16:18:00.001-04:00

I give you Stevie Ray Vaughan:

Cover of Jimi Hendrix's "Voodoo Child"

Come on Guys.Really?

2008-10-28T14:26:00.003-04:00

Well I heard there was a secret chordThat David played and it pleased the Lord

2008-10-23T22:14:00.006-04:00

As I posted a couple of days ago, I have wanted a Bill Lawrence Swampkaster(T) Telecaster-style guitar. After spending over an hour at Rick's Guitar Room yesterday experimenting with the Swampkaster, a couple of other guitars, and a couple of amps I decided to buy it. I'm certainly proud to have it as a new addition to my setup.

It sounds and plays beautiful. Classic telecaster tone, noiseless single-coil pickups, beautiful cleans, sexy overdrive, and over-the-top growling and thumping distortions.

(more pics here)

(sound clip here)

jeff buckley's "Hallelujah":

Jon Stewart for President (or something like that)

2008-10-18T14:57:00.002-04:00

Many thanks to my good friend Brad for putting this video on his blog. I have seen it before, but it's just too great not to rewatch and then post myself:

Dear Heroes: Stop it.

2008-10-17T11:27:00.001-04:00

Dear Heroes,

Once upon a time I watched the first season of the television series Heroes. While my heart was dedicated to other classics such as Arrested Development and Lost, I was quickly taken in by this new brand of TV. Heroes created a complex and interwoven story of likable protagonists, intimidating villains, and intense action. Each episode drew me in even more and pretty soon I was addicted to the show. I finished the first season with a sense of accomplishment, feeling inspired as if I had just completed watching one of the greatest epics of our time. I intensely awaited the second season to find out what would happen to my favorite characters. I was disappointed. The first episode of the third season convinced me that recovery was possible, only for the last couple of episodes disappointing me to the point of anger. With this in mind, I’ve made a list for you, the creators (contains spoilers):

1) Stop trapping my favorite characters on other continents. In season two Peter, the great hero of the first season, was gallivanting in Ireland with a case of amnesia almost as reminiscent of an episode of Remington Steele. Hiro, almost as important as Peter, relocated to historic Japan in a rather boring and tedious story. By the third season we’ve dispatched Matt to Africa, which is basically a more complicated and less-believable version of the story of Isaac in the first season. Take drugs, paint the future, stop the future, but this time in Africa with a cop who can read minds. Riiiiiiight.

And don’t disembody them either. Just cut it out. Enough of your characters are totally different people now without the body change, and the Peter being trapped in “White-Power Bill” is like something out of a sitcom.

2) Stop killing people and bringing them back. In dealing with an epic story you run a great risk of being nothing more than an action-sci-fi soap opera. If I wanted that, I would watch Dark Shadows reruns. I saw what you did in the beginning of the third season with Nathan. Claire tries to save him and they say no, for some really stupid reason. Of course, Nathan heals anyway. If that doesn’t ring soap opera, I don’t know what does. It’s predictable, pointless, and convoluted.

3) Time travel is overrated. The closest explanation to the time travel paradox (and we all know there is one, you aren’t fooling anyone) is from Michael Criton’s Timline, and that movie went straight to the bargain bin. It was a nice touch in the first season with its minimalism. Now, it basically is the first season rewritten with more time travel. First it was “I painted the future and we have to stop it”, then the “I went to the future now we have to stop it”, and now the “I’m from the future and we have to stop it.” Having multiple Peters is just pointless anyway.

4) Not only have you taken my favorite characters to other continents, trapped them in the future, disembodied them in “White Power Bill”, and killed them and brought them back but you have totally changed their character. To name a few: Sylar, Mohinder, Hiro, Ando, Peter (present and future), and Claire (she’s now nothing more than a typical two-dimensional flawed hero, which is only magnified in her future version).

The primary person I’m really ticked about is Sylar. "Oh hey guys, Sylar here. I used to love to scalp my victims, eat their brains, steal their powers, and use them to steal more powers. I decided to settle down, have a kid, and bake him waffles." Don’t think you can get away with this with those time travel shenanigans! I saw it, it happened, and you can’t erase that. Giving Peter Sylar’s power? Even worse idea. Peter from the present is now botching up things like Peter from the future. I couldn’t be more unenthusiastic about the lack of creativity in this concept.

Mohinder? I saw Jeff Goldblum in The Fly: Enough said.

5) Some of your characters suck, and for some reason they get more screen time. Take Niki for instance. She played her role in the first season, but I was so relieved when she got blown up in the second season. We all saw Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, and we all know Ali Larter is playing the same exact character, and we all know she’s not very good at it. Now she’s back in the third season as a “clone”, which is scary, but one was really more than enough.

I know you like to introduce new characters, but Maya was too much. She’s annoyingly overemotional, never actually does anything (and if she did it would be annoying and overemotional), so she’s pretty much pointless. I seriously doubt anyone really likes her character. On a side note, I know she’s pregnant by Mohinder (by the time you read this it may be common knowledge).

