The Legend of Christmas

Once upon a time two thousand years ago, or so legend has it, in a little town of Bethlehem, a baby was born.  Pure and innocent, the baby was wrapped in pure white swaddling clothes that smelled like fresh lemon and laid in a pristine manger in a well-kept and sanitary barn, because there was no room for his family in the local inn.  The very night of his birth, the baby was visited by three wise men from Afar.  They presented him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.  And there were some animals and angels in there somewhere, too.  Oh, and shepherds.  Can't forget the shepherds.

Nowadays people celebrate the birth of this baby boy, who I guess grew up and did some stuff (I think he told people to be nice, except when it wasn't convenient or they didn't want to), by giving each other gifts on Christmas.  We also put up lights on our houses and write letters to each other.  Some people even go to church on Christmas Eve, I guess out of obligation or because it makes them feel good.  But mainly we all get stuff.  

Getting stuff: The true meaning of Christmas.  Or maybe it's connecting with friends and family.  Putting up lights, perhaps?  Wait, didn't I say something about a baby?  Man, am I confused.

And that is the legend of Christmas.  

As we perform all of the traditions of Christmas, let's remember what we are celebrating: The birth of the Son of God, who came to make things right again.

Politics of Politics.

I have to be honest.  I am getting sick of politics*.  Every political campaign brings a fresh battery of negative or deceitful ads assaulting my eyes, ears and soul.  Republicans are criticized because they are Republican; Democrats because they are Democrat.  So-and-so had a child out of wedlock.  So-and-so voted to starve old people.  "George Bush is stupid." (Wow, what enlightening political commentary that is.)  

I serve an omnipotent God who concerns Himself with redeeming men's and women's souls.  He is fighting a battle with eternal ramifications.  The laws of any nation are words are here today, gone tomorrow.  

I am a committed Christian, and all my life I have been told that responsible Christians vote.  I am a registered voter, and I do vote.  I become less apt to do so with each passing day.  I hate the divisive nature of politics.  I hate the attitudes and actions of the power-mongers who populate the governing bodies.  I don't see it getting better anytime soon.

Here is my question: Why should I be concerned about our nation's political scene, as a Christian (my allegiance is to Christ first)?  If being involved in politics can be a good and moral activity, how so?  In other words, why should I care about our government when there are people within my sphere whose lives I can make better?

I want to be a follower of Christ in this country.  I need a little help on this one.

*I am speaking of state and national politics, not so much local politics.

Taking a Deep Sigh of Relief.

PHEW.  Finally, the end of the semester.  After taking a year off from seminary, I went back to school this Fall.  This time around, however, I am also working full-time.  I learned a few things about the experience this semester (which, alas, I will repeat twice more):

• (40 hours of work/week + 6 hours of class time/week + 6-8 hours of study time/week)*16 weeks = 1 brain-dead zombie.
• Seminary does not necessarily bring one closer to God.  In fact, it is my experience that the opposite can be true.  
• There is a half-way house for people with psychological issues right next to the seminary.  There is also a road connecting the two places.  It is there for a reason.
• During my year away, Denver Seminary did not cease to be a difficult place to complete a master's degree.  Being in my fourth year, the actual content of my classes is now pretty easy.  I've been doing it long enough that it's just variations on a theme.  However, the workload is still trying at times, especially for someone with a job and a family.
• Seminary does not help a person to be physically healthy.  Proper diet and exercise falls prey to staring at the wall while pretending to read.  
• Strangely enough, I believe I learned more while not in seminary than while in it.  I think this has something to do with the difference between reading what I want to read and reading what I have to read.  Also, this is evidence that the seminary is doing what it is supposed to--mold its students into life-long learners.

I still think Denver Seminary is an excellent institution, and I know that going there has and will continue to prepare me for vocational ministry.  Also, I would still encourage anyone who wants to be challenged to go there.  But know this--I'm going to throw one heck of a party when I'm done!

Makes Sense to Me...

Click on the graph to see a bigger version

The Pleasure of a Good Book

There's just something about books. I love the experience of reading a book. The feel of the cover, the rustling of pages. The smell of ink and paper (and maybe even a highlighter). There are the pricey textbooks, with their glossy pages, whose shininess is a foe to be reckoned with when attempting to read under adequate lighting. I haven't seen a true textbook in years, thank God. Dry as kindling but sparking knowledge if the reader is disciplined enough. I can't tell you how many textbooks I only read halfway. Then there are the cheaply printed variety of books. The reward for paying them attention is a black thumb and smudge marks in the margins, and perhaps a dog-eared page here and there, and a broken spine. I try never to break a spine or disfigure a page, although some of the longer books are almost impossible not to injure (City of God, for one). Some books I highlight and mark all over; others are much too sacred. I think my Greek New Testament only has one verse underlined, and that done with a light pencil stroke.

Each book contains a bit of paradise--a sanctuary of the mind. They are time machines: Copleston's A History of Philosophy, Vol 1 transports me to ancient Greece; The Abolition of Man transports me to the present and future--as though I were a visitor from the past. They are precious jewels, if one is willing to search for them. They are new worlds to be explored from the comfort of one's living room! They were died for in the past--scarce and sacred. They are at our fingertips now by the millions--omnipresent and overlooked.

People wonder when the book will become obsolete. I hope never. The tactile experience of a book is much too precious to be lost, and it can never be replaced by technology.

Give me a book, and I will be happy.

Care Bear Stare

I don't usually read opinion columns, but I'm here in my native hometown in Kansas, and I picked up a copy of the Wichita Eagle. I ran across this piece about how people ought to respond to major issues. He brings up the idea of the Care Bear Stare vs. actual reflective thought. It's a very short, well-written article, so I will stop now and just say if you've got a minute, read it.

FSM

My wife happened upon an interesting article in Sunday's Denver Post. She alerted my attention to it when she asked me if I knew anything about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was intrigued. Apparently, it all started in May of 2005, when the Kansas State School Board was discussing whether or not to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution in science class. Oregon State grad student Bobby Henderson wrote a letter to the board, proclaiming that if they taught Kansas kids ID, then they should by all means teach his alternative ID theory that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. He even included a picture of the Monster, or FSM to his friends. He also pinned the cause of global warming on the dwindling number of pirates in the letter, which I actually thought was pretty funny. He has since established a "church" and the FSM has followers called "Pastafarians". All in all, in perusing the FSM website, I think that Henderson has actually done a fairly creative job with it. And I do find the FSM pretty good-looking, for a deity.

Of course, as amusing as it is, there is but one small problem. Unfortunately, that problem is the entire foundation of the argument. Here it goes:

1. There is no scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Did you miss it? Here, let me try this again:

1. There is no naturalistic scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Let's try it one more time, just for fun:

1. Science, which (since around 1850) by definition only allows for completely natural causes in a closed system and therefore disregards the very idea of an Intelligent Designer a priori, finds no evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Anybody else have a problem with this logic? I see this very much as the attempt "to have one's cake and eat it, too". Science has cordoned off any talk of the supernatural because of its philosophical presuppositions of naturalism--which, by the way, are not scientifically verifiable. Anyone who decides to cross this arbitrary line (scientifically speaking) is condemned as a heretic who is despoiling the virgin Truth that is Science.

Does this mean that I want kids in public schools everywhere learning about the universe by reading Genesis 1-3? Not really. I'm not so sure I want the church to team up with the government to begin with; after all, what kind of track record does the government have going for it at this point? What I would like to see is kids (and adults) everywhere thinking critically about what they are told. Does the idea of naturalism make sense? Are the arguments I am presented logically coherent, and do they reflect what I see in real life? Or more broadly, does the naturalistic worldview equate to reality (or any other worldview, for that matter)?

If one thinks critically and interacts intellectually with what one is told, what is the harm in learning about evolution, whether one believes it or not? Perhaps we Christians especially have been fighting the wrong battle all along.

