Thursday, December 20, 2007

Marketing genius

Evil marketing genius! Last night a kid stopped by as we were sitting down to dinner to get us to subscribe to the local paper The Gazette. My wife and I have gone around and around trying to figure out whether we should subscribe to a newspaper. When it comes down to it, we feel guilty if we don't read it, so we spend time we would dedicate to other things (for her, schoolwork) trying to allay our consciences over the money we spent on it. But mostly when we subscribed to the Denver paper, it would make a nice stack of newspapers.

So I answer the door. Dude offers me a copy of The Gazette, telling me he's trying help build the subscriber base. If he signs up 50 new subscribers, the paper will pay for a semester at the local community college. He said he was at 47, so I could have helped him get one closer. I applaud programs like this that allow students to get education. But it's sinister in that a big corporation, desperate for a subscriber base to promote to potential advertisers, is willing to use my emotions about the value of education to get me to pony up cash that we need to pay for my wife's education (or insert your own family's need here). We have planned generosity built into our budget from regular monthly support of different organizations to a small discretionary amount for other things that pop up. But I feel bad for other people who are manipulated by the wonderful opportunity of education into paying another chunk of money for something they don't need and won't read. It's a small handful of people who will form a new and enjoyable habit of reading the paper by being convinced to sign up. When they move to a new town, most newspaper readers will call the local paper and sign up if they want it. The vast majority of people who sign up for promotions like this do so out of guilt and get what zefrank calls "a litter version of the internet."

This makes me question the future of newspapers, because our culture will soon reach the critical mass of people who get their newsertainment from other media and don't care to keep using paper. Advertising will drop. Papers will charge more for subscriptions. The generation older than me, which has a higher propensity to read the paper, will go the way of . . . generations. My generation has about ten percent, if that, who intentionally read the paper. Newspapers will probably collapse under the inefficiency. Not that I want that to happen. We're seeing more and more physical media go away. Physical media have great value, but since it is only economics that drive these media, they will probably go away. Not a prediction, a prophecy or a guarantee, but I don't see how the economics will continue to work. Unless someone comes to my doorstep saying, "If you don't subscribe to The Paper, I will kill this kitten."

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

A viscous circle

And yes, I do mean sticky. But I guess it's not so much a circle, as maybe a downward spiral. What I'm talking about is pietism as an entertainment culture. Many pixels have been illuminated over the idea that individualism is a/the bane of human existence. Agreed. Further, one very particular activity that people undertake exacerbates the problem.

I've heard it said a number of times: It's just me and Jesus. Or sung many times: It's just you and me here now, Lord (or some variation). This type of attitude is a direct descendant of pietism, that thing that started out of camp meetings and encouraged folks in their personal relationship with Jesus. (Admission: this is a strong response; maybe like using a blowtorch to light farts. And it's probably going to burn my off.) A very strong aspect of pietism is the Modernist myth of continual progress. So I do my devotions, I get more holy, and naturally sin goes bye-bye. So now it's personal holiness; all that matters is Jesus and how he's making me holy. It feeds individualism.

Now if you're stuck inside your own head, and your main goal is progress of some sort, it starts to look a lot like entertainment. So while our secular culture is looking for the next awesome cinematographic experience, and amazing blood-splattering graphics on their video games, the Christians are looking for the next spiritual high. Retreats. Devotionals. Guest speakers. Lights. Flat screens. Smoke. Loud music. Entertain me! I'm not sure if I would have sat at a camp meeting and predicted our individualistic entertainment culture. (Okay I wouldn't have.) But it seems like all the curses of said American dream culture were brought on ourselves within religious practice 150 years ago. Maybe the whole thing doesn't need to be chucked. But most of it does.

Back to community. Holiness as the body of Christ, not as individual bodies within the "body" of Christ. (Dan Merchant's "Lord, Save Us from Your Followers" shows a brilliant metaphor for this "body." Just watch it.) Accountability in the communal setting where we are lovingly intolerant of that which perverts the image of God. This involves individual spiritual disciplines, obviously. But it involves much more engagement with God's image around us.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Electability

Seems like the key for a major party in candidate choice is whether the candidate is "electable." Doesn't matter who they are or what they stand for, if they have the charisma to beat the other party in the general election, we're gonna nominate them! Presumably if there are "electable" candidates, there are "unelectable' ones. Perhaps for no other reason than linguistic humor, but also to make the next year slightly more bearable, everyone needs to refer to terrible candidates like Giuliani and Clinton as "ineluctably unelectable." (Except that they might be those charismatic ones . . . aargh!)

Friendship as recognition

I'm (finishing after a long hiatus) reading NT Wright's "Evil and the Justice of God." A phenomenal work as I remember it, and it's already yielding interesting insights in the second sitting. In perhaps a throwaway line, Wright mentions that the righteous are always waiting for God to vindicate them, and this will surely happen, but maybe only "beyond death itself" (looking toward the vindication of resurrection). Which got the cogs turning.

I believe God is omniscient and omnipotent (to use terms from systematic theology), so there is no doubt that at the resurrection, he could offhandedly say, "Arise!" and all the righteous are resurrected to life and the unrighteous to death, whatever form that takes. There's even the "Lamb's Book of Life" in case he forgets to raise a righteous one. But a focus of evangelicalism among other movements is that God loves us and knows us and knit us together in our mother's wombs (which the Bible does actually say). Perhaps resurrection to life is supposed to be far more intimate. In this case, the driver in resurrection may not be God's blind power but his love and our love in relationship. Jesus's line would then make far more sense: "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (TNIV). So again, it may not be God's omnipotence or omniscience that powers that dramatic and all-encompassing scene of the resurrection. It could be the fact that he recognizes us in a very intimate way, based on how we have related to him in this age, that determines whether we get a hearty welcome or a castigation.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

For your Shabbat convenience

We just found out today that our oven has a Sabbath setting. We can instruct it to not do certain things on our pre-defined Sabbath. It's okay to broil, I understand, but not bake. So the normal bake settings are disabled on the Sabbath. But suppose I'm broiling and want to look at my food? Not so fast, young man! The oven light won't work. And since it won't work, I won't work. And that's the point isn't it?

Monday, December 10, 2007

Systematic Theology

I've had this debate raging in my head for a few weeks now, and sometimes it rages outside my head: Is systematic theology worth anything? My department went to a conference a couple of weeks ago, and this was a major topic of conversation. One main presenter is done with systematics. The other two are hanging on, although one has a redefinition of the word "systematic" that doesn't help a bit. Systematics is so dogged with baggage, I'm not sure it's fruitful to try to redeem the word.

Here's my short assessment: Systematics as traditionally conceived doesn't seem to have any merit. It takes all sorts of diverse moments of Scripture and lists them out so we can handle the concepts. So take the idea of God's immutability. From Hebrews, systematics says, "God doesn't change. He is the same yesterday, today and forever." But if they're honest, they have to see that God "repented" of making humans when he flooded the earth in the time of Noah and that Moses convinced God not to destroy the Hebrews and make his Name a laughingstock. If we engage the stories (and more importantly perhaps, the Story), we will have an enigmatic view of God emerge, but one that we can engage in faith. Otherwise, if we live according to a list of God's attributes, we have to pick our favorite characteristics: "God obviously never changes! It says so in Hebrews!" Or: "Look how God listened to his servant! I don't care what Hebrews says!" Now if we read in context, many of these contradictions will vanish, but we need to be able to live with the tensions in the story.

The only (almost) value of systematics is that you can memorize a bunch of references to locate stories. But I think getting familiar with your Bible through frequent reading will accomplish that. I guess my current opinion is that systematics doesn't help.

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Also proud of . . .

P - p - pr - president Bush? Can it be true? I have to go on record saying that I'm proud of President Bush for sending a letter to Kim-Jong Il, the notorious notorious-person in charge of North Korea. For too many years, we've had this awfully arrogant looking policy of not communicating with people we don't like. I may not be an elected official, but I am a human being, and it seems like it's necessarily to communicate with the other party in some personal way if we hope to have a humanizing influence. So I was shocked to hear of such a letter, but it turns out it's true. W is for "Way to go!"

A small step

Commercial-behemoth-in-the-consumer-wasteland Sam's Club is taking a small step toward environmental helpfulness. In light of the miles of receipts they print every day, our local "Club" is now printing on both sides of the receipt. While it probably took a bit of doing to replace all the receipt printers, or at least to enable them to print both sides with new printer heads and software, I'm proud of them for saving a quite a bit of paper in the long run.

Friday, December 7, 2007

A true reversal

I think a lot about sustainable farming, and how much I want to grow most of the food my family consumes. I realized last night that 80 years ago, you had to be pretty wealthy to consider not doing subsistence farming to stay alive. But in that time frame, America has changed so much that you have to be quite wealthy in order to realistically consider doing subsistence/sustainable farming today. My, how times have changed! And I don't think necessarily for the better.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

It's just pixels

There have been a lot of pixels spilled in articles and blogs over the past few weeks concerning how churches use the video game Halo 3 as an outreach tool. The New York Times published an article about it here. There are some really fun quotes in there. For instance, one youth pastor wrote a letter to parents in his church saying, "We want to make it hard for teenagers to go to hell." Never mind that you're bringing hell into your church by giving kids the thrill of blowing people/creatures up in the video game.

One really, really solid argument I saw for doing this was that there's no actual killing. It's all just pixels, so it doesn't really matter. I'm sorry . . . I know my posts are usually . . . longer than this . . . it's just I've got these great pixels . . . on my screen . . . they're not really naked women . . .

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Pooch kick

Missouri used this mysteriously named kickoff strategy all night last night as they dismantled (then almost got dismantled by) Kansas. How on earth did this get its name? A pooch kick is basically a high, short kick that allows the kicking team to get down-field to tackle the returner. My best guess is there was an armchair quarterback/coach who was extremely frustrated at the use of this device, so he . . . kicked his dog. The next day at work, he didn't know what to call the kick, so he said, "When they did that . . . you know, that pooch kick!", and the latent guilt from his indiscretion came spilling out.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Worth dying for?

I hear a lot of people talking about fighting for the things that are worth dying for. There is a sense of great nobility about that phrase. It sincerely touches me deeply to think about this, particularly after engaging the Harry Potter series. All through the series it is emphasized that there are . . . things worth dying for. But there's always been something about that phrase that nags at me. I realized while washing spinach and doing dishes today that it's because the phrase is usually used to justify war. (On a related note, I'm not sure insight is a good motivator to wash spinach or dishes.)

A better question concerning war is, "Is it worth killing for?" I'm anti-death as a general rule, whether for friend or foe. There are a few things I think I would die for, but almost nothing I would kill for. That may make me sound like a sissy, but again, I'm probably pro-life to a fault. Okay, I guess the problem with making that the diagnostic question is I'm presuming others have a similar anti-killing ethic. But at least it's a chastening question.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Health care for the universe?

I just watched Barack Obama's presentation/interview at Google, and I'm very impressed. There may be other decent candidates out there, but since our electoral system is screwed up, and Clinton and Giuliani aren't decent candidates, I think Obama has to be our next President. He seems to have a very reasonable head and empathetic heart.

He mentioned universal health care in his opening remarks. I chased that concept down some neural pathways. Before I get to the end of that rabbit trail, I'll note that I grew up "conservative" and often hear people say, "We don't want to end up like Canada," (a valid critique) or "I'm no Commie!" I have a historical mental stigma towards this kind of health care.

Now for the chasing. Who are the people who don't get adequate health care? Low- or no-income wage earners. Who gets the good stuff? People who are working at companies which are making enough money to pay good salaries and provide good health care. Who's scared of universal health care? The relatively rich. (Canada critique works here—people who are getting good care don't want that watered down.)

Now since my bias is that the only people who dislike universal health care are Christians, let's talk about what Jesus would do. He'd provide health care to the poorest and most disenfranchised. To my recollection, almost all of Jesus's healing signs were directed at the mostly down and out. Lazarus was possibly middle class. The centurion whose servant was healed was relatively well off. Jairus, the synagogue leader, was probably well off. Other than these, we're talking about Jesus providing health care to the lower classes.

Many of us don't have faith that Jesus is still bringing about his kingdom today, so we believe that doctors are the only way to go. But if we have the heart that Jesus did toward the disenfranchised, we must work toward providing quality health care to the poor. Maybe that's not the government's job? Fine. The church needs to step up.

Friday, November 16, 2007

Sermon illustrations

This morning, I became aware of something quite ironic in the realm of homiletics. I remember the old adage of three points per sermon with a supporting illustration or two per point. Now why on earth do we need sermon "illustrations"? If we're propounding God's timeless truths from Scripture, shouldn't that be sufficient? Or do the homiletics teachers realize something about lowly lay people? That maybe we aren't sufficiently developed enough to engage timeless truths?

There's something very valuable in telling stories to congregations. Namely, stories are what carry worldview; a well-told (and hopefully true) story can subvert someone's thought patterns in the way that telling them they are wrong definitely won't. For instance, "The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.
   “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”
   David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this must die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”
   Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’
   “This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”
   Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD” (TNIV).

History doesn't share with us what would have happened if Nathan had strolled in and said, "King, man, you're a sinner!" Knowing how monarchies ran, he probably would have been killed or imprisoned immediately. But the story found its way into David's heart and broke it when Nathan deftly drew the parallel.

So, sermons. Why do we denude the Scripture's stories to turn them into timeless truths, only to turn around and say, "Oh, when people hear sermons they need to hear stories. It's what makes sermons interesting."

An idea: Tell the Scriptural stories, whether in their original context or with a modern cast of characters, and let the stories do the work they've done for centuries.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Yahooooo?

I heard yesterday that Yahoo! is being censured (or prosecuted, yelled at, sued or otherwise settled with) over their release to the Chinese government of the identity of a couple of dissenting bloggers in China. While I agree that it's not in the best interest of free speech to give such information to an oppressive regime, I'm having a really hard time seeing how this is different from what is happening in the US government's request for phone records of calls made by suspected "terrorists" outside the US. (I'll grant that there are threats of violence from the latter.)

But seriously, so-called Islamists are making phone calls to organize opposition to a government that is creating perceived injustice in their countries. Chinese bloggers are posting pro-democracy or anti-government thoughts to fuel opposition to their unjust government. These two scenarios resonate too well with one another. Yahoo! is being lambasted! for their response to a sovereign government's request for information related to national security since the handing over of said information resulted in torture. Our own government is asking for very detailed communications information in the interest of our national security and we've not heard any assurances that these won't result in torture. It's quite interesting that the phone companies are asking for immunity if they comply with a US law that may be shown to be unconstitutional, and they're not being given it. The phone companies are in the same boat as Yahoo!. There are proposed laws making it very nasty for companies who turn over information to torturing governments (a la Yahoo! and China), but I don't see any efforts by the US executive branch to defend democracy by being self-evaluative and recognizing the unconscionable similarities here.

Okay, I know there are major differences here. China is a brutal Communist regime that tortures dissenters, and 'merica is a democ . . . I dunno; I give up.

Google, please don't sell me out.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

We hold these truths to be self-evident

I'm reading Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis right now, and in Movement Two, he makes a fascinating point about how people interpret the Bible. A parishoner of his spoke up in a meeting saying, "There are so many commentators and opinions out there about the Bible, but I've decided to just read the text for itself" [paraphrase].

I've been working on a theory for a while about knowing and (the lack of) humility. (Turns out Anne Lamott thought of it first and was referenced in Bell's book.) The idea is that you either have to be psychotic or really, really un-self-aware to say, "You know, I have some opinions, and I know they're wrong, but I'm just not going to bother changing my opinion." I decided at that point a couple of years ago to be semi-humble and say, "I'm right until you give me information that I need to know to change my opinion." I think true humility would be a learning posture that doesn't assume rightness at all—because the humble know that they don't have all the information. That's an ongoing need of reformation in my mind.

This leads me to understand something about how I have viewed the Bible for much of my life, and what is now so frustrating when I hear other people talking about the Bible. Though the words just came to me this morning via those Founding Fathers, it is the perfect assessment of how people read the Bible. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." There is a complete lack of humility in most modern hermeneutical discourse (which may be too generous a phrase to describe how individuals study the Bible). The attitude seems to be, "I know those people have PhDs, but how can they be so dense? It's so obvious!"
(Thanks to Micah for pointing out the lines from Ladykillers:
- Allow me to present myself, um, formally. Goldthwait Higginson Dorr, Ph.D.
- Like Elmer?
- I beg your pardon, ma'am?
- Fudd.
- No, no, Ph.D. is a mark of academic attainment . . .
I think this is how many see PhDs.)
We tend to read the Bible centered exactly around our culture and experience (another point wonderfully expounded upon by Bell), such that we think it's totally obvious. No wonder there are so many denominations; we've taken seriously the charge to study the Bible for ourselves, but we've forgotten to come back to the community to moderate views that go outside the bounds of orthodoxy. All you need is an isolated exegesis and a strong personality, and you can create your own denomination! Either that, or you can lead a denomination astray so that the more orthodox among you will start a new one.

Bell's point about the Bible and my thought about life in general is that we need to see truth as becoming evident through solid inquiry within community, not as self-evident.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The democratization of music

I've long been fascinated by the idea that the way we experience music today has very little to do with they way our forebears experienced music. Let's start, say, forty years ago and take a meandering journey through music history. 8-tracks. They were the rage! You could easily control your musical selection in your car, a first since the radio music was still at the mercy of a dj. Then came cassette tapes, a more compact way to tote music. Walkmen started showing up. Let's not forget ghetto blasters as some sort of paragon of portable music. Then we moved into CDs, Discmen, mp3s, mp3 players, and the mass popularizer of the last item, the iPod. This progression shows that music has become more and more portable, and at the same time, more and more private.

Before 8-tracks, there were records, which were played in a more stationary setting. Before that, you pretty much relied on live performance. Over the last several hundred years, live music with instrumentation was most often found in the church, as chamber music for the noble class, or with cruder minstrel instruments. Celebrations such as weddings found live music, but again, this was more of a luxury. Without instruments, communal singing occurred in the setting of work (or religious chant, but that's beside this point). Chain gangs or plantation workers sang together. Women sang in the kitchen or over the wash. Perhaps a couple of people with a banjo or harmonica played on a porch on summer evenings, a la the minstrel.

The point is, technology has brought about a democratization of music. Just about everyone in America has some form of personal music player. What's more, these devices are giving us an unprecedented amount of control over our music selection. I can choose the very song I want to listen to and almost instantly access it. Contrast this with how instrumented music happened all the way up to the early 1900s. Outside of church music, people rarely heard highly trained and talented musicians playing music. It was a once-in-a-lifetime experience for most of the population. I call on Cake to give us the picture, in their song "Commissioning a Symphony in C." An Austrian nobleman puts on a symphony. "With money you squeezed from the peasants/To your nephew you can give it [the symphony] as a present." Part of the subplot is the nobleman's self-consciousness and his attempts to impress people. "You enter the room with great caution/Though no one in the hall is even watching/They are transfixed/They are forgetting just to breathe/They are so taken by your symphony in C." Most of the people in attendance could only experience this kind of musical mastery once in a great while. The nobleman probably had a chamber orchestra to entertain him at regular intervals. But the common folk are mesmerized by the beauty of the performance.

So the question is this: Were we meant to enjoy music in rapturous once-in-a-lifetime moments? Or on a completely on-demand basis? Somewhere in between? We still have the "Symphony in C" moments. People listen to U2 for years and years and have every one of their songs memorized. Then U2 comes to town. An individual will drop hundreds of dollars to be in attendance to hear well-produced songs they've memorized be performed imperfectly. But live. Those are the moments we grab for. We can relive them only in our minds. There's no way we can experience the frenzy of the crowd (at the rock concert) or the delicate harmonics (at the orchestra) again, or at least till we go to the next event. We savor those moments that we've shared with our fellow concert goers. But in the meantime, we come back to our well-produced albums in the (dis)comfort of our earbuds to listen to the same songs over and over again.

Think about how special music was before electronic technology went all crazy and made it accessible to everyone all the time.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Zorro psychology

I've begun discovering more about "masks" that we as people wear. I've known for a while that people (including me) put up these fronts ("Why you frontin', man?") to portray an ideal self, when there may be no truth to it at all, or at most, a very little grain of truth. But I've also been wrestling recently with the idea of the true self and how much we can change it.

My current operating theory is that we can become what we want one of two ways. One way leads to the true self (because it is itself the true self), and the other way leads nowhere, because it is a shortcut. We can become the ideal self to other people by wearing masks. That works fine for a while, and it may work really well for a really long time, but there will come a point where the pressure of pretense is too great, and the ensuing explosion blows off the mask. The better way to become the real ideal is to know or have an idea what you want to become and, having that goal in mind, grow into it.

I characterize it in a very simplistic way: The kid who dreams of being big but doesn't want to wait finds a kid who's smaller than he is and bullies him. The kid with a longer, more healthy view will dream the same dreams, but will eat well, exercise, get plenty of sleep and drink lots of water. He will actually grow into a big person rather than frontin' with a bully mask.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Jerusalem's Prophecy

I find it interesting that when Jeremiah prophesied the first destruction of Jerusalem, he noted that the exile from the land would be seventy years. When Jesus prophesied the fall of Jerusalem late in each of the synoptic gospels, he promised a lot of things, but he never prophesied a rebuilding of the temple or a return from this second exile. Luke's account is most pointed: "They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (TNIV). (NB: "nations" and "Gentiles" are the same word, different case. The Jews are carried to the nations doing the trampling, I would assume.) But there is never a prophecy of a return and reoccupation of Jerusalem by the Jews (or of a temple rebuild).

From a larger perspective, it seems God tells his people what they need to know. The prophets said some cryptic and seemingly unhelpful things, but in retrospect, the prophecy of the return was pretty strong. In fact, there seem to be three returns from where I sit. There's the return to the land, which happened under Cyrus. There's the return of God to his people, which Jesus effected. Then there's the full restoration of creation where God will again dwell fully with people at the end of Isaiah, repeated at the end of Revelation. But there's no return foretold anywhere in Scripture after the temple's second destruction.

I think Jesus' silence on a Jewish reoccupation of Jerusalem is telling. (Note a timetable here: Jesus's prophecies of the destruction of the pretty temple occurred in AD 70. Hadrian overran Jerusalem in AD 135 and banned any Jews from entering it. Jews were only allowed to enter Jerusalem again when it fell under Muslim control in 638.) Should this show us that God is working with a redefined Israel? Jesus rebuilt the nation of Israel around himself. He is the true Jacob, the true Moses, the true Aaron, the true David. He called twelve disciples to be the twelve sons of Israel. He did so much that was symbolic of who he claimed to be, that there is no doubt that the assembly of Jesus followers is the new Israel. (Paul is riddled with this idea too.) Given all of these symbolic actions with explicit statements AND a lack of prophecy of a second return of those who showed themselves to be poser Jews (Pharisees, Saducees, regular Josephs, etc.), why do we keep tearing up the earth to institute something God didn't really intend. (Sure, permissive will or whatever, but God's work is through the body of the new Israel, Jesus.)

It seems that the British agenda in pushing for a Jewish state starting in the twenties has wreaked all manner of havoc in the world. Think of how things would have been different if they hadn't set up the state in 1948. I'm no anti-Semite, and in principle, I'm all for a group of people with a common heritage to have a homeland. Indeed, rabbis over the centuries have longed for and prophesied a resurgence of Judaic practice. But, as a follower of Jesus, I wonder if it was the best thing to push for something that the Bible is silent on. Nothing we can do about it now, except everyone start living like Jesus. Oh, was that the point all along?

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Eutopia

I just attended a lecture about the importance of a good city environment to William Penn. I've read books about the so-called New Urbanism. These experiences have instilled in me a great appreciation for place. Consider my excitement when I, an etymologist, thought I discovered that the word "utopia" came from the Greek eu- "good" + topos "place." Utopia is obviously a "good place." Imagine my shock and despair when I found out that "utopia" actually comes from ou- "no, not, without" paired with "place." I haven't studied Thomas More at all, but when I hear that the ideal place is no place or a lack of place, my hackles rise up to confront (in a Christian, non-violent way) the Gnostic heretic. But one more etymological note: the lexical opposite of utopia is dystopia, which is derived from the Greek for "bad place." Why the heck would "no place" be the opposite of "bad place"?

I have a couple of ideas about the provenance of these repugnant words (or rather, the vile masquerader utopia; at least dystopia could be useful). The idea of an ideal seems to spring from Plato's ideas. (They're like the people chained up in the cave, in the allegory of the people in the cave by the Greek guy.—Thanks, TMBG.) An ideal was necessarily not real; it had no root in reality. The only use that school of thought had for reality was that it was a dim shadow of the ideal. So in a rigidly literal sense, an ideal place would be a "no" place. I'm sure different people have noted this, but I first heard Andy Crouch talk about traveling to speak at a conference. He said America was increasingly becoming a no place. At home in Massachusetts (at the time, I think) he could visit Starbucks, PF Chang's, the mall or other favorite comfort establishments. He could travel to San Diego and visit the exact same places and expect the same quality. This gave him the comfort of "home," even though it reveals a total lack of home. I believe America has become the Utopia in most cities. We can find everything we're used to with virtually no uniquity. The America most of us live in is indeed a "no place."

Which brings me to my proposal: We need a word for the people who are trying to be creational and redemptive (against Gnosticism) to indicate a very pleasing place. (I would say ideal, but I've already deconstructed that word.) Naturally, I think that word is what I thought utopia was all along: Eutopia, the good place. The only downside is people may be confused by the different spelling. I could also propose syntopia ("with place"), but I think eutopia really works.

A thought about eutopia. It's good to dream of where that might be. Colorado comes very close for me. I don't really want to live anywhere else. But more goes into this than climate and mountains. How does the city look? What is it like to walk in a neighborhood, to get to the local grocer? How is the farm/ranchland? Are all the churces warehouses? (Remember, brothers and sisters, place doesn't matter! We're trying to emulate the no place, languishing till we can shed these shells and get to heaven, the ideal no place! Sorry . . . had to spew a little heresy.) In contrast, the new creation that we will inhabit in the age to come will be the real eutopia.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Providential humanism

A few months ago, I was stricken with the worldview of providential humanism. Someone else may have thought of this already, and they may think they're being infringed upon, but the name and complex of concepts came upon me at one particular juncture. I was part of a project that had everything to do with God's work. I was excited about it, so I was pushing to get the word out. We received a very timely admonition from one team member that this was ultimately God's work, so we shouldn't take too much control of how the word spread. While the suggestion toward humility was quite necessary, I think I take (humble) issue with our (lack of) role in the process.

God created us as his co-rulers within the creation. He has uniquely gifted each of us for serving him and each other in our own regency in his kingdom. My area of service happens to be predominately in theology and language (and more pointedly in a mixture of the two), with some dabblings in connecting people to further God's kingdom. So if I have these gifts, do I leave these things "up to God"? I don't think I do. I think I humbly pursue my giftings within my sphere of influence for God's glory. That's what it means to be truly human, and that's what it means to live within God's providence.

I recently sang a song in a "praise and worship" (whatever that means) setting called "Empty Me" by Jeremy Camp. I get the feeling that I rarely understand a song in the way a lyricist intends it, and that's probably the case here. Here are the lyrics:

Holy fire burn away
My desire for anything
That is not of you and is of me
I want more of you
And less of me

Empty me, empty me, fill me
With you, with you

I'm trying to figure out exactly my issue with it. I think it is the "you versus me" attitude. One might call it appropriate humility to say I never end up wanting what God wants, and only what he wants is good. But I think that destroys the possiblity of progress, or better said, redemption in the Christian life. I like to soberly think that I'm desiring things more like Jesus now than I did five years ago. But this song is saying that whatever is of Jesus is good (true) and whatever is of me is bad (untrue). What happened to the fact that I'm God's vice-regent, ruling the portion of creation he has gifted me to rule? If I am humbly pursuing his redemption, I think I can say that his holy fire can burn me and still leave a good portion of me. On a cautionary note, I know that I can make choices beginning today that will drive me further away from God's desire for my life. But the bigger caution goes to living like I'm a robot that used to clutch my own remote, but now has given it to Jesus.

We must live as responsible people in a truly human way under the hand of God Who Provides.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Why do people suffer?

I saw this title on a book, and my first thought was "because good people do nothing." While that's not totally accurate, I think it's true to a large extent. When "atheists" and even well-intentioned Christians ask that question, they are asking the right question, but their answer automatically starts in the wrong category.

The atheistic types are looking for an excuse to deny that the Creator exists. It's an easy jab: "If your God is so good, why do people suffer? Ergo, no God." What if we went with a more humanistic perspective, the way the Bible does? The Creator appointed humans as his co-rulers and gave us large latitude of choice. It seems that people suffer because other people choose to help them suffer. It's an issue of human responsibility; not God's goodness. If God were to take away all suffering, before his appointed time, he would be violating his intention for humanity to rule wisely over his creation.

Why do people suffer? As a result of unwise rule by their fellow humans.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Humility in Discourse

I love America. Please know that from the beginning.

What I don't get is how we Americans seem to know when being a rebel is right and when it's wrong. I was talking to my wife last night, and she said how she saw all sorts of contraband weapons when she was in Bosnia. The way I understand it, Bosnia was part of Yugoslavia for several generations because the six regions of the country each produced something none of the others had. So they formed a confederation to supply necessities for survival. However, feelings of ethnic superiority rose to the top, and the Serbs started killing the Bosnians. The Bosnians were only able to fight back because they had buried weapons in their backyards or hidden them elsewhere. According to Yugoslav law, it was illegal to own weapons, and it still is under the new governments. But the Bosnians know that there will be another war to reallocate resources, so they stockpile weapons to be ready for it. In my view, these freedom fighters could be seen as pretty noble. They're simply defending their Creator-endowed inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (though I'm not sure the Creator endowed those rights on them since they seem pretty barbaric and haven't codified that endowment into a constitution or other declaration—that was sarcasm by the way). I also know that this nobility is repugnant to the Serbs. Their attitude seems to be "Won't they just hurry up and die already!"

Every culture seems to have freedom fighters who will take up arms to protect "freedom" from time to time, whether it's Contra rebels that America supported against the Sandanistas or Saddam whom America supported against Iran or the Taliban America supported against Russia or the rebels nobody is supporting against the demonic Janjaweed or our own forebears who supported themselves against the majority populace in the fight against taxes without having a representative in Parliament. Oh. Now that fight is starting to sound a bit silly compared to people who are trying to not die long enough to grow a little bit of crops to eat so they can not die. Regardless, there are people around the world fighting for freedom as they define it. There are some Muslims who see freedom as having their land not be occupied by non-Muslims. We call them terrorists. We invaded Iraq to make it safe for freedom and democracy and keep it from being a haven for terrorists. I've never seen a better terrorist haven! The terrorists seem more entrenched now than ever, and they're very motivated. Is it safe to define "terrorist" as a person who is a very motivated freedom fighter who will resort to any means to make it safe for their way of life? I seem to remember that the British were rather peevish that the Americans didn't line up to get blown up like civilized soldiers.

I guess what I'm saying is that today's America seems very self-absorbed with an inflated self-importance. We seem to define other people's priorities for them, with the major criteria being what's best for us in the moment. (See, for example, our policies in Iran and Iraq in the last forty years. Those are coming back to bite us big time.)

What I am advocating is that America stop playing Omniscient, Omnipotent Nation and in humility seek to serve the nations of the world. I know that silly attitude got one particular wise teacher crucified, but the last post talks about his vindication. And ours if we serve him and live like him.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

"You obviously don't have kids yet."

A while back I was conversing with a co-worker about terrorism and blowing up the terrorists as part of our American duty. I told him that I wasn't willing that anyone be killed in the pursuit of protecting my own interests. He said, "You obviously don't have kids yet." Presumably, when I have children, I will be consumed with a passion to protect them no matter if it means denying my faith in Jesus. (Big leap? I'll explain.)

This all came to the surface for me as I was talking with a different co-worker about a pro-life worldview and capital punishment. So I'll start there. I'm against abortion, but better said, I'm for giving people every chance at life, including helping the poor succeed, treating the elderly with dignity, protecting the environment so that it will continue to sustain life, giving criminals/terrorists a chance at redemption and giving babies a chance to live. "Yeah, but some criminals are really dangerous, and you never know when there will be another terrorist attack." That sounds like something Jesus would leave in the hands of the Father. And let me point out, that's a scary place to be! Did you notice what the Father did to Jesus? Left him in the hands of criminally unjust governments. Let them torture him. Let them mercilessly kill him. For what? Serving people. Loving them. Behaving redemptively in their lives. Showing them how to be truly human. Exactly the same things we're called to do. And don't give me the "I'm not Jesus" or "Jesus was a special case." Sure he was, but we're called to be Jesus right now! No wonder his kingdom doesn't appear to be making much progress in its coming. "Aw, that's up to Jesus." No! It's up to me! It's up to you! He specifically called his Body to bring his kingdom in the world today. And that means no matter how unsafe I feel, I get to love and serve those hated most by our society.

Here's the key move: Jesus was vindicated; we will be vindicated. Most people are reluctant to allow God the access to their lives to do what he did with Jesus. But look what God did: He raised Jesus from the dead! Jesus is the firstfruits of what will happen to all who seek his kingdom. We will all be resurrected, whether we die at a ripe old age, whether we die of the sinful ravages of cancer, whether we die at the sinful ravages of torture by terrorists. You'll notice we all die, and that's because sin still holds influence over God's good creation. But there will come a day when sin is expunged, when death is reversed. At the resurrection, we get our life back! God's good, then subsequently besmirched, creation will be good again! In the new creation, we will live as God intended from the beginning.

A note about faith: If we have faith that God is telling this story, we can have faith that he has our life in his hands. He will give our life back, no matter how it was taken from us. But if we stick with the Gnostic worldview that we go to heaven for all eternity to live in disembodied bliss, it's really hard to stomach the idea of trusting God with life. What if he takes it away so I can't enjoy great coffee or wine or steak or pizza or sex or hanging out with friends (not necessarily in that order). Life will look different in the age to come, but it will be substantively better, because it will be what God intended for it to be all along. If God calls me to die because I'm loving (by not killing) a terrorist (who still bears God's image, albeit in a horribly twisted way), I hope that makes a difference in the world. That difference could just be more brothers and sisters to celebrate with in the age to come. And that's exactly what Jesus would do.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Motivation

Here it is, three weeks after I was really itching to write a post on motivation. And I'm finally doing it. I don't think I can blame lack of motivation . . . I really have been busy. But motivation is always a topic in the front of my mind, since I seem to lack it so often.

I've been thinking about the evolution of my levels of motivation, and I'm curious to hear any insights you may have. The decades-long trends have been startling, and I'm wondering whether they have physiological, social, spiritual, etc. roots and what priority each of these potential causes may have in the pool of causes.

The history: As a kid, I was an absolute sponge for information, so studying wasn't a big issue for me. At times I had trouble getting motivated to do my homeschool work, but my mom would say something like, "Do you think it's time to do some math?" I would tear off through six or eight lessons of math in a couple of hours, or read three chapters in my science textbook. I did great on the tests, so the pedagogical style didn't seem to matter. My freshman year was challenging, due mostly I think to Mrs. Matlick's English class. I still got an A, but it was a lot of work. My sophomore year, I competed in Bible quiz bowl. I was a top competitor in the country and loved having an even stronger competitor on my team. We took sixth in the nation as a team (out of 300 or so teams). I knew the text of 1 and 2 Kings very well. The next year, we studied six of Paul's letters. I memorized the first six chapters of 1 Corinthians, and we did pretty well at the first tournament. But I think I was disappointed by our performance, and I started wasting time instead of studying the text. I still got great grades in all my classes. In my senior year, I competed in Bible Bowl, but with the same one-third-hearted gusto as the previous year.

My first semester of college, I was very excited to get a 4.0. I got a B+ in Christian Life and Ethics, and I think that took away my motivation for great grades. I enrolled in Dr. Mayer's (aka Mayer the Slayer) Systematic Theology I to prove that I could defeat the beast. However his paragraph-true-false-correct-it-if-it's-wrong questions made me feel like he was trying to trick us more than teach us, so I stopped trying halfway through the semester. Thirty minutes before the final, I was playing Tetris and still hadn't studied. I got a C+ in the class. Also, I would go collect sources for papers a week before they were due, but invariably, I wouldn't start writing them till the night before. I would skip classes the day a paper was due to finish writing it.

Professionally, it seems like approaching deadlines dictate when I will start to work on something. That usually means I'll miss the deadline. While I feel like I do great work, there's something deep within me that longs for it to be more punctual.

With that long history, my curiosity is whether I've always had the same inclinations when it comes to motivation and it's really hard to assess those in a child, or whether I've been on a long slide due to certain formative events or environments. Regardless, I'm hoping that evolution the other way is possible. I would love to be a motivated person who accomplishes great things punctually without being a hard-charger. My current brainstorm is that I probably need to get a part-time job (to help make ends meet/overlap while my wife is in school), and that will provide the pressure I need to get on top of things and get them done. Any insights on motivation would be most welcome.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Translation and Context

Last week (my, how time flies!), I had lunch with a friend I hadn't seen in a while. What made our time together so delightful was exactly what is written in the "About Me" section: "I like sharing ideas with people so we can come up with new ideas." Mark had several brilliant insights, a few of which I will write about now and in days to come.

We talked a bit about The Books of The Bible, a recent release from International Bible Society. One of the key features of that work is the lack of chapter and verse numbering. Mark noted that he had judged translations based on how verses stacked up to each other. You see this all the time in Christian publishing or in sermons. The author or pastor will have their (okay, his) five favorite translations on the desk. They'll page through all of them to find their favorite nuance (and I said people don't pay attention to nuance!). Whichever translation fits the agenda the best makes it in. In fact, English translations sometimes differ widely in how a verse reads. Mark's insight is that if we read that verse in context in both translations, more than likely, the giant variance will vanish. When we read Scripture and track an author's argument over a longer section, the meaning becomes much more clear. The meaning of a verse or sentence will turn on a solitary word, but a paragraph will lend much more nuance to the thought of a single sentence.

Monday, September 10, 2007

Leaving Children Behind

The "No Child Left Behind" Act is up for revision. If you've been paying attention at all over the last few years, there has been great outcry over "more bricks, no straw" provisions, especially from educators. However, I will say that it's probably good to provide accountability for failing schools and seek improvement so that, well, we don't leave any children behind. A Kingdom value if I ever heard one!

Leaving out comment on the draconian practices of the act, the thing that really gets me is the fact that this is all based on standardized testing. I'm a bright enough fellow, but when I was a kid taking the Iowa Basics, my favorite pastime every fall was seeing if I could get 99th percentile on all categories. I think I may have actually made it as a freshman on the Stanford Achievement Test (or some such device). I scored well enough on my PSAT to make it worth my while to take the SAT. I got a very nice score there. Fine enough. But the ACT kills me. I had a (literally) jaw-dropping score after my first attempt. (A kid forced me to tell him.) However, in Oklahoma, there are score threshholds where if you cross them, you basically get an absolutely full ride at OU. Not knowing where I was going to college, I took the ACT again and got a ridiculously sick score. (Hang with me, this is all leading somewhere.)

So in college, I wanted to take as much Greek as possible, and I found that taking CLEP (credit by examination) tests was pretty convenient. (Let's see, take standardized tests, which I love, pay sixty bucks, get three to six hours of college credit so I can take something I care about . . . I'm in!) I regret not taking it now, but History of Western Civilization 2 seemed pretty dispensible. I signed up for the CLEP test, and didn't really bother studying, because I didn't think it was likely I would be better prepared trying to learn the "second half" of the history of western civ in a couple of weeks. I went into the test knowing that if you have absolutely no idea on a question, leave it blank; if you can narrow it down to three answers, take a stab, because statistically, you will come out ahead despite a one-fifth point deduction for a wrong answer. 120 questions. I left two blank. I was confident on one question. I totally guessed on 117 others. I left the test feeling quite ill. How could I have gotten myself into such a debacle. Sixty bucks down the drain. A few weeks later, I got an envelope from ETS in my mailbox. Filled with disappointment masterfully mixed with dread, I tore open the envelope there in the campus post office. To my utter shock, I got a 550 (or so) out of 800, enough for three hours of credit.

For me, this stellar cheating of the system (no actual cheating involved; just "good test-taking skills"), cast doubt on my previous achievements. I'm good at taking tests, and I probably should have exploited that more. But what about the poor kids who don't know how to take tests? They may be getting along in their education just fine, but they don't get into a competitive college because American College Testing wrote an assessment just for me. And this certainly calls into question how we assess whole schools per the NCLB Act.

I would much prefer a discipleship based model of school assessment. Get great principals who will help form great teachers under them. These great teachers will help the students along in their educations, and will obsoletize any need for silly standardized-test-based assessment programs. Okay, madly idealistic, I know. And I know we have a massive teacher shortage. (I'm thankful my wife is in school right now to be a high school math teacher. She's gonna be great!) Good grief. With all my complaining, I think I'm feeling a tug into public education. I'll have to think about this.

Sunday, September 9, 2007

A Pint to Drink, a Pipe to Smoke and Some Theology/Philosophy to Discuss

I just read a very interesting review/opinion on the book Captivating by Stasi and John Eldredge by CT columnist Agnieszka Tennant (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/august/25.60.html). It helped me to further clarify my conflicting thoughts on the Eldredge movement. The premise of this movement is that "in the heart of every man is a desperate desire for a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue" and "Every woman longs for three things: to be swept up into a romance, to play an irreplaceable role in a great adventure, and to be the Beauty of the story."

Let it be clear up front that my wife falls into the Captivating camp, so I know there is validity in these thoughts. I first encountered this thinking when I read Wild at Heart and Sacred Romance around 2000 and thought, "Great! Some easy handles for holding the world!" In 2001, I moved to Colorado and met a young woman who helped shatter those neat categories. She seemed more Wild at Heart than Captivating. And as outdoorsy and adventurous as I can be, I soon found my three life themes to be a pint to drink, a pipe to smoke, and some theology/philosophy to discuss. Does that make me Mild at Heart? Probably. Less of a man? I hope not.

I then applied the 80/20 rule to the Eldredge scheme. (80% of men are Wild at Heart and 80% of women are Captivating.) That makes it possible to have a best-selling book franchise of monolithic thinking, since it merely pisses off the 20%, and the 80% just drink it in while shaking their heads in pity at the cranky 20% (if they're aware of them at all). If authors would be a bit more nuanced in their arguments, saying, "Most women long for three things:", they would be able to say they have integrity, but unfortunately for them, they probably wouldn't sell books.

Ms. Tennant's CT article carried my understanding of the Eldredge movement a bit further by casting some light on a sort of reverse gnosticism. The emphasis seems to be on extreme physicality, between the adventures for men and the "beauty" for women (which is more about prettiness; a nice catch!). It's interesting that the heart of evangelical Christianity has been all about spiritual development and desire to get out of this damned body so we can celebrate (what, I don't know) as disembodied souls for all eternity. Now we have the Eldredges saying it's all about adventure and beauty, some very physical things. (To be fair, they talk a lot about relating to God, which surely fits neatly into a spiritual category.) But can't we bring the pendulum back toward the center and engage true humanity, body and spirit? I know that's asking a lot, but the world works much better when it's nuanced. [rant off]

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Faith in the Storyteller

For all the interesting or enjoyable things one can take from Harry Potter, partway through book six, I took a lesson about faith. I noted in the last post that "faithful" means, at least in one sense, "adhering to a covenant." A more common sense of "faith" would be "trust." Well, I think both of these work together when we think about stories.

At various points in the Harry Potter series, there are very intense moments, and I'm left wondering how good will survive long enough to face evil, and hopefully conquer it. Maybe I'm a lame reader, but I look for things to hold onto. I say, "Take a deep breath, we're only in book six. We know since there are seven books that Harry has to survive till at least the seventh." And that got me through those earlier episodes. As I've gotten to know the characters in the Harry Potter books, and more importantly for this discussion, JK Rowling's writing style, I have begun to feel like I can trust Rowling to do the right thing. I haven't finished the last book yet, so I can safely and speculatively say that I believe good will triumph over evil somehow. [Please no spoilers in the comments, for everyone's sake!]

Where is faith here? Obviously, I have faith in the storyteller. But why? Why is the storyteller faithful? There's an implicit covenant in epic storytelling that good will emerge victorious in the end. (I'm aware of the ironic twists in many of the most enjoyable and popular stories in which evil triumphs, if for no other reason than to avoid a Hollywood ending. But we're talking about a certain type of story here.) Rowling is making a good showing of keeping the covenant, at least as far as I've read. She's caused me to have faith that she will bring the story to a fitting conclusion.

[insert lame analogical tie here]

The faith lesson for me illustrates how YHWH, the Creator, sees good (his side) triumphing over evil. He tells a story all the way through the Bible where, at times, evil appears to triumph. But if he is as good a storyteller as I think he is, I know good will win. The difference between the Bible and Harry Potter is the story of the Bible is still happening. I find myself caught up in the story because I'm serving YHWH in my life today, and not declaring allegiance to Dumbledore/Harry vs. Voldemort. The story of the Bible continues; the storyteller is faithful; he will keep his covenant to restore the creation to its original good state; I place my faith in the storyteller and seek to be faithful to the covenant of his story.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

The City of Righteousness, the Faithful City

I ran across what most people know as Isaiah 1:26, which says,

"I will restore your judges as in days of old,
your rulers as at the beginning.

Afterward you will be called
the City of Righteousness,
the Faithful City.” (TNIV)

At first glance, one may think these mean "really, really good city" and "city that does what it's supposed to." Thanks mostly to NT Wright, my view has shifted to something a bit more, well, nuanced. Wright proposes that faithfulness is adherence to the covenant with YHWH, the Creator God. Righteousness is a condition that results from this faithfulness to the covenant showing oneself as a member of the community of YHWH. Yeah, so? Interestingly, the New Covenant that Christians are supposedly under stems very much from the above mentioned First Covenant. Read a bit of context:

“The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the LORD.

“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;

I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?

Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.

New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.

Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.

They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.

When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;

even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.

Your hands are full of blood;
wash and make yourselves clean.

Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!

Stop doing wrong,
learn to do right!

Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.

Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.


“Come now, let us reason together,”
says the LORD.

“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;

though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.

If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land;

but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword.”
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.


See how the faithful city
has become a prostitute!

She once was full of justice;
righteousness used to dwell in her—
but now murderers!

Your silver has become dross,
your choice wine is diluted with water.

Your rulers are rebels,
companions of thieves;

they all love bribes
and chase after gifts.

They do not defend the cause of the fatherless;
the widow’s case does not come before them.

Therefore the Lord, the LORD Almighty,
the Mighty One of Israel, declares:

“Ah, I will vent my wrath on my foes
and avenge myself on my enemies.

I will turn my hand against you;
I will thoroughly purge away your dross
and remove all your impurities.

I will restore your judges as in days of old,
your rulers as at the beginning.

Afterward you will be called
the City of Righteousness,
the Faithful City.”


Zion will be delivered with justice,
her penitent ones with righteousness.

But rebels and sinners will both be broken,
and those who forsake the LORD will perish. (TNIV)



Interesting how the biggest deal seems to be, not keeping the Law with sacrifices, but keeping the Law by looking out for the oppressed, the poor, the widows and orphans. The point of Jesus's little foray into his creation was to bring about a new covenant where our hearts can be restored to keep this "law" of looking out for the powerless. Someday heaven will come back to earth when Jesus restores all of creation. YHWH (LORD in the text) is going to restore judges and rulers who will keep his law in this way. He will dwell among us as we all keep the New Covenant perfectly. The idea of the Christian life today is to pull this future (or eventuality) into the present as YHWH's children. Why not start now?

Monday, August 20, 2007

A blessing or curse?

I've noticed that I've had a lot to say recently. Whether said stuff that wants to be said is interesting, relevant or that it even ought to be cared about is beyond the purview of my judgment. I guess that's up to you to decide. And having thoughts in my head that want to get out—is that a blessing or a curse? I'm not sure. But at least I can post the thoughts here, and my vexation will be moderated.

I feel like I spend a lot of time quibbling. About certain nuances of ideas. About nuances of word choice. Thus the title of the blog. (And yes, it's a nod to Luna Lovegood's father's publication.) It appears to me that there is far too little recognition of nuance in our world today. Our political discourse (while being neither a discourse nor politic) has seemingly lost any nuance. The politicians know they have one shot at a soundbite, and they feel they have to lambaste the other party to be recognized as doing anything productive. Bye-bye, nuance. And then there are a bunch of people that I know are crying, "Just tell me what to believe!" They don't want nuance. They want something easy to follow.

I don't want to come across as snobby. We can chalk the black-and-white vs. gray debate up to personality or upbringing or current environment. Regardless of the validity of a black-and-white perspective, I feel much is lost when we lose nuance. So enough about that. The rambling rants herein will often (and to me, most importantly) be about nuance. Many of them will be one-off shots at making sense of something. Please interact with me, since I've found that my particular nuances usually have gaping holes. Your nuances plus my nuances can help build a better worldview, and I know I'll be the better for it!