6) Be minimalist on the characters you keep and the characters you add. Pretty soon the cast is going to look like the crew on Extreme Makeover Home Edition. You have a great set of characters with Nathan, Peter, Mohinder, Sylar, etc. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

7) Ask yourself, “If this never happened would it make a difference?” because if you’re just going to reverse it the next episode or whatever, then what’s the point? The after-effects are usually more two-dimensional character play. Not necessary.

I’ve thought pretty hard about all of this, and I hope it makes a difference (it won’t). I’ve watched so many epics like Star Wars (prequels) and Lost go down the drain. I care about Heroes and would hate for that to happen to you. Be thankful you have dedicated fans that keep you in check. It’s your creation and you can do what you want, but you want it to be good right? Now that I’ve made you mad, let yourself calm down, and then fix your story. If it makes you feel better here’s what you’ve done right:

1) Epic first season. Nestle yourself in with George Lucas as one of the most creative minds the entertainment industry has been fortunate enough to witness. It was artistic, don’t forget that! You are truly underrated.

2) If you want to keep Sylar working for Angela, do it. I loved the part of the episode where he got the sexy suit and still ate a brain here and there. It was totally cool (in the same way villains like Darth Vader are totally cool). He’s still bad but helping the bad guys. Don’t forget he’s designed to be the antithesis of Peter, but even Spiderman and Venom teamed up once.

3) Noah is awesome. He’s the coolest guy with glasses since Gordon Freeman. The more he gets the bad guys the better.

4) Nathan is still in character and I love how he wrestles with the specter of Linderman.

5) Angela: the more the merrier. She’s a great “villain” and very convincing. You have a great character and actress on your hands.

For Sale

2008-10-12T16:26:00.008-04:00

After a while we just stopped using the Nintendo Wii. We were taken in by novelty of a video game that made working out fun, but soon the sparkling white Wii Fit no longer held our interest (one day I will get this sentence right). I knew that if we turned it on it would ask us why we hadn't worked out in so long, we avoided it even more, hoping one day to put it to good use. Basically, we're lazy, and if you're not...well...go for it, because it's truly a great concept. Then there was the element of price. I had paid $350 for a work out machine, utilizing few other features. In my free time I neglected the Wii for internet surfing and guitar playing, knowing that if I invested too much time into video games Brittany would cast stares of jealousy.

And then there was Rick's Guitar Room, a small privately owned guitar shop that caught my eye on the way from school. Rick has a used Bill Lawrence Swampkaster in the three tone sunburst that caught my eye. The trade off seemed simple.

eBay auction for the Wii
eBay auction for the Wii Fit
eBay auction for Dance Dance Revolution: Hottest Party for the Wii

There's also currently talk about selling my sitar as it's only gotten about 30 minutes of play total since I brought it back from India in June. That said, I'm not into decorations that expensive when Brittany and I have higher priorities.

Swampkaster....

Shouts From the Top of a Mountain: The Beginnings of a Mission Statement

2008-09-29T17:56:00.013-04:00

I. Introduction
If you have read this blog, it's probably pretty obvious that I have a heart for God. The more I talk with my close friends the more I realized that I want to make a change. Change is a funny thing in that it can be good, bad, big, or small. It can mean different things to different people. When I say "change," I mean something big. When I say "big," I don't mean world-changing: I mean Kingdom-changing.

Not to be a downer, but I am of the opinion that a lot of things about this world are really temporary. That's not to say that they aren't important, but they are temporary. The stuff we love is relatively insignificant, considering that one day it will all deteriorate into dust. Of course, it's not just stuff, but people too. We grow old and die and if we are fortunate enough to have a legacy it's usually a convoluted mess of historical speculation. Maybe Achilles will never be forgotten, but even if he isn't his contribution to society is negligible at best.

I also believe that the earth is in the process of restoration. While many of the material things and people of our world come and go, the world is in a process by which God is bringing his Kingdom very near. I do think that those "negligible" things are contributing and matter, but my point stands that our purpose is beyond the temporary material world. Our purpose rests in the lasting [coming] Kingdom of God. I think this featurette on N.T. Wright makes this point much better than I have.

When I say I want to make a big change in the Kingdom I mean that I'd like to cut to the heart of the problems in our current world by contributing to the restoration of God's Kingdom on Earth. I not only believe in this as the most influential change I could make with my life, but that this is the purpose at the heart of every Christian. In many ways, I feel like I'm condensing an already convoluted idea I have, but that's part of why I bring it here. The more this idea grows and burns in me, the more I'm coming to terms with the fact I'm going to have to start small to go big.