Commentaries, Community and Craig Blomberg

Today in class my professor, the well-known and well-respected Dr. Craig Blomberg, asked a pretty good question. We were discussing 1 Peter 3:18-22, a passage in which Peter discusses Christ preaching to the spirits in prison during the time of Noah. In exegeting this text correctly, one must look at the cultural knowledge of the story of Noah and the Flood in Asia 2000 years ago, dig into syntax of the passage in the original Greek and have an understanding of 1 Enoch, an inter-Testamental apochryphal text. Even with that knowledge, it’s still a very difficult passage. If I am a typical churchgoer, what am I to do? How can I interpret the text correctly without all of this superfluous, archaic knowledge readily at hand? This was the question posed by Dr. Blomberg.

After some thought and class discussion, however, I took issue with the question itself. The issue I have with it is its use of the first-person singular pronoun “I”. How can “I” interpret the text correctly? What do “I” do? There is a time and place for personal reflection and study of scripture, but there is also a time and place for community discussion. In cases like 1 Peter 3:18-22, a community discussion is vital to understanding and edification. This in and of itself is not very earth-shattering, but then it hit me: Christian commentary authors are part of the community of believers, too. As are archaeologists, textual critics, and any other type of scholar you care to mention. We are not all going to know the ins and outs of 1 Enoch or unearth ancient coins bearing Noah’s image, but because there are followers of Christ who know and do these things, we should thankfully engage them as fellow members of the community and learn from them by reading what they have to say.

Taken this way, a good commentary becomes much more than a dry book of boring facts and trivial details; it becomes an active dialogue with a brother or sister in Christ. It furthers the community that we (and the world) desperately need.

Love Addict - Family Force 5

My pastor recently told me about RadioU, a radio station that streams actual, good Christian music online. Here in Denver, there is a dearth of such music, which I largely believed to be mythical since the demise of dc Talk and good Audio Adrenaline. (For non-Christian readers out there, those two bands used to rock!) Anyway, RadioU has pleasantly proved me wrong. There is good Christian music out there, after all. Let me give you an example.

Family Force 5 is a band out of Atlanta, Georgia. They are comprised of three brothers, sons of 80s musician Jerome Olds (anybody actually know who this is? I sure don't), and two of their friends (presumably brought in because Family Force 3 just doesn't cut it). I am not sure how to describe their music, other than...awesome. Why do I like them?

1. They sing and play with emotion. It's almost like they're passionate about God! (Don't tell K-LOVE!)
2. They know their audience. They interact with the culture while retaining their core message.
3. They prominently feature the guitar. (Yes, as everyone knows, I adhere to Phil Keaggy's philosophy: Love one woman...many guitars.)

See for yourself.



Awesome. And really weird. Just my cup of tea!

Death of a Fellow Runner

This morning, Ryan Shay, who was one of America's top distance runners, died during the U.S. Olympic Trials Marathon in New York. It is believed that he suffered a heart attack at around the five-mile mark. He was transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead.

This is a sad day for the sport. Though I am not running at present, I did used to be one of the better runners out there. In fact, I ran against him in 2003 at the U.S. Championships Half-Marathon in Kansas City. Well, he won the race, while I barely cracked the top 20. Nevertheless, runners share a special bond, and my heart goes out to Ryan and his wife. Runners are a special breed, and he will be missed.

Rockies vs. Catwoman

The Rockies have really been putting a cramp in my style. I would wager that the city of Denver is suffering a serious productivity problem. Do you know how hard it is to get anything done when the ultimate underdog team is in the World Series, and they're from your town? It's definitely Rocktober around here. Here's an example why.

Brian Fuentes was the Rockies' ace closer for the first half of the season. He went to the All-Star game in July. Things were looking great for him. Then he got hurt. He had a strained lateral that caused him to blow four straight saves. He was put on the DL and replaced by Manny Corpas, who now has done equally well as Fuentes. Fuentes healed his injury, but was relegated to set-up man. He could have taken the low road and labeled himself a victim, but he did not. Instead, this is what he said:

"I do it for my teammates. I played with these guys all year. Whining about not closing isn't going to help the situation. You only worry about the things you have control over, and that's not one of the things I had control over...Manny is our closer right now, and I'm going to help get the ball to him. It's not about egos. You've got to check your ego at the door. That's basically what it boils down to."

This attitude well represents all of the Rockies. One of the least-paid teams in the league, these guys are selfless team players who care about each other and working together. How can you not like this team?

Contrast the Rockies with Halle Barry. Barry recently stated that she faces barriers in Hollywood because she is black (For the record, her mother is English, her father African-American):

"It doesn't matter that I have an Oscar, an Emmy, a Golden Globe and a Silver (Berlin) Bear...I shouldn't have had to try so hard to be considered. I should have to stop convincing studios I am right for it -- it should be on my acting merit."

I shouldn't have to try so hard to be considered. What a ridiculous thing to say for someone with the following resume:
1. Cheerleader, honor society member, editor of the school newspaper, class president and prom queen at Bedford High School
2. Winner of Miss Ohio USA and Miss Teen All-American (she only placed 6th at Miss World)
3. WInner of the Academy Award for best actress
4. Named the sexiest woman in the world by FHM magazine
5. Has a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame

I'm guessing she's not short on cash, either. Does she still perceive a measure of discrimination because of her skin color? Perhaps. And maybe some ignorant people do treat her with less respect because she is black. (They ought to treat her with less respect because she starred in "Catwoman". Just kidding.) To complain about it while sitting in your multi-million-dollar home, living a life that few people will ever know? This is the height of the victim mentality. Does she have to figure out how to make ends meet month after month like most people? Does she have to fight tooth-and-nail to land an entry-level job because people she doesn't know and will never see say she's not qualified (like I, a white male, had to do)? How many coupons does she use at the grocery store every week? Does she even go to the grocery store? I am sorry that Halle is discriminated against in Hollywood. Discrimination because of color is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Perhaps, however, she should look at all of the blessings in her life, fall on her knees and thank God.

But I'd rather hang out with Brian Fuentes, anyway. Go Rockies!

Martin Luther in His Own Words

"I could use two secretaries. I do almost nothing during the day but write letters. I am a conventual preacher, reader at meals, parochial preacher, director of studies, overseer of eleven monasteries, superintendent of the fish pond at Litzkau, referee of the squabble at Torgau, lecturer on Paul, collector of material for a commentary on the Psalms, and then, as I said, I am overwhelmed with letters. I rarely have full time for the canonical hours and for saying mass, not to mention my own temptations with the world, the flesh, and the Devil. You see how lazy I am."

(Replying to Sylvester Prierias, who drafted a reply to Luther’s 95 theses on behalf of the pope)
"I am sorry now that I despised Teztel. Ridiculous as he was, he was more acute than you. You cite no Scripture. You give no reasons…You call me a leper because I mingle truth with error. I am glad you admit there is some truth."

"Luther once, when asked how he envisaged the appearance of the apostle Paul, answered with an affectionate guffaw, 'I think he was a scrawny shrimp like [Philip] Melanchthon.'"

(In a debate with John Eck)
ECK: Are you the only one that knows anything? Except for you is all the Church in error?
LUTHER: I answer that God once spoke through the mouth of an ass.

(Reply to the papal bull against Luther)
"They show their ignorance and bad conscience by inventing the adverb 'respectively.' My articles are called 'respectively some heretical, some erroneous, some scandalous,' which is as much to say, 'We don’t know which are which.' O meticulous ignorance! I wish to be instructed, not respectively, but absolutely and certainly. I demand that they show absolutely, not respectively, distinctly and not confusedly, certainly and not probably, clearly and not obscurely, point by point and not in a lump, just what is heretical. Let them show where I am a heretic, or dry up their spittle."

"I was wrong, I admit it, when I said that indulgences were 'the pious defrauding of the faithful.' I recant and I say, 'Indulgences are the most impious frauds and imposters of the most rascally pontiffs, by which they deceive the souls and destroy the goods of the faithful.'”