II. Disclaimer

In a disclaimer, as much for my own humility as your piece of mind, I would be content with whatever God wants. For all I know, His desires for me will make small impacts that may or may not lead to big things. I must also say that I would be content for whatever changes I do stir in my lifetime to be anonymous. For I long to please God, not for my own gain, but for His own glory. I cannot prove my own humility, nor would I suppose that even I can stay true to it. Ultimately, I am constantly forced to remind myself that my heart doesn't—or at least oughtn't—burn for my own glory.

III. There are Those who Don't Care

I'm starting to think there are two root causes of all of the problems in the church. The first is, I see a lot of the Church—particularly in America—as lukewarm. It seems there's a sense in which Christianity is just another one of those commodities we can keep in our pocket for when we need it. I assure you I'm as (if not more) guilty of this than anyone. Some do not know they are lukewarm, so they cannot choose to act; yet, I know I am lukewarm yet ignore it most of the time. We Christians go to church on Sunday morning only to have a personal feel-good party during the service. We give our offerings expecting riches in return (and shame on the preachers who teach this). We go out into the world and all too often live like strangers to God.

From this lukewarm mentality seems to stem the feel-good mentality. It is great to feel an emotional connection with God, yet to do so without rhyme or reason should scare us. It’s hard to say exactly what the balance is, but it is apparent to me that those like Todd Bentley, who would use emotionalism in the name of Christianity for his own fame and fortune, are condemnable.

In John 15 Jesus says,

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because servants do not know their master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. This is my command: Love each other."

The gravity of this Scripture goes deep, as we see that those who truly believe in Jesus do more than simply believe that he existed, but they believe in Him. In the latest Batman film, The Dark Knight, Harvey Dent is elected District Attorney of Gotham City. The mass internet campaign for the film featured several pictures of Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhart) with the slogan "I Believe in Harvey Dent". I think in many ways that's how we're to believe in Jesus. Jesus said if you love him you will obey him. He said through obedience we will bear fruit, and to bear fruit we must love each other. I believe in that purpose. I believe in Jesus in the sense that I believe he is not only who he said he was, but also that what and who he was is something so central and core to the Christian purpose that I have complete faith and love for who and what he is.

It is through that faith and love that a fire burns in me so much that I'm not content to ignore God when it is convenient. God is not a convenient God. As C.S. Lewis described Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia: "He is not a tame lion." Josh Gott, the worship pastor at the church I attend, once said in a sermon, "You can either believe in a dead and safe god, or you can believe in a living and dangerous god." Faith in a dead and safe god lacks purpose. Faith in a dangerous god brings about a very complex, yet beautiful, purpose to our lives.

How will we represent this god? Will we treat him as a distant acquaintance or like someone we love? In Searching for God Knows What, author Donald Miller compares our relationship with God to the relationship of Romeo and Juliet in Shakespeare’s play. Obviously, when Donald Miller or I say we desire an intimate relationship with God, we’re not talking about sleeping together. Though I am intimate with my wife sensually, I think another aspect of marriage exemplifies the intimacy Miller and I are talking about. My wife and I are both servers at Macaroni Grill and a lot of times new people will comment how evidential it is that we love each other. They mention that when I introduce Brittany to them, that I seem excited and thrilled to have the privilege of introducing her as my wife. Sometimes it’s conscious and sometimes it’s subconscious, but the truth is I love my wife. As a result I don’t flirt with other girls or act like I don’t care about her. In fact, I imagine most people would say that I would do anything for Brittany, and it is true.

Because I love Brittany, I am true to her. In the same way, because of our love for God, would we not be true to him? I believe in Jesus.

IV. There are Those Who Care About the Wrong Things

The second problem I have with the Church is that those who care, who aren’t lukewarm, all to often seem to care about the wrong things. Perhaps it is because of my exposure to legalistic and fundamentalist Southern churches or maybe it is my disdain for the Westboro Baptist Church's hate movement, but these sorts of things seem to be doing more harm than good. In another part of Donald Miller's Searching for God Knows What, he discusses that sometimes our reaction towards non-Christians or even fellow Christians is like shooting the captives in a hostage situation. The comparison is all too appropriate.

I heard that renowned theologian Dr. Richard Pratt was once an atheist/agnostic hippie that walked into a church just to see what was going on. I'm not sure of the details and can't seem to find an internet resource, but from what I understand Richard (he comically refused to be called Dr. Pratt on the multiple times I've met him) and some of his hippie buddies decided to go to church one morning and sat on the front row. Many people in the church conspired to kick them out for their dirty appearance, but the pastor insisted they be allowed to stay. Richard converted to Christianity, at least partly out of this experience.

When the or immodestly dressed woman enters the doors of our church, are we to turn them away? Should we even attempt to correct them? If we are to correct them who will do it? "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone" (John 8). It is no witness to criticize those who are non-Christians. When someone who is a non-Christian enters a church, shouldn't we just be glad they are there? And if they are young Christians, should we just be happy that they want to persevere in their community?

Cultivation of the maturity of our fellow believers—new or old—is vital. This is the very principle within sanctification: that in our love for Christ we would want to be more like him. The community of believers should be committed to helping and loving others, but it may not be the most helpful or loving thing to be so critical. There's a time and there is a place. While immodest clothing may be an issue within the church, a couple of folks in jeans and a t-shirt in itself isn't going to cause anyone to sin.

Furthermore, I'm not so sure God really cares if you're wearing jeans and a t-shirt so much as he cares that the five thousand dollars spent on a suit might have gone to better purposes (and for that matter, the limousine the pastor rode church might be a little excessive).

For non-Christians or immature Christians, it's not so important what kind of church they go to, what day they worship on, which translation of the Bible they read, or what political party they are affiliated with: Those things are so negotiable. Belief in those things will save nobody. I came across this website called The Reformation Online, which is a convoluted mess of historical, religious, and political conspiracy theories that has little or nothing to do with Martin Luther. On this website Niall KilKenny claims the "password to Heaven" is "blood", yet he goes on to talk about how we need to get it straight which order the crosses were in when Jesus died. Is that really important to the growth of a new Christian or someone asking about Christianity? It is no wonder people think Christians are nut-jobs.

It seems like we're so caught up in archaic methodology and tradition that we miss a lot of the really important stuff Jesus talked about. We're so caught up making sure everyone else has it right that we don't bother to exercise our own convictions. As I've said before, we are so caught up in being right we stop doing right.

Sometimes I hear people say "well my god wouldn't..." or "my god would...". Just who is that god? I think we have a lot of presumptions about what we think god is. We try to make him our own. God is God whether we believe in him or not, and his nature is his own whether we understand or conceive it.

V. Summary of Two Problems and Solutions

It seems that on one hand, there are those in the church that are lukewarm. They believe in a convenient and dead god and are therefore as good as dead themselves. Then there seems to be those who live to judge and hurt others. How long will we miss the point? How long will we be Pharisees? Let us not be hypocrites because we are Christians, let us be Christians because we are hypocrites (it's possible someone else said this first). Let us lay down our pride and love one another. Jesus didn't lead the disciples with a rigid set of commands and condemnations. He washed their feet. Ultimately his servitude was the way by which the disciples understood and followed him.

I once went to a family reunion and met one of my great uncles for the first time. Our first conversation probably couldn't have gone worse. He didn't take interest in me as his middle-school aged nephew, but instead preyed on the fact that my father was a Presbyterian (PCA) minister. He criticized my dad for believing in predestination and paedobaptism. Considering I was ignorant to those issues at the time, it was completely inappropriate of him to attack my father the way he did. He didn't change my mind, he made me resent his own beliefs. If fundamentalism is so great, then show me. Don't beat me with it, show me. If Christianity is so great, should we not do the same? Stop worrying about everyone getting everything right, stop worrying about being perceived as cool, but worry about being perceived as good and just and loving in the eyes of God.

VI. Conclusion: How Does this Look?

I wish I could broadcast this all over the world, from the atop of the highest mountain. I wish God would speak it through me and into everyone who reads this or meets me. Alas, humility calls me to admit that even I am a convoluted mess. Even I have probably gotten a great deal wrong. In this very post, I have probably misrepresented God and Christianity grossly. If I have done so, I am open to correction. If I am wrong, may my words fall on deaf ears.

What I do know is that I offer my own convictions with all of the humility I can muster. It is only through God that I can even claim that I wish to be humble. When I think about the Church, I think it needs a new reformation. Martin Luther said semper reformanda ("always being re-formed"), I am coming to the conclusion that too many Christians are using the Church for their own agendas. I also see Christians condemning others for sins no worse than their own. I see a Christianity that is inseparable from Islam in some ways and inseparable from the pre-Reformation Catholic church.

In Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport, author Richard Mouw talks about "doing something" in terms of community activism. He comments that prayer really is "doing something" and possibly one of the most important ways we can make a difference. Mouw talks about Christians’ ability to petition God and I found an interesting case of this in Jeremiah 20. Here we have a prophet who is warning Israel of God's judgment, yet they don't listen. I wouldn't suppose that I am a prophet or even enlightened by God. Though I pray that God will use me for his purposes and not my own, I have no way of knowing if what I say is as He would have it. What I will say is that I can relate to Jeremiah in a few ways. I believe that my capablities might be used, through God, in great things for his Kingdom. I hope my current convictions are the beginning of great things for his Kingdom. I also see Jeremiah struggling with his own convictions:

"But if I say, "I will not mention his word
or speak anymore in his name,"
his word is in my heart like a fire,
fire shut up in my bones.
am weary of holding it in;
indeed, I cannot."

I don't suppose this post will change anything, but I hope and pray that it changes everything. I do believe the Church is changing. I see denominations like Vineyard who have created mass movements in the direction of Love. I have friends and family who share my passion. I hope and pray we are all a part of the solution. I hope we will rescue the hostages.