"I was wrong. I retract the statement that certain articles of [the heretic] John Hus are evangelical. I say now, 'Not some but all the articles of John Hus were condemned by Antichrist [i.e. the pope] and his apostles in the synagogue of Satan.' And to your face, most holy Vicar of God, I say freely that all the condemned articles of John Hus are evangelical and Christian, and yours are downright impious and diabolical."

"Workers with brawn are prone to despise workers with brain, such as city secretaries and school teachers. The soldier boasts that it is hard work to ride in armor and endure heat, frost, dust, and thirst. But I’d like to see a horseman who could sit the whole day and look into a book. It is no great trick to hang two legs over a horse. They say writing is just pushing a feather, but I notice that they hang swords on their hips and feathers in high honor on their hats. Writing occupies not just the fist or the foot while the rest of the body can be singing or jesting, but the whole man. As for school teaching, it is so strenuous that no one ought to be bound to it for more than ten years."

You Say Po-tay-to, I Say Po-tah-to

First of all, let me apologize for the drought of posts recently. After a year off, I returned to seminary three weeks ago. I am working full-time and taking six hours of credit, so I am a little busier than I was a month ago. I will endeavor to post more frequently (it is a good escape from my academic rigors), but it will likely be less than before. And now, on to the post...

I have always disliked the abuse of the idea that the difference between two words is "mere semantics". Certainly, there are times where any number of synonyms will do the job quite nicely (i.e. there is overlap in their semantic maps). Also, in casual conversation, trivial emails, etc, there is no need to be precise all the time. On the contrary, there are times that every "jot and tittle" plays an important role and must be precise. (And I would add, in any type of writing where one wants to be taken seriously, one should strive for precision.) For example, take the following sentences:

God causes sin.
God allows sin.
God orders sin.

This debate came up in a discussion in one of my classes. One participant indicated that he felt that causing and allowing were basically the same thing in this context--using one or the other for theological reasons was "mere semantics". This, I feel, is not the case. The sentence, "God causes sin," implies that God is the originator of sin. "God allows sin," implies that God does not originate it, but at the same time He does not stop it from happening. The third sentence, "God orders sin," implies that God does not originate it, but He allows it so that it might accomplish His purposes. Each of these three sentences, then, carries with it different theologies proper and hamartiologies, and a simple dismissal on the grounds of "mere semantics" is not acceptable. To quote a famous radio talk-show host, "Words mean things."

This is not meant to belittle anyone who isn't anal-retentive about English like I am. I understand that not all people have a "bad grammar" sensor that plagues them every day, and that's okay. What this post is meant for is to dispel the notion that because you have formed a certain opinion about something, any slight change in wording of the proposition is "mere semantics" and can safely be ignored. This is most definitely true with respect to the Bible. If you don't believe me, pick up an academic commentary sometime. In an inspired book, one must allow for the possibility that one word may indeed make or break a certain theology. A famous example is John 1:1. Most of us read it, "The Word was God," but Jehovah's Witnesses will tell you it says, "The Word was a God." This is a drastic difference--all because of a one-letter word! (By the way, the former translation is preferable because of the rules of Greek grammar.)

Semantics is an often abused word. It is in the same position as the word "academic", which in the vernacular of our day often means "insignificant". I would urge you to help the little guy out--pay attention to him once in a while. Do a word study. Take the time to think critically about a proposition (or even a preposition). It may not be "mere semantics" after all.

You May Be Right, I May Be Crazy

I have this crazy idea that what I do matters. I don't mean that it matters to my wife or my friends. I don't even mean that God will judge me sometime after I die for what I did on earth. What I mean is the Lord of the Universe uses my faithful actions to bring about His Kingdom. Do you realize how crazy this sounds? What I do matters.

But this is what Jesus lived and taught. For example, when he was in his hometown, people didn't think he was anyone special. He grew up with these people, after all! So what did he do there? Not much, really. Mark records it by saying that "he could do no miracle there" (6:5). While the other Evangelists say that "he did not do miracles there", Mark boldly proclaims that the Son of God was stymied because of others' lack of belief. Do you realize how crazy this sounds? What I think matters.

I'm not sure if many Christians really get this idea. What I do matters. Yes, we pray. Yes, we might even read our Bibles. But what if we really believed that God can and will do glorious things through us? Jesus said we will do greater things than he did. But we have to believe. We have to believe that there is a correlation between prayer and results, though science would tell us otherwise. We have to believe that something special, indescribable, is happening during our church services, and act accordingly. We have to believe that God really, really, really thinks we who are unworthy are indeed worthy of being used in mighty ways. Do you realize how crazy this sounds? What I believe matters.

But it just might be a lunatic God's looking for.

You Want Me to What?

I read the story of Gideon this week. I knew that he was a great guy who led Israel to victory over her enemies. I knew that he hands out lots of Bibles now. But I must confess, I never knew how he got his start.

It turns out that the Midianites and the Amalekites were going throughout Israel and devastating the place. They were destroying all of the crops and taking all of the livestock. They were basically razing everything so that they could come in and set up camp. Israel had to go hide out in caves just to stay out of their way! (This personally reminds me of Ernest Goes to Camp.) This is where we meet Gideon. He, being the youngest of his brothers, draws the short straw. He has to climb up out of the cave and try to salvage some of the wheat harvest. With every step, he is looking around for the Midianites, the most dangerous of enemies. But he does not meet the Midianites. He meets a friend, though far more dangerous.

The angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, "The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior."

If I were Gideon, I would have laughed. I'm a valiant warrior? I make my living by hiding in caves! Besides, I'm the youngest of my brothers; I'm expendable--why do you think I'm out here, anyway? Precisely because I don't matter! And Gideon's reaction is only marginally better than mine. He questions the angel, who answers by telling him to go deliver Israel from Midian (a classic God response).

As if that isn't ludicrous enough, Gideon, after waving some fleece around, actually decides to give it a shot! After all, Israel has a decent-sized army. Maybe he can do it. It's better than beating wheat, anyway. But God--neglecting the advice of Gideon, I am sure--gives him all of 300 men, sending 31,700 perfectly good soldiers packing. (And do you think those 300 men were the cream of the crop? Look at their leader!)


Again, if I were Gideon, I would be writing out my will at this point. This is absolutely hopeless. I'm going to die out here because I believed a wet piece of cloth. I wonder what my funeral will be like.

Of course, this is when I realize that I am Gideon. God has told me that I will do greater things than Jesus; I can't even succeed at reading my Bible every day. The apostles performed great miracles; I work in a cubicle. What can I possibly do?

The point of the story is that is precisely where God wants us. This way, when we do have great victories, there is no doubt that God is the true victor. What can I do? Not much. What can God do through me? All things.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

A Shameless Promotion.

Everyone, stop what you are doing right now! You, drop that burger! Put down Harry Potter this instant! Changing the baby can wait!

The Jacobsonian has arrived.

That's right, my college roommate Josh has started a blog. We have had many good conversations over the past 8 years, and his is an opinion I respect a great deal. Listen to what he says.

That is all.

Woke Up Dreaming - Joe Bonamassa

Joe Bonamassa is the closest thing we have to SRV today. He has much of what Stevie had: A powerful voice and incredible guitar playing. What's more, Joe plays and sings with passion. He is not just a technically adept player, or an average singer. He truly makes you feel what he's feeling--he communicates through his music in a way that few equal.

I found this clip of him playing in a music store, just him and a guitar. All I can say is I wish I could play guitar like that.

Enjoy.

A Brief Comment on Textual Criticism.

In the past week, I had several people come to me with the same issue. I had the chance to speak to 40 youth about Jesus last week at a camp I help run, and I challenged them to take a good, hard, long look at Jesus, his claims and how he fits into their lives. Many of the campers were bold enough to do so, for which I am extremely appreciative. Several, though, had a hard time with the reliability of the Bible. Basically, the argument is as follows: Since the Bible has been translated into so many different languages, it can neither be accurate nor reliable today. I do hear this argument come up at times, and I thought I would give a little response to it so as to edify you, the reader.