I Didn't Forget You

2008-09-23T21:44:00.003-04:00

It's been a while since a post, but life has been somewhat busy and when it's not I'm usually not up for writing. Alas, my recreational time has been dedicated to Spore, which is possibly the anthropologist's dream, and while it feels like an immense waste of time (I know, Brad, I should be reading Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport), it's quite the relaxer.

I've got something in mind for a future post. We'll see if it comes to fruition, otherwise I at least owe you this:

Damien Rice - I Remember

The Hit List

2008-09-11T23:57:00.003-04:00

I know what you're thinking, I'm going to post a long list of everyone I wish would die, because that's what depraved 12 year old goth kids post on their blogs. You'll have no such luck, because this is not my hit list (I don't have one, sicko), but it's the United States' list. So, we're (like) on bad terms with:

North Korea (although, their leader might have been dead a couple of years)
Afghanistan
Iran
Iraq
Venezuela (I'm sure Hugo's a nice guy, but...)
To name a few

So, I was thinking, could we be on the verge of committing a Napoleon/Hitler and basically having it real good and then botching it up with a bunch of a people at once on at least 3 different fronts...

I'm not saying we should be scared...yet...

(PG-13)

The Threat

2008-09-09T20:53:00.003-04:00

I think I've made the argument quite enough that government and religion don't mix, and most of the time I'm quick to point out how inconsistent religion is with the American government. If we base our laws on Christianity, will we then say "no other gods"? Anyway, I have kind of come to a different reasoning. It's not that I think my other logic on the matter is inadequate, but I had a professor recently bring to light another side to the story.

So far, I've argued that religion effects the government adversely because they shouldn't be integrated, but I think there's another side. Doesn't government adversely effect religion? I guess "religion" is a strong word, because I'm particularly referring to the Christian church. It just doesn't seem the Christian god is into politics. I'm sure that to God there's a right and wrong answer in just about every political gray area, but when they tried to make Jesus king, he didn't just refuse, he ran away. That's pretty serious stuff.

It just seems that if Christianity had a hand in the government that it would adversely affect the religion more than anything. First of all, we can't agree on anything. Like, sure there's this Jesus guy, but we can't even agree what parts of the Bible are true, much less where they belong in the government.

I know this isn't a great thought out thing or whatever, but it seems that Jesus really had something different in mind for the Kingdom of God that didn't involve the Federal Government. The worship pastor at my church, Josh, made the point in his sermon Groundtaking that there's more to Christianity. Josh makes the point using Hebrews 10:18-25 that we are free from sin, have a hope that our world is becoming more like God's Kingdom, and therefore need to stop worrying about our sins and other peoples' sin and concentrate on doing good. Do we really need to convolute an already broken Christianity with a broken government? Is that what will build the Kingdom of God?

The Difference in Japan and the USA

2008-09-01T13:21:00.000-04:00

If only we were so lucky.

Go Green or Die...oh, wait

2008-08-31T17:03:00.002-04:00

It seems going green is all the rage these days. There's a massive movement for reducing our eco-footprint and actually giving back to the environment. Green is increasingly a fashionable color. I don't doubt that twenty years from now we'll look back on it like we do VHS: Well it got the job done, but I'm glad that's over. The point is, either of our presidential nominees will do anything for a vote, and people will fall for it like a David Blaine magic trick. I might trust McCain on his environmental policies, but how do I know he isn't just saying all that to get votes? After all, that seems to be the only reason he chose Palin. Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see.

I post this for two reasons:

1) I think it's time we demythologized green. When a person calls their product "green", "eco-friendly", or "organic" and it's not that's risking the planet for capital. Money is great and maybe I'm missing out because I don't cheat people out of their money, but seriously: If I'm dead because of global warming, how am I going to spend all of that money? And if this is all to get the white, black, female, republican, male, democrat, Nazi-Hitler-youth, gay, Christian, or whatever vote then there's a good chance you'll be in the same boat. And guess what? If you buy that product or vote for that guy...well...here's the link this is all about (rated PG-13).

2) Speaking of demythologizing, here's a web site (and there are dozens like it) to help you demythologize. You're probably wondering what my ecological footprint is (if you're not you didn't go to the web site), but you really don't want to know. Let's just put it this way, it would make most people feel better about themsevles.

I'm not green, and going green cost more money than I have. Maybe if we tried to actually save the earth instead of making money off saving the earth we could actually make a difference.

The Books of The Bible

2008-08-26T09:06:00.003-04:00

Quite some time ago Brad gave me a copy of The Books of The Bible (TBoTB). Being a big fan of Today's New International Version (TNIV) translation of the Bible and the idea behind TBoTB format I was pretty happy to have a copy on hand. It wasn't until a few months later, after talking with Brad that I realized that it was more than just novelty. The format basically took the chapter, verse, and title headings out of the Bible. There's a quick reference at the top each page that tells you the general area of what book you're in, but I couldn't flip through the Gospel of Matthew and specifically find chapter eight verse twelve (although the notes on the page will give you the general area, for example "Matthew Chapters 8:5-10:12"), nor could I find the Beattitudes based on passage headings. The translation is TNIV, but the books are more chronological and the poetry of the Psalms is seamless as the chapters and verses are absent (they are still numbered).

If you think about it the concept behind the format of the TBoTB is so much more amazing than a novelty Bible. In the last week or so I've corresponded with a representative from TBoTB and all I can think is "Wow! This is really something, I wish everyone used this!" I mean, there are of those of you who may not hurdle the concept, but here's something that actually encourages us to read more! There are no more boundaries in The Bible. All of the sudden we're not referencing certain lines out of a movie, but we're actually watching the whole thing.

What does this all mean for TBoTB? First of all, it seems that the format would lend more to the story, allowing it to flow without spoilers or interruptions. It allows us to find the context of a passage without blinders. It also encourages us to continue reading as there's no clear-cut place to stop. Without the "blinders" you might decide to stop reading at the end of a passage, where it would make sense to stop.

The format gives a truly new view of Scripture that would seem like it would really encourage more reading. It's like when we read a novel. The chapters are designed to divide up certain portions of the novel. Sometimes the chapter ends after a significant event or a chapter signals a significant event (a plot twist, for instance), if I read a chapter a day of Lord of the Rings, I'll probably find it well paced. I'm not sure the chapters in the Bible ever allow that. If anything the chapters are distracting and encourage us to stop in places we might normally keep reading. With the elimination of these chapters we pursue the story on our own terms (or the writer's/God's) instead of reading the "chapter-a-day" just to make ourselves feel better about our devotional life. It takes the Bible from the man-made institution and puts in a way we might read a good non-fiction book. I've never attended a book-club meeting, but I pretty sure Oprah doesn't have a single book on her famous booklist that's divided into verses.

One of the things that bothers me about Scripture is how condensed it is. I wonder sometimes if the Sermon on the Mount may not have been a bit longer. Like maybe Jesus said "blessed are the meek..." and then elaborated on it. It helps not to look at the Bible like a bullet-point list and more like a dialog or story. Jesus was not only a really nice guy, but he had to have been a great leader. He was probably charismatic, entertaining, and insightful. Also, there's plenty of poetry in the Bible. Once again, the chapter/verse format takes away from the very personal and deep things that happen in the Bible. All of the sudden we've equated God's creation to a card-catalog of catchphrases (which we mostly misquote anyway) and morals. In the same way you can appreciate nature for its scientific and intellectual properties, you can also appreciate nature from your front porch with a cold beer (or lemonade if you prefer) and no scientific analysis at all. Can't we do the same for the Bible?

I think we're really onto something here. We have a version of the Bible that more readable and enjoyable than ever. We have a deinstitutionaization of Scripture that allows us to read it closely. I'm not anti-chapter/verse, but seems to lend itself to so much more than a traditional Bible. Perhaps I'm overzealous, but TBoTB is changing the devotional lives, study habits, and teaching of a lot of people I know, and it seems incredibly positive.

A good bit of this is an adaptation from an e-mail correspondence I have had with Chris who works closely with TBoTB and he's been great. He shot me an e-mail asking what I think and most of this post is from my reply.

Reckoner

2008-08-18T07:53:00.002-04:00

Because we separate
It ripples our reflections

Asinine Atheism

2008-08-13T10:20:00.002-04:00

Just as I've suggested that Christians may do better not to force their religion on the government, I kind feel the same way about Christians having the right to express their religion in work and schools. In this article a class had a project in which they designed a hypothetical product and a young student had a Christian-themed product. The boy was forced to remove the religious parts of his product by the school.

My first thoughts are that if a Muslim or Hindu did the same thing that there's a good chance that they wouldn't be told to take their religious symbols down, and I think it's likely that if the school did decide to make them remove the religious parts of the product that the world would be in an uproar. Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be this huge amount of tolerance of just about any belief system but Christianity. It's true Christians can be intolerable of other religions, yet we vindicate Muslims for the same things. The point is that Christians seem to be receiving some seriously unequal treatment. Some kid made a Christmas ornament that meant something to him and now we're clogging our court systems with this asinine argument that anything goes but Christianity.

It seems like the judges are ruling on their own moral conceptions instead of picking up a copy of the Constitution. I know the Constitution is supposedly a living document which we have made subject to interpretation, but it's hard to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (1st Amendment) any other way. This kid has religious convictions, but the government is explicitly banned from restricting religious practice. I know a public school classroom is part of our government system, but the individuals within it are not.