This is a weak argument. (This is not a dig at those who have questions about biblical reliability; I understand completely why one might have questions about such an old book.) The argument is weak because it is based on a false assumption. It is true that the Bible has been translated into many, many languages. Those translations, however, are almost always based on original-language manuscripts, which we do still have today. In fact, archaeologists have discovered thousands of biblical manuscripts spanning thousands of years. The Bible is the most well-attested ancient book by a large magnitude. With this much evidence, scholars can trace back to what the original source, or autograph, said using textual criticism, a science that compares and analyzes textual deviations based on established sets of criteria. Using these techniques, scholars have established that the text as we have it today is 97% accurate for the Old Testament and 99% accurate for the New Testament. (By the way, these are conservative estimates.)

This is a very brief overview, but hopefully it will satisfy most inquisitors. A few more thoughts are in order, though.

1. Of the 1-3% of today's Bible that might be inaccurate, none of it pertains to any crucial theological point. Most of these issues deal with minor grammatical details (singular vs. plural, etc).
2. For one to hold the initial argument to be valid, that person must also question the reliability of all of the ancient works to a much greater degree: Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Euripides, Jerome, etc.
3. One may hold that the Bible has been handed down to us accurately and still disbelieve its contents. Though I would prefer this not to be the case, it is at least a more intellectually satisfying position to hold than to say that the Bible is not reliable.

On Hate.

I was spurred on to good deeds today by my friend Danny's post on the Minnesota bridge collapse. He was lamenting over those who would attempt to use tragedy for political gain. (Notice the "Support Bridges Not War" banner pictured on Danny's site.) I immediately thought of all of the anti-Bush bumper stickers that pollute the Denver highway system.

The first and only thought that comes to my mind when I see one of these bumper stickers is this: What a shame. I remember Jesus' words on the subject: "Love your enemies." Jesus' enemies killed him. What worse evil has Bush done to my fellow Denver dwellers?

Furthermore, what does hating Bush accomplish? I have never met the President. From what I can tell from afar, he seems like a very cordial man. He doesn't seem like the spawn of Satan. Even if he was of devilish origins, though, how would hating him help matters? This is my guess: George Bush doesn't care if someone he doesn't know exists hates him. Also, I doubt he is going to change his foreign policy because he sees someone's bumper sticker while flying overhead on Air Force One. So what do these car-window quips accomplish? I suppose they broadcast one's hatred, so that other drivers can know exactly what you think in five words or fewer. (Newsflash: They probably don't care, either.) Second, and more importantly, they are the festering sores of a deeper issue. When you are consumed by hatred, you are the one who is hurt. It is your soul that withers; it is you who are the problem.

If you truly take issue with the President, I urge you to do as Jesus did: Love him. Pray for him. Support him by offering solutions, not empty criticisms and ad hominem attacks. For God's sake (and ours), sacrifice your hate to be part of a better solution.

Texas Flood - Stevie Ray Vaughan

In an effort to introduce good music to people everywhere, I am starting a new feature on this blog. This new feature is called Culture Corner, and with it I will attempt periodically to post videos of excellent music. In today's culture, there is little truly good music coming to us. This is not to say that there is not good music--just that one will not find much of it in pop culture. To do my part to alleviate this matter, I am beginning Culture Corner.

Much of the music I share on Culture Corner will likely be the blues because it is so sorely underrepresented in today's music; however, it is one of the best forms of music in my opinion. Perhaps I will explain why I feel this way in a future blog, but before I do that, I will show you my reasons...

The very first song I want to share with you is Texas Flood by Stevie Ray Vaughan. He was simply the best. He inspired an entire generation of guitar players (most definitely including me). He played with a passion that no one could equal. Although his life was cut short by a helicopter crash, I can only hope that his music will live on forever. Enjoy.

I Can't Believe I'm Blogging About Harry Potter

With all of the hoopla surrounding the last installment of Harry Potter, I must make a confession. I haven’t read any of the books. Not even one. In some circles, that makes me a saint; in others, a sinner.

I will admit, however, that Harry is an interesting cultural phenomenon. For example, on the news last night, there was an interview with a middle-aged gentleman named Thomas Harrop about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The man and his son had each bought a copy with serious misprints and pages missing. Harrop was obviously disappointed in his purchase. Although absent from the written article I linked, the television report stated that this book was the apex of Harrop’s reading for the last ten years. This is where I must depart from the culture around me and ask the question, “Harry Potter is the crowning achievement of your reading for the past decade: Are you serious?”

This is the very reason I haven’t read any of the Harry Potter series. Are they good books? Probably. Do they dive too deep into the occult? Don’t know—haven’t read ‘em. Are there too many other books to read? Yes. My reading list continually grows longer. I do my best to read often; I can’t even keep my reading list on this blog up-to-date (I’ve got a 12-inch stack of books on my coffee table right now, waiting to be read). To be quite honest, I just have no interest in reading Rowling’s tales (or watching the movie versions, for that matter). I have too many other enriching books to devour.

I am not surprised at Harry’s cultural triumph, and I don’t even think it’s necessarily a bad (or good) thing. I just wonder, what if the general public took to Pascal’s Pensées or Francis Schaeffer’s Trilogy like they do to Rowling’s books? (I suppose we got closer to this with the resurrection of Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia and Tolkien’s LOTR, with their Christian overtones.) Where would we as a culture be today?

Perhaps mine is a special case. Perhaps many people would rather read Harry Potter than the books I choose to read. Fair enough, but I can have my pipe dreams just the same, can’t I?

"It Was Miraculous"

My hometown blew up on Tuesday. Now I know it's not everyday that a person gets to say something like that. But the picture does not lie.

A chemical plant on the South end of town is what actually blew, creating a toxic smoke cloud over the town until firefighters were finally able to put the blaze out later that night. There is no word yet on what caused the explosion. My parents called us that night to tell us that they were okay. They and others in my extended family were staying at my cousin's house outside of town. They also said that due to extraordinarily well-organized evacuation efforts, everyone in the town got out safely. In fact, amazingly there were no fatalities, even at the plant itself.

Everyone is currently back in town, and business is returning to usual. After seeing the pictures and hearing the reports, I was very thankful...

Thank God that no one died.
Thank God that it wasn't a terrorist attack.
Thank God that it wasn't a plane crash.
Thank God that the town evacuated safely and orderly.

The mayor said it best: “It was miraculous. To have a serious incident in the middle of town and nobody was seriously injured, it is miraculous.”

Day 9,496.

Thank you for my wonderful birthday gifts, Jessica!

1 Corinthians 3:6

My church is currently very small (we averaged 12 people last month). This is not inherently bad, and there are definite advantages to being so small. However, we are looking to reach more people—not for the sake of numbers, but so that we might extend the kingdom of God. We have been brainstorming ways to grow, but I thought I would ask for help from you readers out there. How would you suggest we grow numerically as a church, while not being overly focused on a headcount?

Here are some of the demographics to consider:

•We are comprised mostly of DINKs (“Dual Income, No Kids” couples) in their mid-to-late 20s.
•We are based in Aurora, Colorado, which has an amazingly high rate of people moving in and out of the area.
•We are all relatively new transplants to the Denver area ourselves.
•We have a mix of traditional and contemporary elements in our services.
•Most of our members are dedicated to the church.

Any ideas you have would be greatly appreciated: Books, websites, personal experiences, etc.

Thanks in advance,
Jon

Sky Nation - A Parody.

DENVER – Sky Nation, the annual worldwide concert series warning of the dangers of the sky falling, took place yesterday. Sky Nation headquarters, based in Denver, CO, announced that there were concerts in several cities throughout the world. “We are glad to have concerts in Timbuktu, several villages in Outer Mongolia and Paris, as well as Denver,” said foundation president Lewis Upchuck. “It is our goal that by having these concerts, we can really raise sky-fall awareness and effect change.”

Falling sky, or sky-fall, is the phenomenon wherein the earth’s atmosphere lowers toward the ground. “The sky has been falling at a rate of 2.5 cm per year. We first noticed this in 1978, thanks to satellite readings,” said Fred LoDacrappe, researcher at the University of Colorado. “We know that the sky has been rising and falling for eons, but we have come to realize that the sky is now falling at an alarmingly abnormal rate.” Scientists believe that human freedom and individuality are the main causal factors of sky-fall. “If people would all just do as I say, then I believe we could bring sky-fall under control. But as long as the masses are resistant to the cultural elite telling them what to do and how to think, we can expect the sky to continue to fall.”

Official Sky Nation reports indicate that at least several people attended the concerts. In Timbuktu, a group of nomads was seen passing by the concert there at one point and was factored into the number of attendees. A Parisian family of twelve attended the French concert, which broke the previous year’s record attendance of seven. In Denver, the entire population of Boulder attended for the third straight year.

The Little Chix were among the bands performing at Denver’s concert this year. “Why can’t we all just do as we’re told?” asked band front man Charlie Mayer. “The sky is falling, and that’s not up for debate. We have to stop thinking for ourselves, or else something bad might happen, I guess. I mean, that’s what I was told.”

10 Days Out: Blues from the Backroads

I recently obtained 10 Days Out: Blues from the Backroads, a dual-disc album put out by Kenny Wayne Shepherd. In 2004, Shepherd, along with Chris Layton and Tommy Shannon (SRV's old band, Double Trouble), went on a road trip throughout the South in an effort to preserve the music of the originators of the blues. (The blues has the same roots as jazz, both having come from slave music.) Shepherd tracked down many of the pioneers in blues, most of whom are very, very old. But my, oh my, can they still play!

The album contains a CD of 15 of the songs that were recorded on the trip. I believe all of the songs were recorded live, in one take. As I listened to it, I realized how good these musicians are, even in their 70s, 80s and 90s--they only need one take! Their ability to connect with the listener via music is second to none.

The album also comes with a DVD documentary of Shepherd's road trip. It is put together similarly to a PBS special. By watching, I learned many interesting things about the men and women who formed the blues, and I really came to respect the musicians and their music even more than I, a blues fan, already did.

This is more of an informational posting than a "blog" per se, but if you like music at all, I would recommend picking up this album. First, it's just plain ol' good music. Second, it's a history lesson about black American culture. (It's truly a shame that black culture has turned to rap and R&B for its music, when it has such a rich musical past.) Third, it might get you hooked on the blues, which can only be a good thing.

(By the way, if any of you do like the blues or great guitar playing, also check out Joe Bonamassa, who I think is the best rock/blues guitarist on the planet right now. )

Happy listening!

God in America.

Some of us from church went to see the Rockies game last night (they won 11-3!) and stayed for the fireworks display. Although my view was obstructed by the upper-deck overhang, it was quite the show. They played all of the traditional patriotic music along with the fireworks. Several of the songs made direct and open references to God, thanking Him for blessing America. This gave me pause.

Before I go on, let me say that I am not anti-America. I'm happy to live here, and I am very grateful for the freedoms and lifestyle I enjoy. I have to wonder, though, given today's American culture, what must God think about us? We are allowed to talk about Him on holidays, during tragedies and after sporting events (God obviously favors the winning team), but even then it seems these references are little more than emotive utterances, devoid of any true meaning, apart from "warm fuzzies". We have effectively removed Him from TV, movies and music (with a few exceptions, to be sure). He dare not show up in our schools. We require our politicans to be nominal Christians, but they must vote as secular humanists.

On the other hand, there are many good Christians out there in our churches. We have myriad compassionate followers of Christ doing what they can to enlarge God's kingdom. They embody the love of Christ in their communities. They truly are "walking in the light as He is in the light."

As I view the ends of the spectrum, I wonder what God thinks about "the greatest country on the planet". How great are we? How wicked are we? Does God's grace extend to the whole on the behalf of the few? Does God's justice flow out on us because of the many?

I do not have an answer to these questions, other than, "Wait and see."

Good News in Egypt.

There is good news for Egyptian women today--Yahoo! news has reported that the country has announced plans to outlaw the heinous practice of female circumcision after a twelve-year-old girl died of complications from the procedure. (Apparently clitoridectomies have been "banned" since 1997, but there is a huge "exceptional cases" loophole.)

I was very happy to read of this. It is quite sad to know that so many women in the world have had such a disgusting thing done to them. The fact is, they have been robbed, oppressed and abused. I would dare to say that this practice is almost an exercise in dehumanization--wicked men are abusing their power by taking away part of women's identities as women.

Thank God that Egypt is taking steps to eliminate female cirumcision. I pray that other countries around the world would follow their lead.

Se7en (Things About Me)

I have been tagged to reveal seven things about myself. Here ya go, Pat:

1. It bugs me when check-out lines have signs that read "Ten Items or Less" instead of "Ten Items or Fewer". Thanks to my college roommate Josh who taught me the general rule: If you can count it, it's fewer. If you can't, it's less.

2. I am addicted to coffee.

3. I started playing the guitar when I was around 14 years old. My dad had his old nylon-stringed guitar stored in the basement. I found it and a book entitled Learn to Play Guitar Like the Monkees, and the rest is history. I now have two electric guitars (a Squire that I never play and an American Series 70s-style Strat plugged into a 50-watt Marshall) and two acoustics (a Takamine usually tuned to open D tuning and a Seagull, which I highly, highly recommend). I want to get a 12-string Seagull at some point.

4. I love to cook. In my house, I do most of the cooking, meal planning, etc. My wife loves me.

5. I would be perfectly happy never shaving again and growing out my beard to Castaway-type proportions. Alas, I do not live in Boulder, so I am content with my goatee.

6. Although I work in corporate America right now, eventually I will be a pastor. I would also like to take a stab at writing, which is one of the reasons I started this blog.

7. I co-direct a Christian distance-running camp every year in the mountains near Estes Park. We bring in kids from all over the region and teach them about Jesus and running. I know we are doing big things for the kingdom of God, although I doubt that I will ever see our true impact. (I know the same is usually true for anyone who ministers to youth.)

Congrats Rockies!

Congratulations to the Colorado Rockies for sweeping the New York Yankees! Keep up the good work, boys!

Hooray Beer!

New Belgium Brewery must be reading my blog. The Ft. Collins-based beer company has become living proof that we don't need more government regulation in order to use our natural resources more wisely. The brewery just built a new bottling plant with some amazing features. According to 9 News in Denver, the plant was built out of reclaimed timber, its kettels use 65% less energy than standard kettles, and it even reuses its waste water. New Belgium is doing its part--voluntarily, mind you--to implement and maintain environmental best practices. Amazingly, the government didn't even have to tell them to do it!

Why are they doing it? It's simple--more and more consumers want to purchase "eco-friendly" products. New Belgium saw this and responded by giving their customers what they wanted. Thus, the beer company sells more beer, pays less in overhead (their new system has reduced the plant's energy bill by $3000 per month), and everyone is happy.
This is a perfect example that perhaps the government shouldn't take the lead in the race to "save the environment" (a concept which I find rather arrogant and androcentric, but I digress). The free market being what it is, when consumers demand X, businesses either make their products do X or shut their doors. Perhaps our lawmakers should give this concept a chance to work--a concept which positively reinforces responsible use of natural resources--instead of rushing to punish those who would dare drive their non-hybrid car to work and back.

Denver $acrifice$ to $ave the Planet.

I recently happened across this article in the Rocky Mountain News. Basically, Mayor John Hickenlooper wants to initiate a “climate action plan” for the city of Denver. Now, I am all for taking good care of the earth (it’s where all my stuff is), but if you have read some of my earlier posts, then you know that this sort of thing troubles me.