Should we stifle an innocent 11 year old? What is the worst that could come of this? What are we afraid of? You probably know my feelings on proselytism (if not click the link), but if the kid is so wrong to express himself in a classroom project I don't see where the American justice system can stop him. I also see a lot of hypocrisy in the reaction. The article says the product "mentioned Jesus six times" as if the kid "shot six of his classmates". If we are to criminalize Christianity, then we can throw out the 1st Amendment and criminalize every other religion with it.

To a Christian, God and Jesus are the most important things in his or her life. Why wouldn't we mention it in everything we do? I'm not suggesting legislation in the name of our religion, just that Christians be free to practice religion as the integral part of their lives that it should be. Maybe it is unwise or even wrong for Christians to discuss or use their religion in certain instances, but you can't call the cops on some kid with a Christmas ornament that says "Jesus" a couple of times.

Lastly, I will say that I think it might have been better for the parents to let this one go. It's not because I don't think it's important, because it is. It's important because Christians need to hold onto their rights in America just like any other American citizen. It's important because there have been times in history when Christians were thrown in jail (or usually much worse) for even the most discrete religiosity. The thing that got me was the money. America's school systems are poor enough as it is without a school forking out the money for lawyers and court fees. On top of that the parents are paying for lawyers and court fees as well, and I think there might be better uses for that money.

No matter how you look at the issue, the Constitution seems clear and the school seems considerably hypocritical and biased. If the parents win I can't say it will be a victory for Christianity, but it does keep victory out of the hands of those who would oppress it.

Hostages

2008-08-08T13:28:00.002-04:00

I think you know how I feel about Fred Phelps, so let me ask: What's the point?

Embarrassment

2008-08-07T12:22:00.004-04:00

I found this video interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all, it demonstrates how some of the more extreme mysticism in Christianity isn't so different than pagan faith-healers or occult psychics. Sure, I believe God heals and it's plausible that if we unlocked an extra 10% of our brain power we might manage to read a mind or two; however, to be obsessed and taken in with the supernatural can get scary, and this is a great demonstration of how that happens. The second thing that interest me in the is the way an apparent non-Christian so easily detects some of the absurd things Christians believe in. While James Randi might say many of the miracles of the Bible are far-fetched and I would say they aren't, it's no wonder he finds them so unbelievable as the very people who are allegedly representing Christianity are unbelievable in their actions.

[In an unrelated note: some of the comments on my previous post magically disappeared. It's kind of complicated how it happened, but I assure you it was a glitch in Blogger and not censorship on my part.]

Centaur Satire

2008-08-02T12:04:00.005-04:00

Most of you probably watch the Superbowl whether you like sports or not, and for those of us who don't like sports it's mostly for the commercials. It seems that there was a time in advertising when commercials were simply advertising a product in a funny or cute way, but these days some commercials have a hidden agenda. Some might remember the Snickers commercial where two manly mechanics make out, and the general public seemed totally angered and upset about it. I guess I'm not really making a point here, just kind of chuckling at what we get really bent out of shape about. While I'm sure the Snickers commercial was primarily meant to be humorous, it's hard to argue there wasn't any pro-homosexual agenda. You'd be hard-pressed to see me upset about it, I kind of just laugh. It's not because I'm okay with homosexuality or even comfortable watching two men make out, it's just not that big of a deal to me. Maybe it should be a big deal, but banning such commercials isn't going to stop homosexuality, and it's kind of a funny commercial.

For as long as I can remember, humor has always been a little taboo, breaking social boundaries, and I think it's because we can find deviant behavior funny. I remember one commercial where a couple of guys are buying toilet paper and beer at a grocery store. They are obviously uncomfortable as if the purchase of toilet paper is an immediate necessity. The clerk tells them their total, only for them to find they have enough money for just one of the items. They go for the beer and make it clear they want paper and not plastic. Such behavior implies that beer is more important than daily needs and people who make such bold sacrifices for alcohol probably need rehab. We also know alcoholism is a serious problem in this country and that it destroys families. I would think that just about anyone who saw the commercial, even someone who thought alcohol was wrong, would find it quite comical. [in a quick edit: I think the commercial is funny and don't have a problem with it at all, I'm just pointing out how silly some of our politically correct expectations seem. In truth, I'm not really offended by any of the commercials talked about in this post].

Beware conservatives! We must watch out for that hidden liberal agenda that is making our kids gay, having our daughters have rampant sex and abortions, and--worst of all--voting Democrat! Never mind the soft-core porn Victoria's Secret advertisements, skinny people dousing themselves in fattening foods, or grotesque materialism!

I'm aware I'm not making much of a point. I guess I feel like America is missing the point, that we're so terrified of the other side of the political spectrum that we'd rather just ban whatever it is than attempt to change any minds. If we try to change minds it is through manipulation.

Video A:

This commercial has been banned. There's nothing sensual or sexual about the two men kissing at the end, and I actually don't think it's making any sort of political commentary. It's a little sociological joke.