Here are some of the main points of Hickenlooper’s plan, as stated in the article:

Denver may ask residents to make personal sacrifices to combat global warming. Ideas being considered:

· Making heavy users of electricity and natural gas pay more

· Charging residents who throw away a lot of trash

· Setting energy-efficiency standards for new construction

· Giving carpoolers and hybrids priority for parking

This is, in my opinion, the wrong way to effect change. Basically, this “climate action plan” becomes an exercise in negative reinforcement. The government will punish you if you don’t live up to their standards (they know better than you, of course). Granted, this plan may force people to change against their will, but perhaps there is a better way. For instance, why not introduce tax incentives? Instead of charging people who throw away a lot of trash, give residents who voluntarily recycle a tax deduction. Reduce the tax burden on those who choose to build or buy energy-efficient homes. People would become environmentally aware overnight of their own volition. (Okay, #4 comes the closest to this line of thought, but what about handicapped people who don’t carpool or drive hybrids? Do they have to park in the “back 40”?)

The government won’t be going down this road, however. In fact, this plan would make it more beneficial for the city if its people don’t adhere to it. Denver will make more money this way. This is similar to the sin tax on cigarettes. The government “wants” people to quit smoking, so it raises taxes on cigarettes, thereby increasing its revenue as more people smoke. How many governments want to decrease their revenue? Likewise, if Denver’s “climate action plan” is enacted, the treasury will increase proportionally to the rate of pollution. Which will the city choose—their environment or their bank account?

Hell is Autonomy.

In an informal "part two" to the last blog, I want to comment on one more thing that Alistair Begg said in his sermon the other day. As part of his discussion on the character of God, he talked about humankind's autonomy. He made the point that God allows us autonomy. We don't have to believe in Him. We can say, "No thanks, I will get through this life on my own," and He will oblige us. He will let us go it alone, and that, said Begg, is Hell. Hell is autonomy. Hell is us getting our own way.

When seen in this light, God doesn't send anyone to Hell--a person goes of his or her own volition. If a person wanted nothing to do with God on earth, why would that change in the afterlife? If you have read The Great Divorce by Lewis, then you know what I am talking about. In it, a bus full of people from Hell drives up to Heaven, and in the end all of the passengers decide they prefer Hell to Heaven. Each would rather hold on to his or her autonomy than submit, even to God.

I can't even will my own heart to beat; how can I claim that I don't need God?

I saw the Lord, seated on a rocking chair...

I heard a great thought today. I was listening to a sermon by Alistair Begg on the radio this morning on my drive to work. He is one of my favorite preachers, and as usual, he did not disappoint.

He took issue with the “benevolent grandpa” view of God. This is the idea that God is the cosmic equivalent of a senile but happy old man who overlooks the bad things we do with a sigh. “Boys will be boys,” he says, and he happily welcomes all of us into the Pearly Gates.

Begg posed a great rebuttal: Would you be friends with a person who never got angry? If a man saw someone brutally attacking another person and did not become angry at the injustice of it, what would you think of him? If you never became upset when someone you love was treated unfairly, what kind of person would you be? If God is “love” without any sense of justice (far be it from a “loving” God to send anyone to Hell), would He be worthy of worship?

Who is the God that you worship?

Truth and Starbucks.

I have been reading through The Gospel According to Starbucks by Leonard Sweet. The basic idea of the book is that the church should take a look at what Starbucks is doing that makes them so successful and appropriate what it can. That is, why do people flock to Starbucks for expensive coffee drinks, and what positive things can the church learn from Starbucks' example? Fair enough; there is no reason the church shouldn’t take that which is good from culture and use it.

Of course, being a seminary student, I must always find some aspect of any book with which I disagree—it is simply a burden I must carry. Sweet, who is a seminary professor, ironically downplays the role of the intellect in the life of a believer. Christianity, he says, is not to be lived out solely in the mind; it is to be experienced. He even goes so far as to say that theological and philosophical debates might do some good in the ivory towers, but they do nothing for the average person. (Never mind that everyone has a theology and a philosophy, no matter how common.) Sweet goes on to format his idea of the Christian life like this:

It seems as if Sweet is saying that the mind and experience are completely distinct from one another. For too long, he argues, the intellectuals in the church have controlled and subdued Jesus. No, he says, to know Jesus you must experience him, and to know the Truth you must experience it. He does briefly acknowledge the role of the mind, but the reader gets the sense that Truth is 95% experiential and 5% intellectual in nature.

I, on the other hand, would describe the life of a believer more like this:

Truth through Jesus serves as the foundation of the faith. The mind and experience, however, cannot be completely separate. Each interacts with and affects the other, and each serves as a corrective to the other. Truth is not found solely through experience or intellectual pursuit. Rather, it is a bedrock upon which both sides are built.

All in all, this is not an attempt to knock Leonard Sweet. There are some good tidbits of knowledge in the book (perhaps I will blog of these later). And I agree with his overall premise. I think he is offering a needed corrective--i.e. let's make church a place where people want to come--but he over-steers the ship. The church needs sharp minds as much as it needs authentic lives. After all, as a wise author once wrote, we are a body.

Monkey Girl

On the recommendation of a fellow blogger, I picked up a copy of Monkey Girl by Edward Humes from the library. It is a chronicle of the infamous Dover, Pennsylvania, incident in which the local school board desired to teach creationism in its high-school science classes. Eventually this led to a national firestorm on evolution, creationism, Intelligent Design and the like. Humes retells the story, and he proclaims on the inside flap of the dust cover that the book covers the perspectives of all sides of the debate. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

Humes has the worst kind of bias—one that is not admitted. In fact, he gives a façade of objectivity by claiming to be a simple journalist, one who is committed to the truth. In reality, he is committed to the status quo. He sees the standard scientific model as unassailable—any dissent is jumped on, with all weaknesses exposed. What he fails to do is understand his own position’s weaknesses. He has no time to waste analyzing his own belief in evolution, because he is much too busy producing ad hominem attacks on William Dembski, Michael Behe and others and using suspect arguments in his defense of naturalistic science.

There are two incredibly frustrating leitmotifs in Monkey Girl. The first is his insistence on the absolute dichotomy between science and religion. I have a simple rebuttal for this: Why? Why must science and religion be separate? Science with its methodological naturalism has no room for divine activity in the physical world. (To be true, science will occasionally throw the dogs of religion a scrap from the table—God could have used evolution as his means of creation, but that’s for the theologians [said with great disdain] to worry about—we deal with the facts.) But consider this: If it is true, as I believe, that God was and is actively and detectably involved in nature, then methodological naturalism has a false presupposition. Everything, then, that flows out of it is also suspect. Given the implications of this, is it not prudent at least to investigate such an idea? Science answers with a resounding No! The fact that science is unwilling even to ask such a question is evidence that there is more than just science at stake in this debate. Philosophies and worldviews are on the line.

The second continual source of frustration in Humes’ book is the all-too-common tactic of using a slippery definition of the world evolution. Evolution can mean anything from the breeding of dogs to the common descent of all animals from a single cell, depending on the context. After all, what does “change over time” really entail? It depends on whom one asks, and how it is asked of them. Humes uses this slippery word to his advantage numerous times, especially by stating repeatedly that evolution has been proved. To which type of evolution is he referring? The reader can never be sure, and I doubt that this is unintentional.

You might note at this point that I have not mentioned much regarding the actual content of the book but have only identified certain of the author’s presuppositions. This is purposeful; in light of his deliberate biases and dogmatic support of the status quo, I find that the content of Humes’ book is worthless in the science/religion/whatever debate. In fact, the main bit of knowledge I came away with after reading it was a hefty insight into the author’s “objective” belief system. Do I have biases? You bet. But at least I try to be honest and open about them. I don’t pretend to tell “all sides of the story” as Humes does.

That being said, I would not recommend this book. Humes’ declared objectivity is extremely suspect, which therefore causes me to doubt the entirety of Monkey Girl’s content. In my mind, he is little more than a minion of methodological naturalism, a serf of the status quo. Had he really strived for objectivity, perhaps he could have composed a book worth reading. In this case, he did not.

Thou Shalt Not.

Something occurred to me on Sunday night while I was watching the 400^th Simpson’s episode. For those of you who missed it, anchorman Kent Brockman uttered “the worst possible profanity” on live television after Homer spilled hot coffee on Brockman’s lap. Kent quickly realized that no one saw his faux pas because no one watched his show. Flanders, however, had taped and watched it (and also many other shows) specifically to find offensive material, about which he could then complain to the FCC. When asked by his son what he was doing, Flanders replied, "Imploring people I never met to pressure a government with better things to do to punish a man who meant no harm for something nobody even saw."

It occurred to me that this is the way many people perceive Christians (there goes my incredible perceptivity again). I’m not sure I can blame them for it, either. Many of the more vocal Christians have become little more than professional protesters. They are against same-sex marriage, abortion and any other politicized moral issue—but their protests are hollow. They offer no “better plan,” no hope. They say they believe in Jesus, but they act more like Pharisees. One might sum up their position with three words: Thou Shalt Not.

How these people would implement Thou Shalt Not is also worthy of comment. For them, politics has supplanted Jesus as Messiah. How do we change lives? By voting the right people in office. Politics will fix everything. I mean, Jesus will fix everything…through Congress.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with Christians being involved politically or arguing against certain issues. I myself “protest” things on the Tiger. I think there is everything wrong, however, with making an idol out of politics and fighting the wrong battles. I, for one, am concerned about living a godly life and influencing the people in my circle. Does that mean I don’t care about politics? No. I care, and I try to be a responsible and educated voter and citizen. But I don’t think politics can save us. I don’t think mandating our secular society to be accountable to Christian standards will work anymore. What I do think will work is a Church that pursues God and desires to be the vessel through which God acts. What I do think will work is changing one life at a time. What I do think will work is loving gays and teenage mothers with the love of Christ.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

What Would You Change?

If you could change anything about yourself, what would it be? This is an often asked question, and of course everyone has something to change. Some want to be taller; some want to be shorter. I'm sure Jewel would want to fix that little fang she's got going on there. The list is endless.

If you asked me what I would change, I would say, "Nothing." This isn't to say that I don't want to change, but I take that question to mean What would you change instantly about yourself, without any effort on your part?

I like who I am. It is true that I have done some pretty bonehead things in the past, but without them I wouldn't be the same person I am today. I wish some of my present circumstances were different (I could sure use a few million dollars, for example), but without the constant challenges in life I wouldn't grow. I have pipe dreams for the future, but I wouldn't want to achieve them without undertaking the journey to get there first.

Perhaps that ultimately is why I answer the initial question the way I do. I am enjoying the journey of life. I am excited about where I am and where I am going to be. I don't regret the regrettable things I have done, although I do seek forgiveness, because God has used those things to teach me. Sometimes I would like better stuff, but then I remember that it's just stuff. All stuff can do is draw me away from God, and I do that well enough by myself. And the future? What good is a prize if you didn't run the race to get it?

I do some things well, some not so well. Some of my features I like, some I don't. I have had good jobs and bad. I have given up some things I love, and pressed on doing things I don't. I was never tall enough or coordinated enough to play basketball in high school; I was never a fast enough runner to make it to nationals in college. And I wouldn't trade those memories for anything.

The Law of American Karma

I hear the word “karma” used an awful lot these days. When someone mentions karma, they are usually referring the following law: If you do something good, something good will happen to you; if you do something bad, something bad will happen to you. This is the Law of American Karma. I am intrigued with this idea of karma because I see it as a caricature of real religion.

I am reading An Introduction to Buddhism by Peter Harvey currently, because I wanted to know more about the real idea of karma. I have had a hunch that most Americans have a skewed view of it, and from what I have read I am right. Karma is a Buddhist belief that is intertwined with the cycle of rebirth and the attainment of nirvana. In a very brief nutshell, Buddhism teaches that suffering is caused by desire. A person must eliminate desire to escape the cycle of rebirth, which doesn’t happen until he or she attains nirvana, a state of complete non-attachment in which a person is neither conscious nor unconscious. Karma is the idea that your actions influence—and this is key—your future lives. Your current life is influenced by your past lives’ karma. This means that to speak of an action’s karma influencing you in the present life, as far as I can tell, is not a proper Buddhist interpretation. Furthermore, a person who believes in karma necessarily believes in reincarnation.

What does this mean? Most importantly, it means that I am a card-carrying member of Anal Retentives of America (ARA) and the Obsessive Readers’ Guild (ORG). I think it also means that there are many people out there who don’t put a lot of thought into the important questions of life. In this case, people latch on to the word karma, which has been ripped out of its original context and given a new meaning, and go about their merry way. The same happens with many religious words: God/god, spiritual(ity), Jesus. Many people are quite happy to go to the smorgasbord of religion, pick out what looks good to them and alter it to fit their needs.

Is this a good way to look at religion? I would think not. A person’s worldview influences all else he or she does; might it then be more important than grazing at a salad bar? Shouldn’t some thought be given to whether or not his or her religious beliefs equate with reality? One does not get to pick and choose the realities of life; why would one expect to choose their explanations? Likewise, the universe does not care if it “works for” you; therefore, perhaps your worldview should “work for” the universe.

At any rate, for many people, five minutes' worth of serious thought on the subject might be revolutionary.

Are there any other ARA or ORG members out there? Maybe we should get t-shirts or something.

Addendum: For another good example of "religious smorgasbordianism" see this blog on Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

DAM

Yesterday I went to the Denver Art Museum for the second time. My wife's uncle and his significant other were in town and wanted to go, so my wife and I played the role of tour guide. (For the record, I got lost in downtown Denver.) For any of you who are in the area, I highly recommend going for a visit.

The progression of art is actually very interesting. Until I met my wife, who has an art degree, I never paid much attention to art and art history, but (in my case) a little education can open up a world I never knew existed. Jessica (my wife) has helped me to understand some of the technical aspects of painting and photography, as well as the progression of art throughout history. The other main source for my very basic understanding of art (which reflects much more on the student than on the teacher) is How Should We Then Live? by Francis Schaeffer. In this book, he presents his ideas on the flow of culture from the Ancient Greeks to the present day, often using art as the method of his cultural hermeneutic.

I am, admittedly, a left-brained visitor trying to understand a right-brained world. Some things I get, and some things I don't. I think, however, that I have learned at least to appreciate human creativity more. In fact, I think this is one of the key areas in which we are made in God's image. God created the world; we get to create things, too. Some of us are better at words, some at music, some at art, but we all create. We all have an imagination. We are all, in a sense, little gods running around creating new worlds. I bet that brings a smile to God's face.

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. - Gen 1:31

Sicko

Well, here we go again. Michael Moore is putting out yet another movie this summer. This time it’s his autobiography, appropriately entitled “Sicko”. Just kidding—it’s really about the state of health care in America.

This is a good time, then, for another discussion of the role of moral truth in society. Mr. Moore’s films are propaganda that play fast and loose with the facts. (For brevity’s sake, I will not defend this statement; there are plenty of others who have.) He calls his works documentaries, yet all he truly documents is his insatiable desire to have his own views accepted. If that means a few lies along the way, then so be it. His is a classic example of the ends justifying the means.

Moore won an Oscar in 2003 for “Bowling for Columbine” in the category of best documentary. Did anyone on the Oscar committee bother to do any fact-checking on this film? If I had to guess, I would say no. “This is Spinal Tap” portrays a more realistic picture than Moore’s movie. So why did Moore win the Oscar? Even in the materialistic world of verifiable facts, “Bowling” comes up short.

I think the answer is political power. The reign of morality was overthrown in the last century. One of the results of this was the removal of barriers for the powerful. In a moral void, what prevents a head of state from killing his subjects, knowing that retribution is unlikely? What prevents a dictator from controlling the press and filling the papers with propaganda? What prevents a movie director from using lies and misrepresentations to advance his political agenda (with a little help from his friends at the Oscars), all while under the protection of the First Amendment?

I doubt if Moore cares about the veracity of his films as much as their verisimilitude. He is simply trying to be the strongest in a solely physical world, and in so doing, strangely enough, he is fulfilling the commission bestowed on him (and all of us) by our society. Though he has perpetuated a slovenly appearance throughout the years, I doubt that he is stupid. I think he may be more perceptive than most, and more courageous in a perverse way. At least he lives out what our culture has taught us to believe—but thank God more people don’t!

Whether you watch “Sicko” is, of course, up to you. I myself will pass, thank you very much. But I would encourage you to give some thought about the reasons that overarching moral truths are important. Michael Moore is just one example.

Spiderman 3 vs. Romans 1

I saw Spiderman 3 on Sunday. I must admit, apart from the play-by-play commentary from the couple behind us (to whom I wanted to say several times, “I was confused by that obvious plot development, thanks for clarifying”), I thought it was the best of the trilogy. The reason I liked it so much was because of the main theme: You always have the choice to do what is right.

Hearing this on the big screen was refreshing for several reasons. For one, the idea of personal responsibility today has given way to situational ethics. Who is to say what is right or wrong in a situation? He was just a victim of the circumstances; you can’t really fault him. Recall Lewis’ opening example in Abolition of Man of the person who believes this kind of thing—right up until he is the one wronged. At that point we discover he really does have a standard of Right and Wrong, to which he expects everyone else to adhere.

Second, today we tend to suffer from a myopic, if not outright blind, view of the past. For example, when someone says, “I didn’t choose to be such and such,” they are thinking about their current state. But do they give thought to the perhaps thousands of decisions they did make to arrive at this state (if you have seen the movie, think about the Sandman)? This reminds me of Romans 1:21-32:

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

At the point when God gave them over to their desires, they may well have said, “I didn’t choose to be this way.” And in the short-term, they didn’t. God chose for them to be this way. But in the broader context, in effect their whole life was a choice to edge closer and closer to the precipice. When the Wind knocked them off the ledge, they had no choice but to fall. But they did choose where to stand.

Modern Times

I just finished Modern Times by Paul Johnson. At almost 800 pages of history written by a dry British author (dry and British? Now I've seen everything), it took me about 20 hours of total reading time over the course of the past month to get through it.

Johnson recounts all of the important people and events from the 1920s through the early 1990s, and he revisits several overarching observations throughout, one of which is the effects of moral relativism. Johnson contends that moral relativism, when combined with a will to power, was a major reason that Hitler, Lenin, etc, were able to come to power and kill millions. He also credits secular humanism for lending a helping hand to such despots. Johnson believes that the 20th century proves the evilness of these ideas, and after reading the book, I am inclined to agree with him.

If up to the task, I highly recommend this book. It is a good overview of recent world history for those of us who need a refresher course upon occasion. It is written from a conservative (and I believe Christian) perspective, so it makes no attempt to justify or ignore the injustices of totalitarian regimes. Finally, even if you have no interest in history, Johnson's vocabulary is extensive. Here are just a few of the words I learned from this book: Caravanserai, cynosure, degringolade, inure, nugatory, opprobrious, sartorial. I am looking forward to using these words in insouciant conversation, most likely about various sporting teams, heavy, earth-moving machinery and the philosophical weaknesses of postmodern thought. "His raucous dance and stentorian paean in the end zone was self-opprobrious and an obloquy to the league. It was a true nadir for him."

Jumping on the Global Warming Bandwagon

Global warming concerns me. It probably doesn’t concern me for the reasons you might think, though. What concerns me about global warming is that not many people are challenging it. Let me clarify at the beginning—I am not saying that the earth is not heating up, or that we should not treat the environment responsibly. I am saying that in the last six months, it seems that everyone has decided that global warming is here, its destruction will be complete in nature, and we are directly responsible for all of it.

There are a few questions I have about global warming that not many people seem to be asking. First, how do we know what temperature the earth is supposed to be? The standard scientific view says that the earth is 14 billion years old. We have accurate temperature data for certain parts of the world for the last 150 years. By evaluating ice-core samples, scientists have a pretty good idea of the temperatures for the last 1,000 years. This means that we have empirical temperature data for roughly 7.14x10^-6% of all earth’s history. It seems odd to me that one could take such a small data sample and make such large claims with it. Besides, I recall learning about ice ages and heat waves that happened long before humans appeared. How is the current warming trend different?

Second, the environment is dynamic, with a multitude of factors at work. How can we be so sure that man-made carbon dioxide is the root cause an impending catastrophe? Carbon dioxide is just one piece of the environmental pie. I am not suggesting that it plays no role whatsoever, but there is no guarantee that if we all stopped driving cars, the earth would suddenly revert to “normalcy” (whatever that is).

Third, computer models predicting future temperature changes vary widely. For that matter, the five-day weather forecast isn’t always accurate. Why do we put so much stock in them? Is it because it’s technology (which, of course, is always good) used by scientists (who, of course, are always correct and unbiased)? Where have our critical-thinking skills gone?

I am afraid that our society has yet again succumbed to the tyranny of the present. As Ann Coulter stated a few years ago, “For many people, history started this morning.” Never mind that twenty years ago the feared global ice age never happened (I am just old enough to remember this). Never mind that Y2K was a dud. “This time, we mean it!”

Again, let me stress that I am not advocating mistreating our planet. If we can take better care of things down here, then by all means, let’s do it! But I fear that we are blindly following the latest cultural craze, which may or may not turn out to be true. (If it turns out to be false in twenty years, I guarantee that no one will admit to having believed it—it will be forgotten and abandoned without a second thought.) We should be critical of global warming, not because of a lack of concern for the environment, but because history’s past failures demand it of us.

Lesson in World History

I have been working my way through Modern Times by Paul Johnson. As always, history is a great teacher. I have two examples of this.

1. Whenever I watch the local evening news (for the record, I never watch the national news), the death toll in Iraq is almost always mentioned. Usually it is reported that 8-10 people died that day, and about once per week someone from Colorado dies. Since the beginning of the war, I have been against this practice of daily death-toll reports. This is not because I don’t care about the people who die fighting, or because I am a pro-war zealot (in reality, I have mixed feelings about it and therefore do not have an “opinion” per se). I am against it because there is no comparison made to it. This is where history comes in. Johnson relates staggering numbers of deaths in and around WWII. Tens of millions of people died unnatural deaths during this time. “By December 1941 Hitler had about 8,700,000 Jews under his rule. Of these he had by early 1945 murdered at least 5,800,000…” (p. 415 in Johnson). Six million people were systematically exterminated at an average of roughly 4,800 per day for over three years—and that was just one man’s contribution to the death toll. When we bow to the tyranny of the present, 10 soldiers’ deaths per day sounds like an atrocity. In comparison to 4,800 civilians’ deaths per day, we see things could be almost infinitely worse. Again, I do not wish to belittle the memory of those who have died, but given the history of wars, Iraq is not that bad of one.

2. I have also noticed that a lot of people think President Bush is not very smart (yes, I know, I’m quite observant). In fact, I came across this quote about the President yesterday: “He [is] seen as well-meaning, intellectually limited, ignorant, inarticulate…” This quote, however, is from Johnson, p. 461, and he is describing President Eisenhower. Eisenhower himself promoted this myth for a variety of reasons. In reality, he was “a man of keen political intelligence and penetration…When he spoke of such matters seriously and in a protected official circle, insights of a high order flashed out time after time…” “He often pretended ignorance [at press conferences]…to avoid giving answers which plain English could not conceal…” (pp. 462-3) I am not suggesting that Bush is pulling an “Eisenhower”, but I have thought for a long time that people generally underestimate the President, which is based primarily on two factors: 1) the perceived popularity that comes with bashing the President, and 2) he fumbles his words often while speaking. I am not defending Bush, his war plan, or what he ate last night; I am just saying that history suggests that he might not be as dumb as everyone takes him for.

I am not a very political person, and I am not pro-war or a Bushophile. If anything, I am only trying to live out another of my maxims: If a majority of people are doing it, then there must be some problem with it.