Video B:

Haven't seen any moms, web sites, or preachers getting angry at this one. Maybe I missed the riot. Is it just me or is his sexual-half a horse? And is it just me or does that girl in bedroom attire really really like him?

Bah, once again I run out of time and can't proofread! Forgive me.

More on Politics

2008-07-31T21:16:00.002-04:00

The government goes around doing all sorts of things it was never intended to do. After all, actor turned governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed a bill in California banning all trans-fats from all restaurants, a move I find grossly unconstitutional. I never thought that the campy Stallone film Demolition Man would ever seem realistic, but it would appear the Governator isn't so interested in preserving the liberty of the privately owned restaurant owners of California as he is from saving people from their own irresponsible diet choices. I'm willing to forgive Arnold for this mostly because I don't own a restaurant in California nor would I care to do so.

What I can't forgive is blatant corruption. It's true that tension and wars among various other countries is not only legitimate but requires action on part of America. Perhaps this situation in Iran is one such case of legitimate tension, and perhaps we should go to war. I know that I'm paying for gas and speculation has it that the price could drop if we ease the tension with Iran. I also know that war requires some screwed up things like torture, death, and destruction, but there are things that are blatantly unacceptable.

I recently came across this article, which provides some vague and some specific details concerning the executive branch's attempt to spark a war with Iran. If Iran deserves war, then why do we have to look for a reason? Why should our leaders conspire to fake a war? I think Bush has done a great deal more good than he is credit for, but it scares the hell out of me that our leaders think it's legitimate under any circumstances to create a lie.

Vote for Sex

2008-07-31T11:36:00.003-04:00

The idea of politicians and their sex lives has been on my mind lately. I promise that it's not as dirty as it sounds. What I mean is that it really bothers me that politicians are paying for prostitutes and mistresses. I think what bothers me most is that this isn't a reputation presidents or congress have gathered over the past ten years, but this is something that has been common throughout American history. Obviously not every politician--maybe not even most--is this sexual corrupt individual whoring themselves out every night in their offices, limos, and hotel rooms; however, Harding and Clinton are two pretty easy targets and I'd imagine a simple internet search would yield quite a few mainstream media examples along with amateur unsubstantiated speculation.

These affairs are fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons. For one thing, the men that are representing the American people are dousing themselves in sexual promiscuity. Sure, modern morality allows for a margin of sexual partners, but this isn't a group of young adults who are allegedly capable of making educated decisions about their sexuality (when I became an adult I wasn't magically able to deduce who has herpes and who doesn't, but maybe it's totally legitimate if we're really really mature), this is a group of people who are mostly married and usually for legislation against prostitution. To my knowledge, not even mainstream liberal media considers adultery fair game; after all, no one likes to be cheated on and I seriously doubt the Craigs are swingers.

Obviously, nobody is perfect, and though our politicians are expected to exemplify the moral expectations of the the American citizens, our politicians are as grossly flawed as any human being. Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that the members of our government are truly wrestling with their flesh, I think there's an even bigger problem with this whole sex ordeal: It's my money. It's your money. It's our money. The American tax dollar isn't designed to share bedrooms with prostitutes, take extramarital relations out to a nice dinner, or pay the legal fees necessary to figure out just what Monica did with what president.

See, so many people say a politician's personal life is none of our business, but we forget that Monica Lewinsky was on the White House payroll and where do you think that money comes from? This is all not to mention that everything they did took place while on the clock. Why pick on Bill Clinton? Why not the NY governor Spitzer who recklessly blows tax dollar money on prostitutes?

It's true that many of these politicians are self-sustaining outside of their political career with various business investments to keep them financially afloat, but I would hope that excuse won't let these guys off the hook. We are still paying them to do their job and do it right and spend their money wisely (which they hardly do without spending money on sex). Part of representing the American people means that they don't have the privilege of being the rich hermit. They have a duty to the public. So, even if promiscuity isn't an issue, the misuse of tax-payer money should really piss you off.

Under 200

2008-07-28T11:35:00.002-04:00

If you've been reading, you can probably deduce from the title of this post that I did manage to get below 200 pounds. It took me a week longer than I anticipated, but it was well worth it to look down at the scale and see one-nine-nine; not to mention, dropping 17 pounds in three weeks feels great.

The Dark Knight was all I hoped it would be. If anything, Ledger's performance was underrated, and I was incredibly surprised by Aaron Eckhart's awesome performance as Harvey Dent. The movie was pretty complex and deep, so I'm still processing it.

I also wanted to mention that Brad has been a most-helpful editor for this blog. I owe him a big "thank you" for making this blog readable with his grammar and format advice. Anybody can feel free to e-mail or message me (on Facebook) with his or her own thoughts.

In order to add a little substance to this post, I give you the "Immigrant Song" by Led Zeppelin: