HoldFast

Albums of the Year

2011-01-07T18:04:00.007-05:00

It seems that the posts around here have been getting more trivial...not to mention spaced very far apart. Believe it or not, I'm halfway through a post about evolution, science, and the Bible, but then, I started it two months ago, so we'll see if it ever gets finished. This post is more on the fun side, though.

I discovered several new bands last year, some new and some old, and some of my old favorite bands released some great new albums. So this is my list of the 15 albums that I enjoyed the most in 2010. There's no particular order, and you'll see that the albums stretch from released last year to released thirty years ago.

1. Mumford & Sons - Sigh No More

Possibly my favorite album of the year, this Irish band somehow manages to pull off something I can only describe as alternative folk rock...although I can't neglect the bluegrass influences. They have a knack for melody, and the arrangements usually range from stripped back acoustic to symphonic choirs, often in the same song. I'll admit, I haven't been able to get enough of this album, and I'm already eagerly anticipating their follow-up. Stellar tracks include, well, the whole album, but especially "The Cave," "Roll Away Your Stone," and "Little Lion Man."

2. John Mark McMillan - The Medicine

An impulse buy at the beginning of this semester, this indie-feeling rock album quickly earned my respect. The sound is reminiscent of Kings of Leon, but managing to sound a little less like it was recorded in a garage without sounding overly produced. There's a raw energy that comes from McMillan's raspy rock vocals, yet staying much closer to folk rock. Plus, his lyrics entertwines Christian themes with incredibly skillful and sometimes beautiful poetry, approaching old topics in fresh new ways. Highlights include "Carbon Ribs," "Out of the Ground," and the title track.

3. OneRepublic - Waking Up

Something about OneRepublic's blend of incredibly skillful singing, catchy rhythms, and string section allows me to keep returning for more enjoyment. It's fairly light fare, but oh-so-catchy. I think I had "All the Right Moves" stuck in my head for half of the year. Other great tracks include "Secrets," "Fear," and "Marchin' On."

4. The Gabe Dixon Band - The Gabe Dixon Band

Someone gave me the live version of their track "All Will Be Well" a few years ago, and it quickly became one of my favorite songs. This year I finally decided to buy their whole album, and I can't say enough good things about it. It's a trio of a pianist, a drummer, and a bassist, and the lack of a guitarist leads them to create some sweet piano-driven tracks, carried by Dixon's beautiful tenor voice and skillful lyrics. Every track on this album is a winner, but especially "Disappear," "Find My Way," "And the World Turned," and the incredible forementioned "All Will Be Well" (which is still in my top five list of songs all-time).

5. Kings of Leon - Only By the Night

When my iPod got wiped in Turkey, this was one of the only albums I managed to salvage from other people's iPods. Thank goodness. The rough, raw vocals and guitars of this alternative rock band go way beyond the song everyone knows, "Use Somebody." There's a raw energy here that is infectious, and Anthony Followill's almost soulful voice soars over the somewhat grungy guitars. Listening to this album in many ways is its own experience. Highlights include the forementioned "Use Somebody," "Closer," "Crawl, and "Sex on Fire."

6. Switchfoot - Hello Hurricane

I've been a Switchfoot fan since the wonder that was The Beautiful Letdown, but with this album they've almost outdone themselves. It feels like they've returned more to their roots and given some straight-up alternative rock that flows with energy. Although it feels a little more produced than some of their previous efforts, that doesn't hurt it at all, and Jon Foreman has never sounded better. Hightlights include "Needle and Haystack Life," "Free," "Enough to Let Me Go," and the title track.

7. House of Heroes - Suburba

I was a huge fan of House of Heroes last album The End Is Not the End, and so I was really excited for this release this year. A concept album about living in suburban white middle-class America, the band has a flair for witty lyrics and catchy melodies, but what really gets me is the musicianship of the band: all their vocals, including background vocals, are sung around one old-fashioned group mic, producing some absolutely incredible sounds. This is just a straight-up rock album, and they reflect that by being willing to take legit guitar solos that are reminiscent of classic rock days, but with a very modern flair. Highlights include "Love Is For the Middle Class," "Salt in the Sea," and "Disappear."

8. Dave Matthews Band - Big Whiskey and the Groo-Grux King

I only really discovered DMB this past year, but I sure am glad that I did. Since I've been listening to all their albums, it was hard to pick one, but I'd say this is the one I've listened to the most. I don't feel like I need to say much about it--I love sax in a rock band, I love his voice, and I love the fact that everything they do sounds like the best kind of jam session. I hope I can see them in concert some day. Highlights include "Shake Me Like a Monkey," "Funny the Way It Is," and "Dive In."

9. Florence + the Machine - Lungs

My friend gave me F+tM's track "Heavy In Your Arms" for my birthday, and I was an instant convert. It's hard to describe their style...percussion-heavy, fairly symphonic rock with a Regina Spektor-like vocalist. It's just a vocal pleasure that sweeps you up in the sound. Hightlights include "Dog Days Are Over," "Rabbit Heart (Raise It Up)," and "Howl."

10. Fleetwood Mac - The Dance

I've always loved Fleetwood Mac, who I discovered in the middle of high school, but I've found myself going back to this album over and over again. It's a live recording of their 1994 reunion tour, and features reinterpretations of many of their classic hits. I love the originals, but I love the redone versions of "Rihannon" and "Big Love," and "Landslide" is one of my all-time favorite songs. I'm not usually a fan of live albums, but this is one of the best.

11. David Crowder*Band - Illuminate

I know, Church Music is the one that just came out, and it's a good album, but having rediscovered this, their second album, it just can't compare. Something about the laid-back experimental style and the simple yet profound lyrics gets me every time, and I could just put this one on repeat for hours. David Crowder shows that you can be an explicitly Christian band and still make great, not just good, music. Highlights include "Open Skies," "How Great," and "Heaven Came Down."

12. Sara Bareilles - Little Voice

I was one of the people who originally downloaded "Love Song" as a free iTunes download and propelled it to a mega radio hit, but I didn't get the full album until this summer. I can't believe I waited so long. She has one of the most amazing voices in popular music, and every one of her songs is a beautiful, soul-stirring arrangement. Most albums peter off at the end, but the closing track "Gravity" is one of the most heart-stoppingly beautiful songs I've ever heard. Highlights include "Love Song," "One Sweet Love," "Between the Lines," and the forementioned "Gravity."

13. Relient K - Forget and Not Slow Down

I've been a Relient K fan since the goofiness of The Anatomy of the Tongue in Cheek, but unlike many of those high school fans I've stuck with the band as they've matured into a legit rock band, leaving their goofiness behind and demonstrating their gifted songwriting and a willingness to try something different. This album I actually was not a huge fan of the first few times because it's so different, but repeated listens propelled it to a status as one of my favorites of theirs. They have definitely completely left punk behind, and actually poppified a little bit in a good way. In contrast to their other albums, this is a fairly happy album, and displays their matured musical sensibilities well. Highlights include "I Don't Need a Soul," "Savannah," and the two-track closer "This Is the End (If You Want It)."

14. U2 - October

This has also been the year that I discovered the U2 beyond The Joshua Tree. Surprisingly, my favorite album of theirs so far is their second album, which produced no lasting singles and which most people don't care about. Yet something about the raw energy of this album, the first following Bono's conversion, just appeals to me, and his soaring vocals on tracks like "Gloria" and "Rejoice" stirs my soul. Highlights include the forementioned "Gloria," "Rejoice," "Fall Down," and the haunting title track.

15. 30 Seconds to Mars - This Is War

I've never been much for modern rock, so 30 Seconds to Mars' earlier albums never held much appeal for me besides as an adrenaline boost. In this album, though, they really vary things up, experimenting with atmospheric sounds, full choirs, and even a more electronic overall feel. The result is an album that is a pleasure to listen to and which has been my default rock album for the last year. Highlights include "Night of the Hunter," "Kings and Queens," "Closer to the Edge," and the title track.

Playlist fun

2010-07-17T16:25:00.002-04:00

Since I obviously have nothing better to do with my time, I have decided to post twice this weekend on my blog. This post is really totally self-indulgent, though...it's completely preoccupied with my obsession with organizing iTunes.

As many of you know, constructing a good playlist is an artform. You need to know what mood you're looking for and then, among all the songs in your library (in my case, that's a lot of songs) pick just the right ones to foster that mood. You need a focal point which all the songs rotate around, adding variety but not moving too far from that center.

I had a barbeque at my house last weekend, and I decided to construct a new playlist for it. The original version was about 7 hours long, but after listening through it once I shortened it to about 5 hours...just the right length for a good party. I wanted something with an alternative rock flavor, leaning towards classic rock, especially focused on a certain style of guitars and a certain flavor of beat. There ended up being a ton of U2 with a lot of The Clash and Switchfoot, to give you an idea of what the sound was. I'm very pleased with the result, so I thought I'd share it here. Enjoy!

"Oh! Darling" --The Beatles
"Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey" --The Beatles
"You May Be Right" --Billy Joel
"Livin' On a Prayer" --Bon Jovi
"Keep the Faith" --Bon Jovi
"More Than a Feeling" --Boston
"Peace of Mind" --Boston
"You Got Your Man" --Brother Henry
"Beautiful" --Audio Adrenaline
"Born in the USA" --Bruce Springsteen
"California Bound" --Carolina Liar
"Magic" --The Cars
"Hateful" --The Clash
"Rudie Can't Fail" --The Clash
"Up Around the Bend" --Creedance Clearwater Revival
"Foreign Language" --Anberlin
"A Day Late" --Anberlin
"Shake Me Like a Monkey" --Dave Matthews Band
"The Nearness" --David Crowder*Band
"We Win!" --David Crowder*Band
"Open Skies" --David Crowder*Band
"Heartache Tonight" --The Eagles
"Go Your Own Way" --Fleetwood Mac
"Some Kind of Wonderful" --Grand Funk Railroad
"Sweet Child o' Mine" --Guns N' Roses
"I'm Confused" --Handsome Furs
"Disappear" --Jars of Clay
"Work" --Jars of Clay
"Collide" --Jars of Clay
"I'm Alright" --Jars of Clay
"Closer" --Jars of Clay
"Sweetness" --Jimmy Eat World
"Any Way You Want It" --Journey
"What's on My Mind" --Kansas
"Silhouettes in Disguise" --Kansas
"Power" --Kansas
"The Imposter" --Kevin Max
"Return of the Singer" --Kevin Max
"Angel With No Wings" --Kevin Max
"When You Were Young" --The Killers
"Use Somebody" --Kings of Leon
"Suddenly I See" --KT Tunstall
"Rock and Roll" --Led Zeppelin
"Sweet Home Alabama" --Lynyrd Skynyrd
"Gimme Three Steps" --Lynyrd Skynyrd
"Real World" --Matchbox Twenty
"Spotlight" --MuteMath
"Electrify" --MuteMath
"Typical" --MuteMath
"Cornelius" --Newsboys
"Beyond Belief" --Petra
"Message In a Bottle" --The Police
"Sunsets" --Powderfinger
"Dani California" --Red Hot Chili Peppers
"Come Right Out and Say It" --Relient K
"I Don't Need a Soul" --Relient K
"Roll With It" --Steve Winwood
"You Need Love" --Styx
"Redemption" --Switchfoot
"You Already Take Me There" --Switchfoot
"Stars" --Switchfoot
"American Dream" --Switchfoot
"Refugee" --Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
"She's On Fire" --Train
"Even Better Than the Real Thing" --U2
"Mysterious Ways" --U2
"Beautiful Day" --U2
"Elevation" --U2
"Vertigo" --U2
"I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" --U2
"In God's Country" --U2
"Desire" --U2
"Hawkmoon 269" --U2
"Pride (In the Name of Love)" --U2
"Seven Nation Army" --The White Stripes
"I Can See for Miles" --The Who
"Darling, You Were Beautiful Once" --William F. Gibbs
"Go Go Go" --The 88

The Great Mac Debate

2010-07-16T23:04:00.002-04:00

Let it be known up front that I have always been a Mac-hater. Some would attribute this to a tendency which I’ve identified in myself before in this space: to hate something just because everybody else likes it. I’ve often wondered if that was the reason myself. So many of my friends like it, could I just be reacting to them and not to the product itself? Yet every time I used a Mac something else about it turned me off. My friends would tell me I just had to use it for a while and (like the new Facebook) once I got used to the different features I would see how superior of a product it was.

When I started working this summer, they set me up on a MacBook Pro with Snow Leopard on it. I immediately saw this as an excellent opportunity to clear things up in my own mind. Using it every day for three months would grant me that longevity of experience that is truly necessary to make an informed judgment about it. I did my best to approach it with an open mind and an understanding that an adjustment was needed as I transitioned between a PC and a Mac.

I didn’t need three months. 160 user hours later (give or take) I have already come to a decision within my mind: it wasn’t just my tendency as a hater. I will never, ever own a Mac. Why? Well, I thought it would be easier to break it down into what I do like about Macs (to show why I’m not an irrational hater) and then explain what I don’t.

I should also explain before I start that I use Windows 7, which changes a lot of my comments. If I was still suffering through Vista, I may see some of these things differently. For instance, connecting to wireless networks was terrible in Vista—it was a complicated, multi-step process that was an absolute pain. Mac, however, had a very usable one that is very streamlined and made it easier. However, W7 took the Mac concept and made it better, more informative, and more useful, so that I much prefer the W7 system over the Mac. Realize that this will be an often unstated thread running through much of this post.

Things I Like About Macs

Spaces and Exposé: I’ll admit, these are two incredibly powerful tools for organizing and locating your windows. Windows has tried to do things like it, but has failed miserably. I love using them both, and if they were the only criteria, I would be on a Mac in a second.

Dashboard: Again, Apple has figured out widgets in a way that Microsoft and even Google have not. Seamlessly integrated and easy to use with tons of choices…again, Mac wins. Sidebar? Puh-lease. Not even in the same league.

Hot Corners: Some laptops have this feature as well, but it seems that Macs is better than any PC version I’ve used. Especially when there is no key combination to lock your computer (a la WINDOWS + L), it’s easy to just move your mouse down to the corner to pull up the screensaver. It’s a nice feature.

Power Cord: This one’s tricky. The cord is a double-edged sword, but I’ll address what I like about it here, and what I don’t like down below. What I like is the magnetic power port, especially on the new ones where you have that snazzy little bar that clips on. Besides just looking cool, it’s a great idea to avoid getting your laptop whisked off the table. Brilliant, Apple.

Desktop Usability: The idea of having hard drives, CDs, flash drives, etc., show up on the desktop is a good one. It’s always easy to find what you’re looking for (especially since you can’t find it in Finder…but more on that later). This is enhanced by…

Window Layout: Mac seems to have an absolute fear of letting window corners take up the whole screen. You should always be able to see multiple windows in Apple’s mind. This makes it easier to use the Desktop as well. It’s generally a good system, and one I seek to implement in my own PC.

Basic Systems Settings: It’s easy to change your desktop, screensaver, power options, etc., in Mac. W7 improved the Control Panel for PCs, but it’s still not as simple and functional as System Preferences. Especially on two-screens, this is very helpful.

See, there are lots of things I like about Macs. But obviously that’s not the whole story, or I’d be going out to buy one now.

Things I Dislike About Macs

Finder: I’ll just get it out right now. I hate Finder. I always have, and no matter how much I use it, it continues to frustrate me with its remarkable lack of usability. Now, it’s very good for a very specific kind of search. If all you’re doing is trying to find a file, then it works great. Try to do anything else, however, and you’re going to run into problems. Moving files to different folders is remarkably cumbersome, as is basically any kind of arrangement process. It essentially requires you to have two windows open to do anything, and if you’re a file structure geek like me, its complete lack of any flexibility in viewing options is incredibly frustrating. Try as I might, Finder remains the thing I hate most about Macs. There is close competition, however, from…

The Dock: Okay, seriously? When was this ever a good idea? The Dock makes Expose necessary by completely removing functionality. Basically all that it’s good for is launching programs, but once the program is launched, you have to use Expose to find it again. Minimizing is even worse, because the file becomes a screenshot of the window without a name, which is frustrating to use. Now, in W7, I think they take the good things about the Dock and the good things about the Windows taskbar and make it incredibly functional. Big moveable program buttons (just like the Dock) with the flexibility to either give separate windows when they’re open or group them all under the icon…it looks great, is incredibly functional, and adapts to meet different organizational styles. It’s what the Dock should be.

Obsession with Floating: I already said above that I like the way the various windows float, making the desktop more usable and making it appear that you have more screenspace. In an effort to reduce clutter, however, Mac took floating way too far (or at least, that’s the only explanation I can think of). Opening even a remotely complex program means that multiple windows are going to open and get lost in the Expose shuffle. Nowhere is this clearer than with…

Office for Macs: No matter what anyone says, open-source word-processing programs suck (even OpenOffice…sorry guys). Nothing is as usable or as powerful (or, admittedly, as frustrating) as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Yet Office for Macs is terrible. Half of the functionality even of Word 2003, much less 2007 or 2010, is gone or incredibly difficult to access. All the toolbars float, so if you’re working in multiple documents and moving them around, especially on multiple screens, your toolbars are never in the place you need them to be. On a PC you always know exactly where to find the tool you need: it’s always at the top of the document you’re working in. On a Mac, you never know. It could be anywhere, and it’s probably collapsed anyways. In Excel the most important part, the formula bar, disappears everywhere. It’s never in a convenient place. I could go on, but you get the idea. The world’s most powerful word-processing and spreadsheet-creating programs are frustratingly unusable on a Mac.

Main Toolbar: Moving right along with the obsession with floating, part of Mac’s solution is to always put the main toolbar on top of the screen. No matter where the window is, you always know where to find the toolbar. This is incredibly inconvenient, though, since it usually involves using your cursor more to move around the screen trying to get to the toolbar (it seems like a minor point, but it’s a big part of computer usability), and creates an extra step or two to access it for any other program. It’s annoying and unwieldy.

Power Cord: Here’s the other half: the rest of the power cord (besides the actual power port into the computer) is awful. The huge bulky surge protector is nice for wrapping up the cord, but try and plug it into the wall and it hogs the entire outlet and falls out. If the outlet is even a little bit sunk it, it’s unusable unless you get the other half of the cord, which is three prong and doesn’t work in half the outlets. It’s clunky and (in my opinion) ugly. Not that PC cords are good to look at, but I don’t expect them to be like I would from Apple.

Right-Clicks: I don’t care what everyone says—CTRL+Click is not “just as usable” as the right click button. Sure, it’s not much extra work, but when you already use a million shortcuts, making the button two spaces over into the right click causes immense confusion and mistakes. I know this is something that becomes more natural with time, but I don’t like having to use two hands when I don’t have to. It’s a minor thing that is a big usability issue, and you’d think Apple would have figured that out by now. (I know that the new mice come with the two-finger-click ability, which is nice, but still to my mind not as functional as a straight-up right click.)

Network Controls: I have to use a network extensively at work. Finder is terrible at networks. It’s hard to connect, hard to find where you want to be, hard to make usable shortcuts, and all that. Here’s a small point that has caused much pain for me: if you set up an alias (really, an “alias”? That’s the best you could come up with?) to a folder, when you click that alias it doesn’t give you the filepath you followed. So say you want to move one folder up. You can’t. You have to go back to the beginning and find your way there. It’s terrible for navigating. (This is really just my point about Finder restated, I suppose.)

Other Things: I think the location of the COMMAND key is poorly chosen. CTRL is easy for shortcuts because it’s in a corner, but there’s always some gymnastics going on when I use COMMAND. I know that you get used to it, and I have, but I just think it’s poorly placed. I could go into Mac’s incompatibility with everything, which is important, but which I don’t have the expertise to talk about, or into it’s lack of “smartness” (it’s ability to remember what I did the last time I took an action), or even into my dislike for the design (grey just doesn’t do it for me). But I won’t. I think I’ve said enough.

Overall, the thing I dislike the most about Macs, if I had to sum up everything I’ve said, is a lack of flexibility. Macs are made so that people learn the one process that Apple wants you to follow and then do it every time. If you want to do something differently, it doesn’t like that and it fights you. PCs may be a little more clunky and not quite as streamlined, but you can always find a way to do what you want to do in a way that’s useful for you, not for Microsoft. Apple seems to need to control what its users do. That’s why it hates open-source so much. If you have anybody else coming in and writing code without being under your direct control, things get clunkier. But in this instance, clunkier is more powerful. If you need smooth and streamlined because you’re a photographer or a graphic designer, than Macs are great. But if you actually want personalization and flexibility to use your computer the way you want to use it, not the way it wants you to use it, than PCs win hands-down.

That’s why I will always buy PC.

Oh, and one more thing: my Mac is just as glitchy as my PC. People say Macs aren’t glitchy, but that’s just because AppleCare is so good and replaces everything. Handy, yes, but it doesn’t remove Apple’s problems.

Is Jesus My Boyfriend?

2009-11-05T17:51:00.002-05:00

I read two blog posts today that I don't think are directly related to each other, but which couldn't correspond any better if they were.

The first is a post on one of my favorite blogs, Abraham Piper's 22 Words, which had the title "The problem with disliking Jesus-is-your-boyfriend music is that Jesus is (y)our boyfriend":

I’m uncomfortable as anyone with Christians being Jesus’ lover.

But that’s my fault. I shouldn’t blame those who thrill to this metaphor.

The purpose of this particular blog is to have the entire post be under 22 words, so obviously there's no room for exposition of his view (this also explains the rather long titles).

The second is a post from Professor John Stackhouse (Regent College) entitled "Jesus, I'm NOT in Love with You," in which he argues against "Jesus-is-my-boyfriend" music by saying that loving Christ and being in love with Christ are two completely different things, and that being in love with someone is something reserved only for your spouse. He goes into much more detail than Piper does, and I think his most compelling argument is the following:

But the New Testament never calls Christians Jesus’ fiancées or his brides. Instead, it is the Church collectively, and only the Church as a whole, that relates to Jesus this way–just as individual Israelites did not relate to Yhwh as so many spouses, but only the nation of Israel as nation was his beloved bride.

So who is right? Is Jesus my boyfriend or not? Are those songs helpful or not? I think the question comes down to the nature of an individual's relationship to the community.

My initial thought is that although Stackhouse is basically right, I don't know if the community can be separated from the individual that dramatically. I think there's overlap where it's not necessarily a problem to sing those songs, although I think there are maybe better things you could be singing about.

But those are just my preliminary thoughts. What are your thoughts?

Allegiance to...who?

2009-08-07T23:20:00.004-04:00

So Dr. Richard Gamble, the professor who influenced my last post on system building so greatly, has just written a review for the American Conservative of the American Patriot's Bible (which, coincidentally, I first directed his attention to several months ago...at least I think I was among the first). Within his scathing review, he states much more eloquently than I can the system constructed by the modern evangelical movement.

Modern American evangelicalism has its own way of reconciling church and state. It imagines an ideal American founding on Christian principles, blames the nation’s decline on secularists, and mobilizes politically active believers to “reclaim” America as God’s chosen land. It sees no inherent conflict between America and the gospel. Christianity is safe for America’s political and economic order. In fact, a return to the Bible’s wisdom and morality would automatically heal the nation and secure its bright future. No one need choose between allegiance to Christ and allegiance to America.

It's a great article in general, which I highly encourage you to read.

Contra Ideologica

2009-07-06T23:00:00.003-04:00

In recent years I have begun to become disenchanted with the modern political system. This is not the disenchantment of the pessimist or the idealist, but the disenchantment of perspective. Specifically, it is a disenchantment with the modern Christian conservative movement, because I believe that the modern conservative movement has completely missed the point. Throughout their material, you see statements about America being a Christian nation and how we need to bring America back to Christ, how if we could just have a revival then all our problems would be solved, if the church would come out from the cave into which it has retreated and would start actually preaching the gospel again, we could get this country back on the right track.

Now, I agree that the church in America has failed in many ways to preach the gospel, and I agree that revival is necessary for the salvation of souls, but that's not my point in this essay. Neither is it my objective to argue about America being a Christian nation, although I think that is a faulty, misguided statement. My primary point is that this mindset in which the conservative movement finds itself is fundamentally misguided. It is an attempt to devise a system with which to save the world, to set forth an "if we only do this, then everything will be all right." I think this is a fundamental mistake, one that affects the way we view and interact with the world. But why is this so dangerous?

(In all that I'm about to say, I must acknowledge a huge debt of gratitude to Dr. Richard Gamble and his Western Heritage Since 1600 class, which has shaped my thinking on this subject significantly. Also, thanks to Rebecca Duberstein and Dakota Fuller, who helped me to refine many of these thoughts on that long car ride home from school.)

Defining Ideology

We must first ask ourselves, what is an ideology? It is a system of beliefs which people put together to explain the world. Think of proponents of an ideology as system-builders. Other words have been used to describe them--Edmund Burke called them the Geometers, C.S. Lewis called them the Conditioners--but let's use system-builders for our purposes. These are men who figure out just how the world works, all of its ins and outs, and boil it down to an understandable system. "What's the problem with that?" you might ask. Burke describes his Geometers as men who build a perfect system in the abstract, full of straight lines, right angles, and flat planes, and then attempt to impose this system onto the real world, a world in which straight lines, right angles, and flat planes don't actually exist.

Examples from History

In other words, system-builders oversimplify the world. Although their ideas may not be wrong, they're far from complete. For some more obvious examples, let's look at three very prominent system-builders from recent memory: Marxists, Darwinists, and Freudians (not-so-coincidentally, the three most influential thinkers of the nineteenth century). Marx, for instance, had some very good insights about class conflict, and figured out just how man works. "Man is an economic being!" he cried. "All his drives are economic drives, and class warfare drives the world forward!" Since he had figured out just how man works, he devised a system of thought around it--an ideology, if you will--which he called communism. Communism showed men just how the world worked, explained human history, and (most importantly) gave them a picture of the future. Since he had men figured out, Marx also knew just what was in their best interest, and thought that if he could just educate men well enough about what their best interest was, the world could not help but turn into a worker's paradise.

Or take Darwin. Darwin realized that man is a biological being, and driven by the need to survive and reproduce. Or take Freud, who realized that man is a psychological being, and driven by the desire for sex with his mother (or something like that). These men constructed systems around their interpretations of the world, often based on true observations, but, as Lewis observes in The Abolition of Man, they take one portion of the truth and "swelling it into madness." The problem with their systems is that they are too complete, too geometrical, too. . .perfect. They're trying to impose straight lines onto a world that has no straight lines.

Burke saw this problem two hundred years ago when he penned his Reflections on the Revolution in France. Before the French Revolution turned into the Reign of Terror, Burke predicted that this so-called Age of Reason could only result in a bloodbath. Why? Because he saw that the revolutionaries were mere Geometers. They had an exalted view of natural rights, of the supremacy of man's reason, and believed that if they could destroy all vestiges of the old system, they could build a new system in its place. Reason would triumph over all and would herald in a new age of man, where this reason alone would reign supreme.

Burke saw that these men would fail because they did not understand one crucial thing about human nature: man is fallen and desperate for power. The French Revolution was merely another system being constructed, around reason and natural rights, and it could only fail because reality is much more complicated than any system can allow for. The year after he wrote his Reflections, thousands of heads rolled in the Paris streets. You could almost call it prophetic.

Or take Fyodor Dostoyevsky's critique in his Notes from Underground. His narrator, the unidentified "Underground Man," rants against all forms of determinism, especially economic and biological (i.e. Marx and Darwin). System-builders believe that they know what is best for mankind, and since men always choose that which is in their best interest, if they are properly educated as to what their best interest is, they must choose it, thereby leading man into some kind of utopia. The Underground Man argues that the problem with this theory is that it discounts one of man's greatest desires, the desire that destroys all systems. This is the desire for independence. If man is told that his choice is inevitable, that he must choose this thing because it is in his best interest, he will instinctively choose something else, something that he knows is not in his best interest. Why? Because his own independence, his ability to make an independent decision, even if it's not in his best interest, is more important to him than getting what is best for him. In a sense, his independence is his best interest. This instinct alone destroys all systems, all determinism, because it shows that man is far more complicated than a system can explain.

G.K. Chesterton points out a slightly different problem in his book Orthodoxy. He points out, "The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite." And he goes on to describe an alien being who is observing humans, who notices that humans are very symmetrical creatures: two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, two arms, two legs. And so he figures that inside everything is symmetrical as well, and sure enough he finds two brain lobes, two lungs. Then he figures that there absolutely must be two hearts, since there are two of everything else. Yet, then, right when he was so sure he was right, when it was perfectly reasonable to assume there were two hearts, he would be completely wrong. Yet a system can't predict these irregularities in life, the ones that throw off all the straight lines and perfect syllogisms. That's why they never work.

Also note that ideologies are much more subtle than the obvious communism. Capitalism can also become an ideology. When we start believing that free markets are the solution for every problem, we've created a system. But they're even more subtle than that. As humans, we love to have everything figured out. The reason that systems stick so well, why so many people buy into them, is because we want to believe in a geometric world. We want to understand things, to wrap our minds around things, for things to make complete sense to us. Yet we ultimately can't do that. Our minds are too limited, too finite. The world is too complex, too close to rationality and yet too far. Any time we think to ourselves "I have the world figured out" in some small way, we have constructed our own little system. These systems are harmful, and I would argue that they are sinful, since they are an example of our selfish pride seeking to take control over a world that only One can control.

That's why at the outset of this essay I criticized the modern Christian conservative movement. Many in the movement think they have the solution to the nation's problems: we just need a big revival and this country will get back on course. With more Christians in power and more Christians behind them, this country must take a turn for the better, right? Can you see the system being built up here? A system is still a system, even if it centers around Christ. No human plan, not even working for revival, can solve the human condition.

The Alternative

So what is the alternative? Surprisingly, I think the answer is hinted at in Voltaire's Candide. The novel, if you've never read it, is a satire on just about every system Voltaire could think of. It follows Candide, a young boy from Germany, as he travels throughout Europe trying to find his true love Cunegonde while suffering all sorts of terrible tragedies. He dies several times, but through various improbably circumstances comes back to life, his friend and teacher Pangloss also dies several times and becomes severely disfigured, numerous friends suffer various agonizing fates, he gains and loses an enormous fortune, Cunegonde is raped and killed, but also manages to survive somehow...the book goes on and on with these ridiculous stories. One of the ideas which it satirizes the most is the philosophy of Pangloss, who insists that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and thus tries to put a positive spin on everything that happens. When the kind Anabaptist falls into the Bay of Portugal and drowns, Pangloss explains that the bay was formed just in order that the Anabaptist might drown in it, and so on.

Finally, at the end, Candide finds Cunegonde, who is no longer beautiful, and, with Pangloss and several others, settles down in a little cottage, where they all begin to live normal, if quiet, lives, learning to garden and sew and cook. Candide and Pangloss one day are out in the garden, eating oranges and pistachios, when Pangloss launches into one of his explanations for why this must be the best of all possible worlds, for if they had not all died several times and undergone all the tortuous things they had gone through, they would not now be sitting in this garden eating oranges and pistachios. To which Candide responds with one of the best put-downs, in my opinion, in all of literature: "That is all well and good, but let us cultivate our garden."

Do you hear what Candide is saying? Stop trying to construct your little system and explain what got us here and trying to put a positive spin on it. What is more important is to cultivate our garden. I never thought I would come to agree with Voltaire in anything, but at least in this point, partially, I agree with the point he's making.

Samuel Johnson also makes this point in his Rasselas, although he is coming from a much more Christian perspective. The young prince Rasselas escapes with his sister Nekayah from his kingdom, where life is inside an impenetrable ring of mountains and in which there is no pain or trouble, in order to try and find the choice of life that will make him truly happy. His journey is remarkably similar to Candide's, as he meets all different worldviews and people who think they have the world figured out, but who demonstrate time and again that their choice of life does not make them happy. At the end of the book, when all choices have been exhausted and the prince and his party are talking together, the princess seems to speak Johnson's mind when she states "To me, the choice of life is become less important; I hope hereafter to think only on the choice of eternity." In other words, we're never going to figure out this life in this life, we must focus on the next life.

So succinctly speaking, what am I proposing as the alternative to building systems? Simply this: stop trying to solve the world's problems, and focus on living your own individual life well. That's it. Don't try and explain the world, and be content to tend your own garden.

But what does this mean? Dr. Gamble, as he was closing the final discussion/lecture of the class which inspired and gave me most of the material for this essay, began telling the story of his father, who was a small pastor in a small New England town who served a small congregation. His church stayed roughly the same size during his pastorate. He never led any major revivals or started huge movements. He just faithfully pastored his church for over forty years. He tended his garden quietly. And those men are just as much heroes as the Billy Grahams and Abraham Lincolns of this world.

He concluded with this thought: "As young idealists, we often fail to see how much of life is taken up by mundane things. In our lifetimes, how much of our lives are taken up in getting dressed, brushing our teeth, doing the dishes, or mowing the lawn? We live a mundane life that may contain flashes of greatness. The great challenge, then, is to live the mundane life well."

Author Paul David Tripp also says something very similar, which I will quote at length because I think he hits the nail on the head:

You and I don’t do many significant things in our lives. We only make 3-4 major decisions. Most of us will not be written up in history books. Sorry, it’s true. For most of us, several decades after we die, the people we leave behind will struggle to remember the events of our lives. You live in the utterly mundane. You live in little moments. And if God doesn’t rule your little moments He doesn’t rule you because that is where you live. I think one of the big problems we make in our marriage is when we name little moments as “little moments” and say they are not important. If the character of a life is not set by four or five big moments but is set by 10,000 little moments, every little moment of your life is important. That’s where your life is formed and that’s where your relationships are built and formed. We cannot back away from the little moments because that happens to be where we live. And our God is a God of the little moments. He enters those little moments with his truth and wisdom and grace. (What Did You Expect?)

Our temptation is to get so caught up in those 4 or 5 big decisions that we miss the life we're supposed to be living, the life that God gave us to live. As Christians, we're called to live faithfully in our homes, in our families and communities, in our churches and schools. We're called to faithfully tend our gardens, not to change the world.

But Wait a Minute...

Now, at this point I can see several of you jumping up and down, waving your hand for my attention. "This is all true," I can hear you saying, "but are you saying that Christians are not supposed to try to spread the gospel? That we're not supposed to impact our culture with the truth? That we're not supposed to attempt to sanctify our government with God-glorifying national policies? That we're not supposed to be salt and light to the world?"

And that is exactly what I'm not saying. What I'm arguing for is not a retreat from engagement with the world. Far from it, I am arguing that Christians need to be constantly on guard and meeting the world head on. That's one of the primary purposes of this blog: it's a place where I seek to engage the ideas of the world and counter them with biblical truth.

Instead, what I am arguing for is a reorientation of our goals and priorities as we engage the world. To use Princess Nekayah once again, we will never achieve perfect happiness in this world. We will never contrive the perfect system that will remove all problems from the world. Revival will not solve the world's problems, or even America's problems, because man is still fallen and we still live in a fallen world. Revival springs up and looks flashy, but it quickly dies back down, leaving few people actually changed. We've supposedly had up to four "Great Awakenings" in this country (depending on who you ask), and yet today we are drifting towards an ever more secular society.

Instead, our focus must be on heaven. We know that revival is not the answer to the world's problems, for Christ is the answer. We seek to bring Christ to a lost world, not to save mankind, but to save men, individual men. Burke criticized the French revolutionaries and their supporters for being so concerned with mankind that they lose sight of actual men. Gamble paraphrased him with "Jesus tells us to love all men individually, not all men collectively."

So be a politician. End the Sudanese sex-slave trade. Write a book. Film a movie. Build an orphanage in Mexico. But be clear on what your purpose is. Your purpose is not to find a way to solve the world's problems. Your purpose is to love the world as Christ loves the world, and through loving the world to bring lost sheep back to their shepherd. Ultimately, you are called to live your life faithfully wherever God has placed you, with whatever talents he has given you. You're not meant to save the world. Leave that to the Savior, and tend your garden faithfully.

Influential Books and Music

2009-06-10T22:22:00.004-04:00

I know I haven't posted in forever, and it would be amazing if anyone checked back here for some real material, but I really am working on not one but two posts right now. One of them might as well be an essay that I'm posting, since it will be that long, but hopefully someone will still read it, and the other one is my argument against the existence of natural rights. So check back if you're interested. But if you're not...read ahead.

I got tagged on Facebook by the one and only Christy Somerville to list fifteen books that have stuck with me after I've read them. I don't feel like tagging folks, so I thought I'd do it here. These are in the order they occurred to me.

1. Christ Our Mediator--C.J. Mahaney
2. God is the Gospel--John Piper
3. Orthodoxy--G.K. Chesterton
4. Peace Like a River--Leif Enger
5. The Count of Monte Cristo--Alexandre Dumas
6. The Chronicles of Narnia--C.S. Lewis
7. The Scarlet Letter--Nathanial Hawthorne
8. The Iliad--Homer
9. Macbeth--William Shakespeare
10. Gilead--Marilynne Robinson
11. Speaker for the Dead--Orson Scott Card
12. Holes--Louis Sachar
13. The Hound of the Baskervilles--Arthur Conan Doyle
14. A Tale of Two Cities--Charles Dickens
15. Paradise Lost--John Milton

And since I'm doing this, I might as well throw up a post I started forever ago and never finished. I wanted to compile my fifteen favorite albums of all time, but hit a roadblock when I had a bunch of albums I wanted to include because I was nostalgic about them from my childhood, not because I thought they were particularly great in reality. So I cheated, and I made two lists: my nostalgia list and my real list. The first list is in order of when they influenced me, starting from early childhood and ending in high school. The second list is in alphabetical order by artist.

Nostalgia:

1. The Man from Snowy River
2. The Parent Trap
3. The Prince of Egypt
4. Rich Mullins - Songs
5. Steven Curtis Chapman - Speechless
6. Chris Rice - Past the Edges
7. Michael W. Smith - Live the Life
8. Avalon - Oxygen
9. Steven Curtis Chapman - Declaration
10. FFH - Have I Ever Told You
11. Mark Schultz - Song Cinema
12. Big Daddy Weave - One and Only
13. Relient K - The Anatomy of the Tongue in Cheek
14. Casting Crowns - Casting Crowns
15. Godspell

Favorite Albums:
1. Anberlin - Cities
2. Caedmon's Call - 40 Acres
3. Chris Rice - Amusing
4. David Crowder*Band - A Collision (or 3+4=7)
5. House of Heroes - The End is Not the End
6. Jars of Clay - Good Monsters
7. Les Miserables
8. Mae - The Everglow
9. The Ragamuffins and Friends - The Jesus Record
10. Relient K - mmHmm
11. Rich Mullins - A Liturgy, a Legacy, and a Ragamuffin Band
12. Simon and Garfunkel - Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme
13. Switchfoot - The Beautiful Letdown
14. Third Day - Wire
15. U2 - Joshua Tree

As He Said

2009-04-12T15:55:00.002-04:00

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

--Matthew 28:1-9

And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

--Luke 24:25-27

The Lord is risen! Our faith is not in vain, for all that was prophesied has been fulfilled. Christ is risen from the dead, and death is conquered forever!

A Herd of Bulls and Tigers

2009-04-04T17:54:00.002-04:00

I've been reading G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy recently, and his amazing insight keeps flooring me. I don't agree with everything he says, but like Lewis I think he gets a whole lot right, and even when he gets it wrong it's healthy to think about why, because he raises excellent points.

In light of my previous post, I thought the following quote was particularly amazing. To give context, he's just spent a chapter arguing for why Christianity makes sense of the world by simultaneously affirming two seemingly contradictory premises, balancing them off each other to create one beautiful whole. He concludes the chapter by saying this:

It is exactly this which explains what is so inexplicable to all the modern critics of the history of Christianity. I mean the monstrous wars about small points of theology, the earthquakes of emotion about a gesture or a word. It was only a matter of an inch, but an inch is everything when you are balancing. The Church could not afford to swerve a hair's breadth on some things if she was to continue her great and daring experiment of the irregular equilibrium. Once let one idea become less powerful and some other idea would become too powerful. It was no flock of sheep the Christian shepherd was leading, but a herd of bulls and tigers, of terrible ideals and devouring doctrines, each one of them strong enough to turn to a false religion and lay waste the world. Remember that the Church went in specifically for dangerous ideas; she was a lion tamer. The idea of birth through a Holy Spirit, of the death of a divine being, of the forgiveness of sins, or the fulfillment of prophecies, are ideas which, any one can see, need but a touch to turn them into something blasphemous or ferocious...Here it is enough to notice that if some small mistake were made in doctrine, huge blunders might be made in human happiness. A sentence phrased wrong about the nature of symbolism would have broken all the best statues in Europe. A slip in the definitions might stop all the dances; might wither all the Christmas trees or break all the Easter eggs. Doctrines had to be defined within strict limits, even in order that man might enjoy general human liberties. The Church had to be careful, if only that the world might be careless. (101-102)

I encourage you all to get your hands on this book and wrestle through it. It will be well worth your while.

Tensions

2009-02-25T10:48:00.005-05:00

I tend to be a reactionary person. If everyone is absolutely in love with something, my natural tendency is to avoid it and/or put it down. For example, when Lord of the Rings was massively popular, I did not even bother seeing any of them until just before Return of the King came out in theaters. Here at school, everyone is in love with C.S. Lewis, and so my natural response is to argue with them as to why C.S. Lewis is not really all that great, and to point out all the things he gets wrong, and its only when I sit down to read Screwtape Letters again that I realize, well, I may not agree with every word this man says, but he does have a lot of amazing things to say.

That being said, one of the biggest areas where this tendency shows itself is when talking about the nature of God. I have friends here who tend to emphasize the love of God to the exclusion of his holiness or justice or wrath, and so my tendency is to downplay the love of God and show them why his holiness or his justice or his wrath is much more important. Or I have friends who tend to emphasize man's free will, especially regarding salvation, and so my tendency is to go overboard defending God's sovereignty to the exclusion of free will.

But one thing I've been learning since I've been at school is that Christianity is all about tensions. It's all about paradox. As humans we want to go all the way to either extreme, but staying the middle course is one of the hardest things for us to do. So the temptation is to say "It's all about God's love" or "It's all about God's holiness," but it takes serious effort and discernment to say "It's all about both God's love and his holiness." You can't downplay one to emphasize the other, because they are both equally true. 1 John 4:8 says "God is love," but Revelation 4:8 calls God "holy, holy, holy" with the triple repetition that is the Hebrew equivilent of our superlative. Both are absolutely true about God, and elevating one over the other, or trying to pick one as God's defining characteristic, is defeating the purpose.

Maybe the two are reconciled in the actual nature of what love is. Love is sacrificially giving of yourself for others ("Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" John 15:13), and God's holiness is his set-apartness from his creation, his purity. Love is essential to God's being, because the three members of the Trinity love each other and give themselves for each other, and this love overflows to loving mankind. And yet God loves mankind because he loves his holiness, and loves his glory, and glorifies himself through acheiving our redemption, so even his love for mankind is an act of love for himself.

But the thing is, I often try to explain or define my uncertainties about God away. Thinking about the previous paragraph may be helpful, but the moment I think I've solved the paradox, that's the moment I completely miss the point. Christianity is all about paradoxes, and its all about mystery. Delve far enough into any doctrine of the Christian faith and you reach a point where you say "Well, I'm stuck. God is so much bigger than me." If you're not comfortable with saying that, I think you've missed who God really is, and you've missed the wonder of the gospel.

Don't try and explain things away. Learn to live with, even embrace paradox. God reveals himself to us in amazing ways when we are no longer convinced that we can learn everything about him, but surrender ourselves to his infinitude.

The Glorious Paradox

2009-02-14T11:17:00.002-05:00

I've never before enjoyed reading in the Old Testament prophets, since they are usually so dull and boring. Yet the more I read them, the more I find the wonders of the mercy of God on full display.

An excellent example of this comes buried in the middle of Ezekiel. God is defending himself against the charges of the Israelites that they are being punished for their fathers' sins by telling them that "the son shall not die for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (18:20). But then comes this wonderful little passage:

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?....For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord, so turn, and live." (18:21-23, 32)

What a beautiful statement about man's free will, and how God has abdicated his sovereignty in order to allow man to make his own decisions, right? Not so fast. Flip over two chapters to the section where God is reprimanding Israel for its constant rebellion against him. Suddenly comes this marvelous treasure:

And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I deal with you for my name's sake, not according to your evil ways, nor according to your corrupt deeds, O house of Israel, declares the Lord God. (20:44)

So God doesn't deal with us according to our deeds, but according to his mercy, for the glory of his name? How do these two ideas fit together? Short answer: it's the glorious mystery of God's sovereignty. How beautiful a thing it is to lean on the mercy of God!

The Cactus

2009-02-09T16:31:00.002-05:00

This is the short story I wrote for our Honours retreat this summer. It was partially inspired by rereading one of my favorite books of all time, Peace Like a River by Leif Enger. I hope you all enjoy it.

It never snowed in Hartville.
At least, not that Phil had ever seen. And he’d been living there for at least eleven years now, ever since that day he’d stepped out onto the tarmac with his mom and seen the cactus. It looked like one of those cactuses you see in the cartoons, when Yosemite Sam is blasting off those crazy pistols and trips and lands in a ravine, where of course he sits on a cactus and jumps up and yowls and runs around with little cactus spikes sticking out of his butt. It’s a cartoon staple, that cactus, that almost looks human—except a really deformed human, all bent out of shape, with one arm a good foot below the other. Maybe that’s why cartoonists always include it—it adds a sense of deformed humanity to the dry desert.
Phil wasn’t really sure why he had noticed the cactus. It was just sitting there, near the little building that in places like this could be called an airport. It was really nothing more than a waiting room with walls, with one sleepy old lady sitting behind a desk filling out a crossword puzzle. But the cactus stuck with him. It seemed to stare defiantly at the blazing sun, shaking its little spiked paw at the planes flying overheard, as if to say, “How dare you come and put asphalt in the middle of my desert!” In the eleven years that Phil had lived in Hartville, he had always remembered that cactus.

Jaden threw the pen down. Why on earth am I going on about a cactus? he thought, exasperated with himself. I’ve never even seen a cactus before, or a desert, for crying out loud. Stupid writing assignment. What am I even doing here? Venting? It’s not working at all. And seriously, it was only a birthday. Not a big deal. Yet despite his inner protests, his disappointment still hung inside him, draping itself around his heart so that his chest felt heavy and sticky.
Jaden stood up and started to pace the room. It didn’t help to dwell on it. But it’s not like it’s the first time that Dad’s forgotten my birthday… Jaden shook his head, trying to clear his mind. He had to do something, something else, something to take his mind off his dad. He grabbed his cell phone from his desk and ran downstairs.
“I’m taking the Honda, Mom!” he yelled as he ran out the front door.
“Be back by 7,” she called back, “ I need to take Kelly to Dana’s house.”
Bolting down the front walk, he jumped into the front seat, winced from the hot leather, turned up the stereo, and peeled out of the driveway.

Phil loved snow. Back in Colorado, he used to spend hours building snowmen and having snowball fights with his dad. There was nothing quite like waking up in the morning and seeing a fresh layer of white all over the ground, or like walking through the pine trees listening to the steady crunch, crunch, crunch under your feet as the rest of the world was silent. Nature always seemed quietest in the early morning.
One of the best things about snow was Christmas morning. There was always snow on Christmas morning, and every year Phil would run outside after breakfast and make a snow angel. He figured that since the angels sang over Christ’s birth, it was fitting that there would be one in his front yard every year. In a way, it helped bring the season home to him.
Of course, making an angel in the sand is a lot less comfortable than making one in the snow, but that was all that Phil could make now that he lived in Hartville. A sand angel and a cactus, those were his memories of Hartville. He’d only made the sand angel once, and afterwards had given up. It wasn’t really important anyway.

There was a willow that sat next to Lake Hugo. Its long, droopy branches just brushed the surface of the water, and the gnarly roots made a comfortable seat for a boy whose mood matched the demeanor of the tree. Jaden liked to sit there and watch the Canadian geese swim back and forth on the water, honking like Mack trucks on the highway. Geese made him laugh, the way they took everything so seriously, even fighting over the stale breadcrumbs he sometimes brought from home. Occasionally he’d even see a turtle out on one of the semi-submerged logs, but they didn’t usually stick around too long—the geese probably drove them crazy.
Jaden used his time at the willow to think. Often he’d reminisce about his recent escapades with his best friend, Paul. Just a few weeks ago he and Paul had gone hiking and had gotten lost, ending up spending the night in a lean-to they constructed from scratch. It had been a marvelous amount of fun, except when they made their way back to civilization and found out how worried their moms had been. Of course, his dad hadn’t even been aware that he had been missing… in fact, Jaden wasn’t even sure if he knew now that his boy had once survived a night in the mountains with nothing more than a water bottle and a pocket knife.
Jaden shook his head. He had come out here to clear his mind, not to keep thinking about his dad. He watched a goose hiss at a rabbit that came a little too close to its nest in the bulrushes and smiled. How nice it must be to have a parent willing to stick up for you in a moment of danger. Take advantage of this, he thought, as if the eggs could hear him thinking, this phase doesn’t last for long. He sighed. This wasn’t helping him at all. Usually nature cleared his head, but today it was just distracting him. He eased himself from his seat and patted the willow as he walked back to his car.

Phil liked to sit out by the airport, under the shade of that lonely cactus, and watch the buzzards circle overhead. Planes only flew into the airport once every few days, and then usually only with the mail, since no sane postal worker wanted to drive all the way to Hartville to deliver congressional fundraising letters. Still, Phil enjoyed the thought that one day a plane was going to come that would take him out of this godforsaken town forever.
And that day wasn’t too far away. In a year and a half he would be shipping off for school, back to the University of Colorado. Of course, since he’d be coming home for winter break, he would still never get a white Christmas, but that couldn’t be helped. At least he’d be out of Hartville nine months of the year.
He glanced back at the cactus. It was still shaking its arms in the same defiant gesture as when he first arrived. “What good has it done you, little cactus,” he said aloud. “Why do you bother standing against the world?” He sighed, and went back to watching the buzzards.

It all happened so fast that Jaden afterward could never quite remember the series of events. One minute he was cresting the hill on his way back home, and the next second the biker seemed to materialize in front of his car. He swerved and crashed through the rail fence next to the road, and then his right front tire hit something and the car began to roll. The pasture was on the side of a mountain, and once the car started rolling it began to pick up speed. Jaden was wearing his seatbelt but it didn’t really matter as he felt himself battered around, and then his head flew forward against the steering wheel and everything went black.

He awoke with the strange feeling that he was hanging upside down and tried to shake his head to reorient himself. A rush of pain quickly awakened him to the fact that he was hanging upside down, and that he was still belted into his seat, and that he had a splitting headache. He gingerly unbuckled his seatbelt and crawled out of the hole where the driver window used to be. Standing up slowly, he turned and surveyed the damage to the car. To call it “totaled” would be an understatement. The vehicle was a smoking, twisted heap of metal, partially wrapped around the gigantic fir tree that had stopped its revolving rush down the mountain.
Jaden’s hand moved to brush away the sweat that was dripping into his eyes, but when he brought it back down it was covered with blood. That would explain the headache, he thought.
A voice behind him caused him to turn around. “Hey, kid! Are you all right?” The cyclist was running down the hill with a look of concern on his face. “Dude, I’m so sorry about that. I must have drifted out into the middle of the road—here, use this on your forehead.” He frantically dug through his backpack and handed Jaden a bandage. “I’ve never seen a car do that before! You must have rolled twenty times! How on earth are you even standing up?”
Jaden was still staring at him, only partially processing the stream of dialogue coming out of the biker’s mouth as he slowly raised the bandage to his forehead. The last question seemed to shake him out of his daze, and he slowly stammered, “I…I don’t really know.”
“Do you have any broken bones?” the cyclist continued, unstrapping his helmet. “You look just fine to me, except for that nasty gash on your forehead. Dude, you really should sit down.” He reached out his hand to grab Jaden’s elbow.
Suddenly Jaden’s knees suddenly began to feel wobbly, and collapsing next to the smoking Honda, his shoulders began heaving as he buried his face in his hands, tears streaming between his blood-stained fingers. As he sat there weeping, a lone goose slowly flew over the wreckage, emitting a single honk as it gazed in wonder on the scene below.

It was Christmas Day. Phil took the day to walk to his usual position under the cactus. The air was unusually crisp, and the sky was overcast as he settled himself down. Today he’d brought a book, a new Ken Follett his mom had given him this morning. After a few minutes, however, he set the book down. He really didn’t feel like reading.
He stared contemplatively at the solid gray sky. He hadn’t seen clouds like this for a long time, not since his days in Colorado. They filled him with a sense of chill foreboding, and his nostrils swelled with the memory of fresh pine. He stood up, slowly, still gazing intensely at the clouds. Maybe this is what they talked about in Genesis, where God split the waters between heaven and earth. It sure felt like he had a gigantic tarp stretched over his head, holding back a rush of something.
Phil shivered. It was remarkably cold today. He decided to head back home where it was warm, and turned and walked away from that deserted strip of asphalt. His mom was sure to be waiting there with some of her fresh-baked peanut blossoms and a cup of hot chocolate—the thought of it made Phil’s mouth water, and he smiled slightly. Merry Christmas, Mom.
And as he plodded slowly home, a solitary snowflake floated gently down and alighted on the outstretched arm of the angry cactus.

Blue Like Jazz

2008-11-22T13:56:00.000-05:00

So I'll admit, I did not expect to like this book. My mind associated it with books like Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell and The Shack by William Young. I thought it was a postmodern creed full of spiritualist gobblygook and that totally abandoned the gospel. Yet, after having one too many conversations with people that included me saying "well, from what I've heard, the book says...", I decided that enough was enough. It was time for me to suck it up and actually read the book. And the verdict? Well...

First, let's start with the good stuff. Donald Miller is a great writer. The book (which is merely a collection of essays loosely connected by Miller's personal journey through his faith) was absorbing from beginning to end. I really felt like I knew Miller by the end, and I appreciated his many insights into life, human nature, and religion. There were moments when he would wax eloquent that would literally take my breath away.

He also makes many great points. For a book by a guy who doesn't like fundamentalism, he spent a lot of time showing the truth behind many fundamentalist doctrines like human depravity and God's sovereignty. In fact, the book was surprisingly orthodox to me. He also made some valid criticisms of the modern church, especially the lack of humility and the legalism present in many orthodox churches. There were definitely times when I felt like he was blowing a problem out of proportion, or like I wanted to quibble with his focus, but these were mostly minor points.

That is, until his last two chapters. Suddenly he started talking about how to love yourself. And although I think I know what he was trying to say, what really got me was this paragraph right at the end:

All great characters in stories are the ones who give their lives to something bigger than themselves. And in all of the stories I don't find anyone more noble than Jesus. He gave his life for me, in obedience to His Father. I truly love Him for it...I think the difference in my life came when I realized, after reading those Gospels, that Jesus didn't just love me out of principle; He didn't just love me because it was the right thing to do. Rather, there was something inside me that caused Him to love me. (page 238)

Like I said, I think I know what he means by this. However, I think this was the great problem I had with this book: it's all about what Miller thinks, how he feels, how something doesn't feel right, how something feels wrong, etc. And when he's right, he's right. But he never backs anything up with Scripture, so sometimes he misses the mark, and he's okay with that. So long as it feels right to him, it's okay if it's not quite what Scripture says. His Christianity, although it has many orthodox parts, is ultimately a very "spiritualistic" thing, and he makes this point many times, that he doesn't think that doctrine can really be defined or that it's really that important anyways, and that Christianity is all about being in love with Christ.

Now don't hear what I'm not saying. We should be in love with Christ, but the way to get there is not through seeking experiences, it's through studying his Word. And like I said, that's what's glaringly absent from this book: God's Word. I can also predict that many are going to say "you have to remember his target audience, Sam. Look at his subtitle: 'Nonreligious thoughts on Christian Spirituality.' The Bible is religious, so he doesn't use it." And that's just my problem. The Bible is the very foundation of everything we believe. I can understand why he wouldn't start with it in a "I'm going to thump this Bible over your head until you agree with me" sort of way, but at some point he should have started coming back to it, and he never did. The closest he got was reading the gospels to find the real Jesus, the one who loves him for something inside of him (which completely contradicts Scripture, by the way. The whole point is that he loves us despite what's inside of us).

So that's my problem with the book. He bases his entire religion on feelings, and in the process manages to pervert certain crucial Christian ideas. This is not to say that this is a bad book; on the contrary, I would actually recommend it highly to friends with some level of spiritual maturity, because I think he has some very helpful insights. But, I would not give it to a non-Christian or a new Christian, because I think it could actually be dangerous. A little wrong doctrine at the start can lead to some major problems down the road.

Final verdict: a pleasure to read, but misguided in several crucial areas.

The Wonders of Pop Psychobabble

2008-11-14T16:30:00.003-05:00

WARNING: The following post contains elements of Freudian psychobabble related to some of your favorite Pixar films, and could offend/ruin your Pixar-watching experience forever.

So I spent a very enjoyable afternoon in the library reading an article in the Journal of Modern Film and Television entitled "Post-Princess Models of Gender: The New Man in Disney/Pixar." The article discusses the emasculation of men in recent Pixar films, specifically highlighting Toy Story, Cars, and The Incredibles, and how they move from "alpha male" characteristics of domination and aggressiveness to embracing more of their feminine sides.

Although I originally started reading the article because I was interested in what they would say about Pixar and wanted to see how they defended their thesis, I was soon drawn into the article, my reading only broken by helpless fits of mirth at the sheer absurdity of many of their claims. The first bit that really made me start laughing was this:

“Emasculated” is not too strong a term for what happens to these male protagonists; the decline of the alpha-male model is gender coded in all the films. For his community service punishment, Lightning is chained to the giant, snorting, tar-spitting “Bessie” and ordered to repair the damage he has wrought. His own “horsepower” (as Sally cheerfully points out) is used against him when literally put in the service of a nominally feminized figure valued for more “feminine” orientation of service to the community. If being under the thumb of this humongous “woman” is not emasculating enough, Mater, who sees such subordination to Bessie as a potentially pleasurable thing, saying “I’d give my left two lug nuts for something like that.”

Seriously? Bessie is a symbol of being put under the thumb of a woman? Only women serve the community? Mater thinks such subordination would be "pleasurable"? But this is only the beginning. Only a few paragraphs later comes this gem:

From the beginning power is constructed in terms conspicuously gender-coded, at least for adult viewers: as they watch the incoming birthday presents, the toys agonize at their sheer size, the longest and most phallic-shaped one striking true fear (and admiration?) into the hearts of the spectators. When Buzz threatens Woody, one toy explains to another that he has "laser envy."

Wait, why does everything come down to phallic symbols? Oh, that's right, this is Freud talking (or maybe Jung). And things only get better (or worse):

The “mistress” tempting Mr. Incredible away from his wife and family is not Mirage at all but Buddy, the boy he jilted in the opening scenes of the film (whose last name, Pine, further conveys the unrequited nature of their relationship). Privileging his alpha-male emotional isolation, but adored by his wannabe sidekick, Mr. Incredible vehemently protects his desire to “work alone.” After spending the next years nursing his rejection and refining his arsenal, Buddy eventually retaliates against Mr. Incredible for rebuffing his advances. (bold added)

Now this is just getting ridiculous. Were the authors never kids themselves? Did they never idolize someone for their own sake, and not in a warped homosexual way? But this next section, right here, is the pinnacle of the ridiculousness. Read closely, because there's a lot of psycho-jargon in this bit, but it's worth the time you take to read:

Sedgwick further describes the ways in which the homosocial bond is negotiated through a triangulation of desire; that is, the intimacy emerging “between men” is constructed through an overt and shared desire for a feminized object. Unlike homosocial relationships between women—that is, “the continuum between ‘women loving women’ and ‘women promoting the interests of women’”—male homosocial identity is necessarily homophobic in patriarchal systems, which are structurally homophobic. This means the same-sex relationship demands social opportunities for a man to insist on, or prove, his heterosexuality. Citing Rene Girard’s Deceit, Desire, and the Novel, Sedgwick argues that “in any erotic rivalry, the bond that links the two rivals is as intense and potent as the bond that links either of the rivals to the beloved”; women are ultimately symbolically exchangeable “for the primary purpose of cementing the bonds of men with men.”

This triangulation of male desire can be seen in…Toy Story particularly, where the homosocial relationship obviously shares a desire for a feminized third. Buzz and Woody compete first, momentarily, for the affection of Bo Peep, who is surprisingly sexualized for a children’s movie….More importantly, they battle for the affection of Andy—a male child alternately depicted as maternal (it is his responsibility to get his baby sister out of her crib) and in need of male protection (Woody exhorts Buzz to “take care of Andy for me!”).

Did you catch that? Not only is Andy apparently a female archetype, and the primary purpose of women in a patriarchal society is to allow men to show their non-homosexuality by pursuing heterosexual relationships. Wow. . .

The article does make the valid point that the men in all of these Pixar films go from being domineering alpha-males to more gracious leaders, more appreciative of their families and friends, and much less arrogant. But unfortunately they put all this in terms of their "emasculation" and "acceptance of [their] more traditionally 'feminine' aspects," when in reality this is an embrace of biblical masculinity. No one said that just because alpha males exist, that's the definition of masculinity. In reality, that's the perversion.

But of course, it's not worth thinking too hard about this article, which has far too much nonsense in it to be taken seriously. Just enjoy it for what it is: a microcosm of modern feminist Freudian psychobabble.

And try not to let it ruin Pixar for you, too.

Odds and Ends Continued

2008-11-10T23:39:00.003-05:00

Some of you who have been reading for a while probably remember my Odds and Ends posts where I would link to funny or interesting articles that I read throughout the week. Those posts were time-consuming to create, and so when time got tight, they were the first thing to go. I do have a semi-replacement, though, that I thought I would let you guys know about:

Sam's Shared Items on Google Reader

Even if you don't use Google Reader (and come on, why don't you?), you can still view everything that I share via Reader on this page. I typically share one or two articles a day, so this is a good way to see a lot of good articles. Check it out!

The Story of a Film...and Its Critics

2008-11-06T01:31:00.004-05:00

So a movie comes out that becomes an instant hit. It's not an especially well-made film, but it has a couple of things going for it: exciting action sequences, a charismatic lead, and (most importantly) a killer MacGuffin, a filmmaking term for "an object or goal that kicks the film into the third act" (Jim Windolf, "Keys to the Kingdom"). The film instantly achieves a certain classic status. Two popular sequels are released, which combine the same ingredients together into cinematic gold.

However, over the course of the next few decades, the movies become idealized in the American mind. People who had originally been drawn in by the key ingredients begin to see the trilogy of films as something more, as truly great works of art. They raise their children watching them, who, with the innocence of childhood, enjoy the action and the funny lines and the MacGuffin and exalt it possibly higher in their imagination. It achieves true legendary status, unassailable with traditional cinematic critical objections such as believability or good acting.

Then come rumors that one more film is to be made. People are shocked that anyone would even consider adding to perfection, but are curious to see what will happen. And so a fourth film comes out, and is met with...hatred. People despise it. "It fails to live up to the originals," they claim. "It's completely unbelievable. It's stupid. And the MacGuffin makes no sense." Yet the very things they complain about are drawn directly from the first three films. The action is no less absurd, the MacGuffin no more outlandish, the plot no more unrealistic than the first three. But the difference is that the first three are accepted on their own terms, whereas the fourth is being compared to the legendary, inviolable images which most people held in their minds of the originals.

The films, of course, are the Indiana Jones films. The actor, Harrison Ford, mostly carries all four films by himself, only helped by the outrageous action scenes (come on people, is the journey into the "inner sanctum" of the grail any less outlandish than surviving a nuclear blast?) and the supernatural MacGuffins: i.e. the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, and El Dorado. People claim that the the fourth film is much worse than the original three (or at least, Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, since Temple of Doom gets a bad rep from just about everyone). But they fail to see that, in terms of MacGuffins, the angel of God coming out of the Ark is no less outlandish than El Dorado having been built by space aliens. The only difference is that Raiders was accepted on its own terms for what it was, and then elevated to unassailable mythical status, whereas Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has been compared to that mythical symbol and then despised for the very things that made people love Raiders in the first place.

This may just be a rant, but I hate to see people put down a film like Crystal Skull for such irrational reasons as a hatred of something new that dares to try and live up to something old. When people try to make a film more than it actually is, the film fails miserably. The Indiana Jones films were never meant to be more than a combination of the best elements of 1930's B-action flicks, and they succeeded in that. The new one, since it had been pushed up 20 years into the 1950's, decided to combine that original feel with the best elements of 1950's B-sci-fi flicks, and despite its success at doing so, people hated it for that.

If people could somehow take the original films off the pedestal where they have placed them and compare them rationally to the fourth film, I think they would see that Crystal Skull follows in the Indiana Jones tradition very well. No, it's not a great film, but then, neither were any of the original trilogy. What the films do is capture that little child inside us who wants to be out saving the world, kicking butt, taking names, and finding out what really happened to the Ark, the Grail, and the City of Gold.

So instead of criticizing, sit back and enjoy The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It has everything you loved about the originals, if only viewed from the right perspective.

EDIT: Well, it turns out that George Lucas has already said it, and better than I did: "The fans are all upset. They’re always going to be upset. ‘Why did he do it like this? And why didn’t he do it like this?’ They write their own movie, and then, if you don’t do their movie, they get upset about it. So you just have to stand by for the bricks and the custard pies, because they’re going to come flying your way." ("Keys to the Kingdom")

The Holdfast

2008-10-20T18:26:00.003-04:00

A poem sent to me by my brother. A slightly different take on the "hold fast", but I like it. What do you think?

I THREATNED to observe the strict decree
Of my deare God with all my power and might :
But I was told by one, it could not be ;
Yet I might trust in God to be my light.

Then will I trust, said I, in him alone.
Nay, ev’n to trust in him, was also his :
We must confesse, that nothing is our own.
Then I confesse that he my succour is :

But to have nought is ours, not to confesse
That we have nought. I stood amaz’d at this,
Much troubled, till I heard a friend expresse,
That all things were more ours by being his.
What Adam had, and forfeited for all,
Christ keepeth now, who cannot fail or fall.

--George Herbert

The God of Science

2008-10-12T21:26:00.012-04:00

I must have been born a few centuries too late. Anyone who has a casual relationship with me know at least two things about me. 1) I am a Christian and I try to glorify God with all parts of my being. 2) I love science. Many Christians I know, when they learn that I have an undying fascination with science, give a look of shock, disgust, or even horror. And many of the scientists I know at school, when they learn that I am a Christian respond with an equally tactful five seconds of reverent (read as "awkward") silence. This may be just my experience, but it seems that there is some distance between these two camps. There was a time in the not too distant past when science was a field that was studied in tandem with theology, when most scientists could be found in Church or in monasteries performing their experiments along side of their religious duties. Even as late as the nineteenth century, monks, clergy, and theologians couldn’t get enough of science.

Now the Christian attitude toward science treats it as a thing of boredom or as irrelevant to our lives. There are even cries varying in volume, intensity, and intelligence coming from Christian circles against science decrying it as the spawn of the devil and as packaged lies. Had I lived two hundred years ago and then somehow traveled to the present to hear this cry, I’m sure I would have been shocked and distressed to hear such notions. What has gone wrong that Christians hate science as they hate heresy? How did such a masterpiece bore those who study it? How is it irrelevant to those who live by it? How is such a medium of truth denounced as a bundle of lies?

God formed human nature to be naturally inquisitive. He made all humans to be scientists of some sort who enjoy figuring out how exactly the world works. We’ve all asked questions like “Why is the sky blue?” or “ Why does the moon change shape?” or “Do fish ever sleep?” Curiosity about the world is part of human nature, and we who know the Creator of the world should have a special love for understanding how His creation works.

Proverbs 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings to search things out.”

I suspect that Christians today don’t realize that there is a kingly opportunity before them that was not available to a common person a hundred years ago. We have the opportunity to hunt for the treasures hidden within the labyrinthine halls and corridors of science. We have the unique opportunity to behold the Creator’s masterpiece in great detail. We have the opportunity to lose ourselves in the deep, majestic craft of our Creator.

When viewing a magnificent painting, viewers sometimes stand at different distances to enhance their perception of the painting. Sometimes closer to see more details. Sometimes farther away to better grasp the totality of the work. Creation is God’s masterpiece that you can neither stand too close nor too far from. You can observe this work as closely as you want but you can never reach the extent of the finest details. You can stand as far away as you want, but you can never truly grasp just how vast creation is.

Take the field of biology for example. No scientist can learn and truly understand the principles of biology and be unamazed. Regardless of what the scientist believes about the origins of life, the fact that life exists is miraculous! The intricate molecular patterns, the perfect reproduction of 3 billion genetic subunits, the mind-blowing engineering, are too conspicuously amazing for a good scientist or good Christian to not stand in awe.

Lest we become infatuated with ourselves in the wondrous study of life, God gave us the much bigger and equally mind-blowing science of astronomy. While we sit on earth and study the wonders of life, our planet revolves around a star that is 1.3 million times bigger than the earth. Meanwhile, our sun is still a very young and small star comparatively and is only one of billions in a galaxy that is only average size. Exactly how many galaxies there are is unknown. However, if the whole known universe was my front yard, the whole earth, the whole solar system, indeed, our whole galaxy would be smaller than a grain of pollen.

How can anyone be unimpressed by this? How someone fail to blow their mind when they try to comprehend such wonders? This universe is so small that you could spend your life learning about a microbe a billionth the size of a grain of sand. Yet it’s so big that even the best astrophysicists with the best equipment have been unable to venture a guess about its size. How could we not love how immense and complex our big-little universe is?

Yet as marvelous as the universe of science is it would be dull if it were not so beautiful. The terrifyingly powerful phenomenon of nuclear fusion which powers the stars is not just some scientific process: it is the beautiful warm glow of the sun that brings glory to the day time and it is the speckled brilliance that makes the night sky so vast. Intricately woven carbon chains are not simply patterns of molecules: they are the colors of a soft, smooth petal swathed around the aromatic center of a rose. Such wonders could be nothing but the work of a master architect, biologist, engineer, and artist.

Truly, creation is a masterpiece and it is the joy of Christians to worship the Master. Therefore, let us delve as deeply as we can into these mysteries, while humbly admitting that they are mysteries, so that we might see the beauty of creation and worship the Author of this beautiful creation, indeed the Author of beauty itself, by marveling at His work.

Genesis 1:31a “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.”

Introducing Pedro

2008-09-07T23:00:00.002-04:00

So since I came to school last year, this blog has slipped pretty low on my priority list...building relationships and getting good grades is a lot more important. Before I left for school this year, however, I was talking to my good friend Peter Wilson (who came up with the name for this blog and was almost a founding member), and he mentioned that he had ideas for several posts that he wanted to write but that didn't really fit with the purpose of his own blog, The Tangent. Since I haven't really been using this blog too much, I thought I'd let him post a few times to keep things lively over here (for all three of you who actually still check back occasionally).

To introduce you to Pedro, I'd like to say this: I can think of few friends with whom I have had as many deep, thoughtful, God-glorifying conversations. Even though he moved away last year, every time we run into each other we invariably end up discussing something controversial. I remember fondly long conversations about the nature of movie adaptations, the immaculate conception, Harry Potter, and whether or not Frederick is the best city in the country (answer: it's not). So if I had to choose anyone to come here and post on this blog, it would be Pedro. He is a deep thinker (much deeper than me), and although we disagree on many things (usually artistic), he thinks through everything and does his best to make his life conform to a Christ-centered worldview. (Of course, I've forbidden him to do movie reviews...that's my realm.)

So welcome to HoldFast, Pedro! I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

Learning...

2008-08-31T12:32:00.005-04:00

This is a slightly hodge-podge post, but one thing ties it together: I learned all three of these things yesterday, in very different ways.

1) This is something I've been in the process of learning for the last year, but yesterday I had an epiphany that allowed me to state it succinctly. This is I think one of the most important things I've learned in college so far.

When you're having a theological discussion with the goal of converting the other person to your side, you'll never convert the person. You'll merely cause tension and discord. However, when you move past the need to win an argument, it frees you to have real, fulfilling theological discussions, and only in those real discussions, when you're talking as friends and not as opponents, will you ever be able to convince someone of the truth of your own views. To state this succinctly:

You'll never win a theological argument until you aren't seeking to win a theological argument.

2) I tried out for chamber choir this weekend, but I didn't get in. I was disappointed, but I had been preparing myself for it and it did not shock me. I had left it in God's hands, I felt that my audition was good, and it was up to God. However, what I wasn't expecting was to be approached only a few hours after I found out that I was not in chamber choir to be asked to join an acappella quartet with three of my friends who are amazingly musically talented. If I had made chamber choir, I would have been forced to turn them down because of the demands on my schedule, but with my schedule freed up, I was able to accept something that I had been desiring for a long time. What lesson did I learn from this?

God often denies us one thing so he can give us something else.

This is something I have to keep learning, and it's always good to see a fresh example.

3) A bunch of guys in our dorm are watching through Band of Brothers this weekend (taking advantage of Labor Day), and we watched Part 3 last night. This particular episode contains what is probably my favorite moment from the entire series:

Pvt. Blithe is scared of fighting, and every time he finds himself in a combat situation he freezes up or hides. Easy Company is ambushed near the end of the episode and ends up in foxholes along a hedge, watching the Germans holed up in another hedge a few hundred yards away. Blithe is petrified, and he ends up in a conversation with Lt. Spears. Blithe confesses to Spears that when he landed on D-Day, he hid in a ditch instead of trying to find his unit to fight.

Spears: You know why you hid in that ditch, Blithe?
Blithe: 'Cause I was scared.
Spears: We're all scared. You hid in that ditch because you think there's still hope. But Blithe, the only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead. And the sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a soldier's supposed to function.

From what I can tell as a civilian, this is the best description of a soldier's mindset. Only when you aren't worried about dying can you function as a soldier, and the only way not to worry about dying is to be already dead. In broader terms, you can only function when you give yourself up to God and accept that whatever happens will happen, and you can't control it at all. This is something I've used several times to counsel my friends, and I've found it such a helpful reminder of the necessity of relying on God.

Hold fast to what?

2008-08-02T20:07:00.005-04:00

Recently I’ve been thinking about the name of this blog (and this is not because I've been posting on it, as I'm sure those few of you who still check this blog out will be eager to remind me, just because I've been thinking about the phrase "hold fast"). Just to give you some background, the name was not my idea. In fact, I wanted to use the name conTrast with the middle T as a cross, to emphasize that we as Christians need to contrast with the world. But, as some of you may remember, this blog was originally started as a team blog, and the other guys (Josh and Peter--Peter never actually joined the blog but helped with the brainstorming) wanted the name HoldFast. I didn’t think it was that huge of a deal, so I went with them, and then the blog ended up being all mine after a few months. Slightly ironic, I suppose.

But as I’ve been reading my Bible since then, I’ve been amazed at how often the phrase “hold fast” appears in the Bible (by my count, about 25) and what significance it appears to carry. Today in my quiet time I decided to do a word study and see what I could find out. I compiled all the verses I could find (using ESV’s search function online) and actually went and looked at the Greek for the New Testament occurrences (the Greek would be a lot more useful if I’d taken any Greek, but Latin helps). And after all that reflection, I am so glad that HoldFast is the name of this blog, and I think you’ll see why.

My first question was, what is this word that continues to be translated “hold fast”? After going through the Greek, I found a few different words used, all of which seem to be compounds of the same word, echo, which means “to have, hold, possess.” But the different compounds carry different connotations: krateo means “to have power, to be master of, to get possession of”; katecho means “to hold back, detain, restrain, hinder, keep secret, get possession of”; and epecho means “to have or hold upon, give attention to, observe, attend to.” Basically, the verbs used imply an active grabbing onto, an attempt at possession. I like the translation “hold fast” because it gives the image of clinging for dear life.

The next question is, what are we supposed to hold fast to? I compiled this list from the different verses that I found:

your wife (Gen. 2:24)
the Lord your God (Deut 10:20, 11:22, 13:4, 30:20; Ps. 91:14)
integrity (Job 2:3)
righteousness (Job 27:6)
Wisdom (Prov. 3:18)
the words of your father (Prov. 4:4)
keeping the Sabbath and keeping your hand from doing evil (Is. 56:2)
love and justice (Hos. 12:6)
the Word of God (Luke 8:15)
that which is good (Rom 12:9, 1 Thess. 5:21)
the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-2)
the word of life (Phil 2:16)
the Head who nourishes you (Col. 2:19)
our confidence and our boasting in our hope (Heb. 3:6)
our confession (Heb. 4:14)
the hope set before us (Heb. 6:18)
the confession of our hope (Heb. 10:23)
the name of Christ (Rev. 2:13)
what you have (Rev. 2:25, 3:11)

There are a lot of things here, but you’ll notice that what most of these have in common is the idea of holding onto the things that God finds valuable. In the Old Testament, these are primarily different virtues, like integrity, righteousness, love, and justice. But the most common one is holding fast to the Lord himself. Especially in Deuteronomy, this is extremely important. In Proverbs we are to hold onto wisdom, which is in essence a part of God.

In the New Testament it gets more refined. We are to hold onto God, his word, and our hope as Christians. But I think the defining passage is 1 Corinthians 15:1-11:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve… Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

We are to hold fast to the gospel of Jesus Christ! The reason I like this passage is that it goes beyond the other passages in a sense. Most of the other passages tell us to hold onto our confession and our hope, but this passage sets that confession and hope before us in clear detail. Our confession is that Christ died for our sins and rose on the third day. Our hope is that God’s grace reaches out to us, sinners that we are, and works through us to accomplish his grace, and his grace will not be in vain. That is the confession of the hope that we are to hold fast to. And what an amazing confession! What a strength-giving hope! The writer of Hebrews fleshes this out for us:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. (Hebrews 10:19-23)

Note that once again, he first meditates on the gospel, that we are free to enter the presence of God through the blood of Jesus, and then reminds us that we don’t need to be afraid any more of God’s wrath! We are saved, now and forevermore! What a precious truth this is for us. So let us as Christian hold fast to the confession of our hope at all times, for it is the strength to get us through the day.

I’m providing below the verses that I found that mention the phrase “hold fast.” I know that, because this is a translation, some of the actual Greek words appear in other places than how it’s translated in the ESV, but I think this gives an accurate feel of the phrase, if not exhaustive.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. –Genesis 2:24

You shall fear the Lord your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear. –Deut. 10:20

For if you will be careful to do all this commandment that I command you to do, loving the Lord your God, walking in all his ways, and holding fast to him, then the Lord will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations greater and mightier than yourselves. –Deut 11:22-23

You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. –Deut 13:4

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. –Deut 30:19-20

And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” –Job 2:3

I hold fast my righteousness and will not let it go; my heart does not reproach me for any of my days. –Job 27:6

Because he holds fast to me in love, I will deliver him; I will protect him, because he knows my name. –Psalm 91:14

[Wisdom] is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her;
those who hold her fast are called blessed. –Prov 3:18

When I was a son with my father,
tender, the only one in the sight of my mother,
he taught me and said to me,
“Let your heart hold fast my words;
keep my commandments, and live.
Get wisdom; get insight;
do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth.
Do not forsake her, and she will keep you;
love her, and she will guard you.
The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom,
and whatever you get, get insight.
Prize her highly, and she will exalt you;
she will honor you if you embrace her.
She will place on your head a graceful garland;
she will bestow on you a beautiful crown.” –Prov. 4:3-9

Thus says the Lord:
“Keep justice, and do righteousness,
for soon my salvation will come,
and my deliverance be revealed.
Blessed is the man who does this,
and the son of man who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it,
and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” –Isaiah 56:1-2

So you, by the help of your God, return,
hold fast to love and justice,
and wait continually for your God. –Hos. 12:6

As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience. –Luke 8:15

Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. –Rom. 12:9

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. –1 Cor. 15:1-11

Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. –Phil. 2:14-16

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. –Col. 2:18-19

Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. –1 Thess. 5:20-22

For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. –Heb. 3:3-6

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. –Heb. 4:14-16

So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. –Heb. 6:17-18

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. –Heb. 10:19-23

I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. –Rev. 2:13

But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. Only hold fast what you have until I come. The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. –Rev. 2:24-27

Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. –Rev. 3:10-12

Ascent...Again

2008-03-19T11:02:00.003-04:00

So when I got back to school, I decided to enter a creative writing contest sponsored by the English Department...and I decided to use "Ascent", the poem I posted in December. However, I knew that the poem in that form did not merit any kind of award, so I enlisted some good friends who also happen to be amazingly talented English majors to help me make it better. After an afternoon of hard work, I submitted the poem. As an afterthought, I also submitted the poem to the Towerlight, the Hillsdale literary journal which is published every semester with poems and short stories written by the student body.

I got an email a week or two later saying that my poem had not won the award, but I was okay with that, as entering the contest was kind of a whim anyways. However, right before I left for spring break, I got another email from the Towerlight saying that my poem had been selected for inclusion in this semester's journal! This makes me incredibly excited, so I thought I'd repost the poem here in its edited, much-improved form. Enjoy!

Ascent

Rolling down the great imposing plain of asphalt,
the airplane picks up speed, the wheels leave the ground,
I feel pressed into my seat—not crushed,
more as if my father’s firm hand holds me back.
The endless patchwork of farmland,
interrupted by a tiny outgrowth of spires—is that Detroit?
It seems so small from up here—
melds into the deep indigo of the lake.
The ascent continues—the body trembles slightly—
Below a vast wasteland of glaciers
disappears into a pale haze at the horizon—
or are those clouds? It’s hard to be sure,
up here in this endless expanse of space,
as the immutable world transforms.
The sky rises above the haze, the same azure blue
as the lake below—which way is up?
The glaciers have become a second patchwork of farmland,
this time smothered in a thick blanket of snow.
Another plane passes in the distance
leaving a bright plume of vapor behind it, like a comet—
it’s hard to believe there are people on that almost invisible speck,
on their way to some unknown destination—
maybe back to Detroit—
we’re going home in opposite directions.
We’ve been swallowed by a cloudbank—the world is white
like a blizzard, except I can still see the wing.
Even now a faint hint of blue is visible
if I look close enough.
I think the plane is turning—
Blue lake below, blue sky above—or is it the other way around?
This cursed cloudbank skews the world.
Out of the cloud now, the white is at the level of my eyes,
a great plain of snow as far as the eye can see.
I could be anywhere in the world right now—
I’ve always wanted to visit Paris.
We’ve descended, sandwiched between two clouds,
with the blue peeking out from both sides—
even gravity deceives up here.
The stomach drops, rapid descent, that way must be down.
We’re still descending, but the stomach has adjusted—
funny how it does that—I can’t even tell we’re dropping anymore.
I remember something about that in physics—inertia, was it?
Changes in momentum, constant acceleration…
but I choose not to think about it. School’s out, and I’m going home,
gazing at this volatile world outside my window.

Ascent

2007-12-12T15:53:00.001-05:00

Hmmm...so much for being a steady blogger once I got to school. I've written a grand total of...one post. Well, now it's Christmas break, and if anyone out there is still reading this blog, I might try and write a bit...but we've all seen how much that means. Oh well. School has been so much fun and so terribly busy, there's been no time.

On the plane ride home, I had no book to read, and was listening to my iPod as I looked out across the landscape (on a side-note, remind me not to sit right on the wing if I'm planning to look at the landscape). Suddenly, this line popped into my head: "the endless patchwork of farmland melds into the deep blue of the lake." It felt very poetic, and since the Muse does not hit me very often, I decided to run with it, so I pulled out my laptop and wrote this poem (moderately edited since). Enjoy in lieu of a real post.

Ascent

Rolling down the great imposing plain of asphalt
the airplane picks up speed, the wheels leave the ground,
I feel pressed into my seat—not crushed,
more as if my father’s firm hand holds me back.
The endless patchwork of farmland,
interrupted by a tiny grouping of towers—is that Detroit?
It seems so small from up here—
Melds into the deep indigo of the lake
The ascent continues—the body trembles slightly—
there’s a vast wasteland of glaciers, now
it disappears into a pale haze at the horizon.
The sky rises above the haze, the same azure blue
as the lake below—perspectives change—which way is up?
The glaciers have become another patchwork of farmland
this time covered in a thick layer of snow.
Another plane passes in the distance
leaving a bright plume of vapor behind it, like a comet
We’ve passed into a cloudbank—the world is white
like a blizzard, but I can still see the wing.
Even in the blizzard, a faint hint of blue is visible
if you look close enough
I think the plane is turning, I feel unbalanced,
but all perspective is gone
Blue lake below, blue sky above—or is it the other way around?
This cursed cloudbank skews the world
Out of the cloud now, the white is at the level of my eyes,
a great plain of snow as far as the eye can see
No definition out there—I could be anywhere in the world right now—
I’ve always wanted to visit Paris
We’ve descended, sandwiched between two clouds,
with the blue peeking out from both sides
Even gravity deceives up here
The stomach drops, rapid descent, that way must be down
We’re still descending, but the stomach has adjusted—
funny how it does that, I can’t even tell we’re dropping anymore
I remember something about that in physics—inertia, was it?
No matter, it’s Christmas break, and I’m going home—
I swear, it’s like another world up here.

Dishonorable vessels

2007-09-23T15:44:00.000-04:00

After many, many months, the predestination issue resurfaces here on HoldFast. This post comes about because one of the favorite topics of discussion up here is the topic of predestination/election, especially between the Lutherans and the Calvinists. After one such discussion, I read Romans 9 in my quiet time and was struck down, because this passage answers the single most difficult question the Calvinists have to answer: Why would God create people just to damn them? This question was posed by Claire back in my post The Line Cannot Comprehend the Cube, and had been posed since I've been here. This passage literally had me jumping up and down in my seat because it was so amazing, so I'm going to quote it at length here. If you're interested in this topic, you don't want to miss this:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:6-24)

Whoa! I read that again and I'm floored again! Let's walk through his argument here step-by-step: Paul states that the entire nation of Israel will not be saved, i.e. just being an Israelite is not enough to save you. Those who are saved are children of the promise, not the flesh. As an example, he relates the story of Jacob and Esau, a set of twins, who are about as close to natural equals as you can possibly get. Yet before they were even born, before they could do anything to make up his mind, God chose Jacob to love and bless and Esau to hate and curse. It was a free choice, and had nothing to do with what they did or were going to do.

He continues by refuting the idea that this is unjust. He exercises his divine Creator's prerogative by showing mercy and compassion to those whom he chooses. Paul gives the example of Pharaoh, who was raised up by God entirely so that he could be brought down again. He never had a choice (in the free will-position's sense of the word), but was "forced" to harden his heart, and was then damned for it.

Then comes the question of the hour: Why does he blame us for this? If he forces/predestines us to sin, why are we then damned for that same sin? He responds as God responds to Job: Who are you to question the decisions of God? Does the creature have any right to demand reasons of the Creator? The Creator has the right to do whatever he wishes with his creation. He creates vessels for honorable use (those who will be saved) and some for dishonorable use (those who will be damned).

Then comes the answer to the question posed at the beginning: Why would God create men to damn them? The answer is this: by making known his wrath and his power against those vessels "prepared for destruction", he glorifies himself by saving others whom he has predestined for heaven. He makes known the riches of his glory by showing mercy to some and and not others.

This is a big deal! Paul is stating that God damns people to hell for sins that they are predestined to commit. How does that fit in with the idea that men have a free choice, uninfluenced by God, whether or not to accept salvation? It really doesn't.

Edit: I should point out that I have not addressed at all the way free will fits into the Calvinist paradigm. I'm only looking at one side of the issue in this post, and the issue is more complicated, because although God predestines us to sin, we are still responsible for it. This does not remove responsibility from us in the slightest. How do those two views synthesize? I'm honestly not sure. Ultimately, I think it's just one of those mysteries we'll have to wait for heaven to answer. I just think it's a mistake to give humans too much credit, as I think the free will position does. End Edit.

I know that I will now begin hearing arguments based on verses such as 1 Timothy 2:4, "[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." I would just like to point out the distinction between God's secret (or decreed) will and God's revealed will. God's revealed will is, according to Wayne Grudem, "God's declared will concerning what we should do or what God commands us to do." God's secret will, on the other hand, is "his hidden decrees by which he governs the universe and determines everything that will happen." Grudem gives a detailed exegesis of these concepts and the differences between them on pages 213-216 of his outstanding Systematic Theology (the new 2007 edition, I'm not sure about the old one), and I can relate some of his arguments for that, but suffice it to say that passages like 1 Timothy are statements of revealed will, not decreed will: we are to evangelise everyone because we don't know who is predestined to be saved.

I'm sure that this post will stir up much controversy, so let the argumentation begin. But let's keep it civil, folks.

The Just and the Justifier

2007-09-11T10:18:00.000-04:00

Yes my friends, he's back! After a long period of settling down in my new college environment, I have finally made it back to the blogging world. I'm having a great time, but life keeps me busy, so I'm not sure how often updates will be coming. I'd like for them to be at least once a week, but I make no guarantees. I have an insanely massive Odds and Ends post that's been collecting for two or three months now, so I might actually break it up into two, but until that time, enjoy this little reflection I wrote this morning as a meditation on a verse first brought to my attention by John Piper at New Attitude.

In reflecting on God's glory (his favorite topic), John Piper directed our attentions to Romans 3:21-25, a wonderful passage that dwells on man's depravity, Christ's sacrifice, and our justification. As I was looking at the passage in my Bible, however, I noticed the very next verse, and it absolutely floored me:

It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Just and the Justifier. What does that mean?

Just

God is perfect and holy in his whole being. Holiness is the sum total of all his attributes; he is separate and apart from his creation. Sin cannot enter his presence, for it is absolutely antithetical to his character. He is completely just, and must punish sin fully and completely. For him not to punish sin and still bring the sinner into fellowship with himself would be an offense to his character, and demonstrate that he is not truly just. In other words, for him to be loving and not just would mean that he is not God. He would be fallible. He would be a disgrace to himself.

The Justifier

Yet God loves us, and he desires to be in fellowship with us. But how can he do that when we are sinful, and cannot possibly pay for our own sins? We can never enter his presence, because everything we do is an affront to God, a direct act of rebellion. Yet God made a way: he sent his own Son to die on the cross for our sins, bearing the full wrath of God against our sins. He, as the previous verses say, "put forward [Christ] as a propitiation by his blood." And now, we humans can put on Christ's righteousness and enter God's presence without fear, because we have been justified. God has justified us, and reconciled us to himself.

And herein lies the beauty of this verse: it captures this essence in just one phrase: "so that he might be just and the justifier." Christ came to show that God is both just and loving at the same time; only God could have come up with a plan that would present him as just and the justifier at the same time. What a glorious mystery this is!He is utterly holy, and yet stoops down to associate with vile sinners such as me, who have scorned him and rebelled against him. He pays for the offenses we have leveled at him with his own blood, and reconciles us to himself forever. What a glorious God we serve!

Harry Potter: Good or Evil?

2007-08-03T22:11:00.000-04:00

We were walking out of an opening weekend showing of Eragon. Most of us there were pretty underwhelmed, but that didn't mean there weren't conversations going on. Juli turned to me right away and asked "So, why are you allowed to read and see Eragon and not Harry Potter?" It was a good question: both contain magic and strange mythical creatures and some other similarities. I stumbled through half an answer before I realized that everything I said about Harry Potter started like this: "From what I've heard..." As Juli would correct me on what I'd heard, I realized it was time for me to actually read the books myself and come to my own conclusion. In the past month I've read the first three books, and eventually plan to read the rest. So what are my thoughts on the book? Are they really as evil as people say they are?

I had originally planned to write this post several months ago (as a matter of fact, the first paragraph of this article was written back in January). But I decided I wanted to read all six that had been written, and by the time I did that Book 7 was due out very soon, so I decided to wait until it came out. So this article has been in planning for a long time. Because the seventh book has only been out for about a week, I'm not going to spill any big spoilers about that one to be fair to everyone who wants to read it. I will be talking about crucial plot elements in the other six, however, so be warned: I always write with spoilers :D

Literary Analysis

I loved these books. No, really, I did. As novels, they are at the top of my list for engaging, well-written fantasy fare. The plots are original and well-crafted, and more than once I stayed up late into the night to finish one of them. For instance, I borrowed Deathly Hallows from a friend on Wednesday. Thursday morning I gave it back, because the previous night I had read all 759 pages straight through until 3:30. They are that gripping.

Rowling has an amazing talent for creating characters. Even characters that are pure evil, like Lord Voldemort, are given motivations and backstory that flesh them out and give them life. Characters like Harry or Ron have real weaknesses and strengths, and change over the course of the books according to their experiences. Even Dumbledore, the height of good wizardry, definitely has his problems, and wrestles with decisions and their consequences. Snape is...well, you can never be sure about Snape (but I won't say anything else). And Hermione...let's just say that I've never met a character who reminded me so much of me.

I don't have to say much else besides the fact that if this was the only criterium for whether or not to read this book, it would pass with flying colors. Sadly, however, it's not.

Magical Analysis

This is obviously the issue that all the controversy over the past ten years has centered around. Critics have claimed that the positive portrayals of witchcraft and wizardry will lead more people to embrace the real-life Satanic forms. After having read all seven books, I am still torn about this. However, this is the conclusion I have come to: the portrayal of magic in Harry Potter is clearly fictional enough that only the most obsessive children will be drawn into real-world witchcraft.

Harry Potter's magic consists of waving a wand around and saying certain words until a spell, in the form of a beam of light, comes out the end. It's like a complicated way of firing a Star Wars blaster. Admittedly, this does bear a resemblance to real-world witchcraft in that special words are used, but even that is different because only certain people are even able to do this, because only certain people are born with the power to use magic.

The whole idea seems fantastical enough that nobody would think that any of it existed in the real world, but I know that there are always people out there who take everything incredibly seriously (just think of all the Star Wars fans who insist that they are actually "Jedi"). That, I think, is where the danger comes from: people unable to separate fantasy from reality. They are the ones in danger from the ideas presented in this book. Everyone else, I think, could easily read the book without ever believing a word of it, in the same way that we read a science-fiction book about aliens abducting humans: entertaining, but completely fictitious.

There's another side of this issue, however, which I think is much more serious. One thing that is never addressed in the books are where magic comes from. It's just something that certain people are born with and must learn how to use. There is no higher power, nothing controlling anything at all. Good and evil are equal and opposite forces, and either could win the epic battle which they are raging throughout the books. It's a world, quite simply, without God. This is typical of a fantasy book, but it is something which has always irked me about the genre. Lev Grossman voiced a similar concern in this short article in TIME magazine.

A world without God. Now that's a problem. This lack of a higher authority comes to the forefront when Harry finds that he didn't die when Voldemort first attacked him because his mother's love protected him. Love, apparently, is the highest good, and has more power than even Dark Magic. But love is useless without an origin, and in this book it has no origin. It just is. And that's much more disturbing than the magic.

EDIT: Paul brought up a very good point in one of the comments, and I addressed it in the comments, but I think that the point is important enough to bear inclusion in the post itself. Paul argued that Harry Potter is witchcraft, and God declares explicitly in Scripture that he hates witchcraft, therefore we should hate witchcraft too, and should thus avoid Harry Potter. Here's what I wrote in response (with a few minor edits):

The magic of Harry Potter is the same kind of magic found in Eragon and every other fantasy book I've ever read. It exists in a world without God (something I've already addressed in my review), and that is a problem. Beyond that, though, I think that the sorcery condemned in the Bible and the sorcery used by Harry Potter, although called by the same name, are really two different animals altogether. Harry Potter is just typical, God-less, fantasy magic, no different from other fantasy books, as opposed to the real world, God-hating, dangerous magick. A condemnation of Harry Potter would, I think, have to extend to the entire fantasy genre, something I am not willing to do. My personal opinion is that there isn't even a real comparison there.

That said, I think your objections are sound, and I will be honest and admit that I do not know too much about modern-day witchcraft. My impressions are that they are totally different from Harry Potter magic, but I would be willing to be proved wrong by some real solid evidence that the two kinds of magic are the same. What I would dearly love is a decent evaluation of the books by an expert in the occult (and Harry Potter and the Bible does not count--most of its claims are too ridiculous to be taken seriously). Until I am shown that, though, I believe that they condemning Harry Potter for his purely fantastical magic is a mistake. END EDIT

Moral Analysis

Rowling deals with some pretty deep themes, such as the power of love and sacrifice and loyalty to one's friends. I've already adressed the problems with her treatment of love, but at the same time there are valuable lessons to be learned. There are other themes developed, about bigotry and trustworthiness, that are similarly valuable.

But honestly, one of the biggest problems I had with the book is the way that Harry and his friends are always breaking the rules and getting blessed for it. It's a small thing, but I think that children are much more likely to cling onto that ("I'm allowed to break the rules if it's for a good reason") than they are to a few magic spells. Yes, they demonstrate some admirable qualities as well, such as Harry's willingness to take risks for his friends or his mother's last sacrifice to save his life, but I think that the negative things Harry does that are portrayed positively are much more harmful than the good things he does are beneficial. And I haven't even talked about the "snogging" that is disgustingly dwelt upon in The Half-Blood Prince (I'm all in favor of a good romance in a book, but this was nothing like a "good" romance...just juveniles making out the whole time.) But even that is not my biggest concern about the series.

The first three books are very mild. They just have Harry at school, and Voldemort makes attempts at him but never succeeds. But at the end of The Goblet of Fire, Voldemort comes back, and from that scene (which contains ruthless murders and a blood sacrifice), the books get dark. Very dark. Voldemort and his cronies use some terrible magic, and the world takes on a dark, despairing tone as he gains more and more power, becoming seemingly unstoppable. Some scenes are positively grotesque, such as the Inferi, dead bodies enchanted by Voldemort to do his bidding, that dwell beneath the water in a cave and drag people down to their deaths. This darkness continues all the way through the last book, and is the primary reason why I would not suggest these books to children.

Books 1-3 are relatively harmless, but books 4-7 are increasingly dark. I would not have much of a problem at all with children (if I had any) reading the first three books, but I would not let them read the last four. You can imagine the reaction this would cause, though: the books are so engaging that you just have to know what happens next. I can't imagine a child quietly accepting that he is not allowed to finish such a "fun" series. No, instead you would have angry, resentful kids, just waiting to find a way to sneak the books whenever they can. Basically, I would not let my kids read the first three because they would be drawn into the last four, and I don't feel that that kind of darkness would be beneficial to their young souls.

However, I think that once children are mature enough (and I would see this age as being at least high school), their parents should give serious thought to letting them read it. It has many of the problems inherent in fantasy and children's literature, but once the child is mature enough to deal with that, I think they are immensely enjoyable books. The dark themes that are not appropriate for young children are, I believe, not a problem for a mature reader, and there are many other themes masterfully handled in Rowling's hands (such as love, sacrifice, and perserverance).

Final Evaluation: The books are not appropriate for younger readers because of the darkness inherent, and there are serious deficiencies typical of the fantasy genre, but are fine for older, mature readers.

Heading Off to School

2007-08-02T14:24:00.000-04:00

In two weeks, I will be in the car driving up to a remote town in southern Michigan. My trunk will be full of clothes, books, and miscellaneous items with which to survive over the next eight months. Yes, the time is almost here for me to go to college. Let me tell you, this is a pretty big step for me, but the truth is, I'm greatly looking forward to it. Everyone who I talk to tells me "College will be the best four years of your life" (or, as the guy I met on the beach said yesterday, "College was the best seven years of my life"). As I head off, I thought I would tell you guys about the school and what I'll be studying while I'm there so that you can pray for me.

Hillsdale College was founded in 1844, and it was the first college in the nation to accept students regardless of race or sex. It has always been committed to the principles of freedom and liberty, and although it is not a "Christian" school, it is very conservative and teaches everything from a Judeo-Christian foundation. It is a small school, with only about 1300 students, and it is known for being very academically rigorous.

One of the main reasons that the school is well-known is because it has refused to take any federal funding for the last several decades. Most schools depend heavily on funds from the government, either in grants or in financial aid to students, but the government takes such aid as giving them the right to interfere in the college's daily operations. When Hillsdale discovered this, it made the decision that rather than have it's independence compromised, it would simply refuse all federal aid and rely on private donations. This tactic has worked remarkably well, and the college has no trouble raising funds (it has just completed a huge renovation of the dining hall, and has also built a new Student Union building within the last two years).

Hillsdale has a very strong liberal arts program, and actually requires all freshmen to take a number of specific courses, including "Western Heritage" and "Rhetoric/Great Books". That way, every student has the same foundation on which to build their education. It is especially well-known for its history program, which is the program I currently plan on entering. I will be majoring in history, with the intention of going on to either law school, grad school, or seminary.

I am in the HonoUr's Program (yes, we insist on spelling it with a U), which I'm very excited about. In the Honours Program we take special sections of certain classes, go on a yearly retreat, and do all kinds of fun things together. I have several friends already at the College and in the Honour's Program, and they tell me that Honours is one of the best parts of the school.

My first semester I will be taking Western Heritage, Rhetoric/Great Books, Latin I (I flunked my placement exam, so I have to take it over again), Differential Calculus, Choir, and either Golf or Weight-Training. I'm very excited about my schedule, and I look forward to getting started in all these classes (except for Calc, but after that math is over forever :D ).

Sprititually, I'm looking forward to making my way through some classics of the faith. I want to read some Edwards, some Owens, some Augustine, some Spurgeon, some Bunyan, and other great works. I am currently reading John Stott's classic The Cross of Christ which is excellent, and after that we'll see what I can get my hands on next. I am also buying Calvin's Institutes with the money I got from my birthday, as Mr. Boisvert told me that every serious student of the faith should have it in their bookshelf. I look forward to benefitting from it when it arrives.

Here, then, are my prayer requests over the next year:

That The Clash would prepare me mentally for the spiritual opposition I am sure to face, both from professors and from students
That I would have the self-control to get up early enough to have my quiet time every morning, no matter how early my classes start
That I would have the courage to engage my unbelieving friends in conversations about their faith, and that I would be faithful to share the gospel with them
That I would be responsible and spend my time wisely, and especially be able to budget my time spent blogging and browsing the internet
That my roommate and I would get along and experience fruitful fellowship together as brothers in the faith (his name is Tom, and he was in my AP US History and AP Macroeconomics classes, so I know him a little bit and know that he's a Christian)
That I would call home regularly and stay in touch with all of my dear friends back in Maryland
That my computer would not have any problems for at least the first year :D

Well, there you go. Please keep me in your prayers over the next few weeks as I pack, attend The Clash, and move into my new school. I'm so excited to see what God is going to do!

Coach Carter

2007-08-01T11:30:00.000-04:00

Just watched this really amazing movie. It's about this coach who benches his undefeated high school basketball team because they are failing their classes. There are so many good messages in this movie about education, inner-city schools, the cycle of failure, perserverance, and what really counts in life. The acting was great, the production values were great...it was a well-done movie.

And yet I am upset. I'm upset for two reasons. First, it portrays abortion as a necessity in the inner-city for anyone who wants to escape. It's the only sensible thing to do. This grates on me for obvious reasons if you know my pro-life positions. But that wasn't my biggest problem with the film. My biggest problem was a philosophical problem. At the most pivotal moment of the film, as the players finally decide to own Coach Carter's decision for themselves, one of them stands up and recites a portion of this famous poem from Marianne Williamson:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant,
gorgeous, talented, fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small does not serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine, as children do.
We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.
It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone.
And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously
give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear,
our presence automatically liberates others.

In the new version of Godspell's "Prologue", this is the quote chosen to represent the New Age worldview. Marianne Williamson is one of the world's most prominent New Age leaders. The use of this quote in Coach Carter automatically aligns the ultimate goal with the New Age. And that's what really bugs me. This movie was so full of good morals, good lessons for life, but then the justification for all these lessons is...a page out of the New Age handbook.

Yes, most movies these days represent this New Age, postmodern outlook on life: "Believe in yourself," "Be true to your heart," "Follow your dreams, and you can do anything." Sure, Coach Carter is not even close to alone in proclaiming these views. What amazed and disappointed me was that it so blatantly chose to align itself with this worldview that it would even quote something like that. I find it greatly depressing.

So final evaluation: Great movie, great lessons, terrible worldview. And that is highly unfortunate.

The Count of Monte Cristo

2007-07-31T21:20:00.000-04:00

First off, let me explain to the many people who loved the recent movie starring Jim Caviezel that the movie does not deserve to share the same title as the magnificent book. Although the movie is enjoyable in its own right, it fails to capture the amazing complexity of the plot as conceived by Alexandre Dumas. I hope that someday a faithful adaptation can be made, but until that time comes, I shall have to content myself with reading the book. (Note: I have been informed that there is a lengthy French version that is much more faithful to the book, which I will have to check out at some point.) That said, this is a review of the book, not the movie (and like usual contains spoilers, so be careful).

I have been working on this book all summer. I first read it at the end of middle school, and it quickly became one of my favorite books. Now, the summer before I head off to college, I decided to read it again, since I could only remember very broad plot details. When I went back to read it again, I realized that the version I had originally read and fallen in love with was abridged, and the unabridged was close to 1500 pages long. Although full of many long dialogues, like most French novels, it was definitely worth the extra effort.

For those of you who don't know, the book is about the life of a sailor named Edmond Dantes. Sent to prison on trumped-up charges on the eve of his wedding, he spends 14 years in an armed fortress with a learned priest who knows the whereabouts of a fabulous treasure. When he manages to escape and finds the treasure that makes him rich beyond all imagination, he plans his revenge on the three men responsible for sending him to prison and destroying his life forever. They have all become upstanding members of Parisian society, and he slowly, by means of his fabulous wealth, tears their lives down around them, driving one to suicide, one to madness, and one to utter ruin and bankruptcy.

The sheer intricacy of the revenge was what had originally drawn me to the book. Dantes finds out every detail about the mens' lives and uses that knowledge to his full advantage, causing their families to be torn apart, their fortunes to disappear, and everything they love and hold dear to be systematically ripped away. Yet, on second reading, I find the lessons it teaches to be even more provoking.

Throughout the book, Dantes thinks of himself as the avenger of God, bringing justice to those who deserve it. He finds vindication for that idea in the fact that he continues to survive all sorts of inescapable situations, first in getting out of prison, next in finding the treasure, and then in escaping from a duel which he was certain to lose. Yet towards the end of the book he finds that his maneuverings have almost caused a woman to die who is loved by the only man Dantes counts as a true friend, and then discovers that he causes a mother to kill her small child before killing herself. He exclaims when he is informed of the young man's love for the woman:

See, my dear friend, how God punishes the most thoughtless and unfeeling men for their indifference, by presenting dreadful scenes to their view. I, who was looking on, an eager and curious spectator,--I, who, like a wicked angel, was laughing at the evil men committed, protected by secrecy (a secret is easily kep by the rich and powerful), I am, in my turn, bitten by the serpent whose tortuous couse I was watching, and bitten to the heart. (p. 1236)

Although he never ceases to think of himself as God's avenger, he realizes that many of his tactics went beyond the bounds. When he is shown the body of the young boy, who was never supposed to die and was only taken due to the selfishness of the mother, the narrator records

Monte Cristo became pale at this horrible sight; he felt he had passed beyond the bounds of vengeance, and that he could no longer say, "God is for and with me." (p. 1403)

He is so distraught by this, as he then watches the father go mad with grief, that he exclaims, "Oh! enough of this,--enough of this, let me save the last (referring to the last of the three men, and the only one on whom his vengeance was not complete. He then offers the last man full forgiveness, although his life has already been mostly shattered.

Although not a rousing condemnation of revenge in all its forms, the book offers an interesting perspective on the issue. To a certain extent Dantes' actions appear justified, but his methods often leave many others injured, both physically and mentally, and even a few dead. Although he does none of the killing or injuring by his own hand, it is brought about because of his shrewd maneuvering. Towards the end, as the men's lives crash in around them, the reader is moved to pity for them, even knowing the terrible evil they have committed. The count, although the hero, seems at many times to have destroyed his human emotions, causing him to thoughtlessly commit some acts that anyone else would have shuddered at.

Is it still one of my favorite books? It's definitely still way up on the list, but not for all the same reasons it was there before. It shows what is wrong with revenge, and it also features an amazingly intricate plot that is sure to fascinate any reader of good literature. Just be warned, it's quite an undertaking, but the pay-off is tremendous. And the dialogue is much more interesting than Victor Hugo's, as a little bit of a plus.

NOTE: I know I promised the Harry Potter post next, but I lost the beginnings of my first draft, and I'm working on my grandma's computer in the mountains. I plan to rewrite it tomorrow, but I can't guarantee it. So enjoy this review of the book I finished today, and Harry Potter will hopefully be posted before the end of the summer :D

Hidden Treasures

2007-07-18T12:50:00.001-04:00

Whew, can you say "Sam's a bad blogger"? I've discovered something very important: I blog best when I'm procrastinating from school. Knowing that, don't expect any consistent posting until September after I've settled into school. I'm actually writing the Harry Potter post now, however, just in time for the release of the final book, so that should be coming sometime in the next two weeks. In the meantime, here's a meditation on Job 28 from my quiet time this morning.

I think Job 28 is one of the most beautiful chapters in Scripture, and especially in Job (second only to God's monologue of creation in chapters 38-41). The entire chapter is worth quoting here; please take the time to read it and savor the beauty and truth contained within:

“Surely there is a mine for silver,
and a place for gold that they refine.
Iron is taken out of the earth,
and copper is smelted from the ore.
Man puts an end to darkness
and searches out to the farthest limit
the ore in gloom and deep darkness.
He opens shafts in a valley away from where anyone lives;
they are forgotten by travelers;
they hang in the air, far away from mankind;
they swing to and fro.
As for the earth, out of it comes bread,
but underneath it is turned up as by fire.
Its stones are the place of sapphires,
and it has dust of gold.

"That path no bird of prey knows,
and the falcon's eye has not seen it.
The proud beasts have not trodden it;
the lion has not passed over it.

“Man puts his hand to the flinty rock
and overturns mountains by the roots.
He cuts out channels in the rocks,
and his eye sees every precious thing.
He dams up the streams so that they do not trickle,
and the thing that is hidden he brings out to light.

“But where shall wisdom be found?
And where is the place of understanding?
Man does not know its worth,
and it is not found in the land of the living.
The deep says, ‘It is not in me,’
and the sea says, ‘It is not with me.’
It cannot be bought for gold,
and silver cannot be weighed as its price.
It cannot be valued in the gold of Ophir,
in precious onyx or sapphire.
Gold and glass cannot equal it,
nor can it be exchanged for jewels of fine gold.
No mention shall be made of coral or of crystal;
the price of wisdom is above pearls.
The topaz of Ethiopia cannot equal it,
nor can it be valued in pure gold.

“From where, then, does wisdom come?
And where is the place of understanding?
It is hidden from the eyes of all living
and concealed from the birds of the air.
Abaddon and Death say,
‘We have heard a rumor of it with our ears.’

“God understands the way to it,
and he knows its place.
For he looks to the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.
When he gave to the wind its weight
and apportioned the waters by measure,
when he made a decree for the rain
and a way for the lightning of the thunder,
then he saw it and declared it;
he established it, and searched it out.
And he said to man,
‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom,
and to turn away from evil is understanding.’”

Think of the camera that follows Saruman's rooks into the mines at Isengard during The Fellowship of the Ring. Reading this chapter is like following that camera, but instead of the heat of the lava and the squalor of the orcs, we are treated to huge caves filled with gold, silver, sapphires, and multitudes of precious jewels. It's a beautiful, breathtaking sight.

But then Job asks the question: Where is wisdom? That which is valuable above all else, where can it be found? Only God knows where it is or how to find it, for it was he who created it. Wisdom is found in the fear of the Lord, for only when we fear God will he impart wisdom to us.

I don't have a lot to say about this passage, mainly because it speaks for itself. No matter how beautiful creation is, it can never match the beauty of wisdom. That is why Solomon tells us in Proverbs 2 that "if you seek [for wisdom] like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God." Wisdom is the ultimate treasure, and it is found in knowing God. Search for him and find him, and you will have everything you need.

Spider-Man 3

2007-06-13T16:03:00.000-04:00

Okay, so much for trying to post every day to get caught up. It's amazing how easily your time gets eaten up when you have less to do. I'll have to work on that this summer...but for now, I'm going to post something that was not even on my list of upcoming posts: a review of Spider-Man 3 that I had written back on opening weekend and then never posted so that I didn't spoil it for anyone. I guess the statute of limitations has run out by now, so here's the big post (as written on May 4).

Last night I went out with my coworkers and watched the midnight showing of Spider-Man 3. However, it would not be fair for me to give a bunch of spoilers to everyone else who did not go to the midnight showing, so I'm not going to actually post this article for several weeks to give people a chance to see it. So here's my disclaimer again: The following review contains major spoilers and expects familiarity with all parts of the plot, including the ending, so don't read it if you don't want the movie spoiled.

First, my critical review: I enjoyed the movie. I don't feel like it met the high standards set by the first two, but it was an overall enjoyable movie. I had three major concerns with it: first, it felt like they were trying too hard in this film. The first two films were known for their "more is less" mentality, but this one went all-out to try and wow and impress. The best example of this is that there are four major villains in this film, which just feels like too many. The special effects were great (especially on Sandman), and the backstories were good, but not fleshed out because there was too much going on. Second, the editing felt poorly done. So many times I felt whipped around, like they were trying to fit too many things in, so they just had to show me this--and then that--and then this because we were running out of done.

Third, much of the humor felt very campy and out of place in this film. Both of the earlier films had moments of humor, but this one played up the jokes significantly, especially during the time when Peter is under the influence of the black suit. For example, he breaks out into a whole dance sequence at one point, which personally left me thinking, "What on earth?" It seemed like the audience was constantly being led to laugh at times when a laugh felt out of place (part of this was because of some very melodramatic moments that came between Harry and MJ). However, the French waiter did not feel out of place (at least to me), and I quite enjoyed it (it felt very John Cleese-esque...in fact, at first I thought it was John Cleese).

So those were my critical comments, but I also found some great thinking moments I wanted to comment on. Overall I thought that the alien symbiote that first took over Peter and then Eddie Brock made some great points about the nature of sin (although not perfect by any means). It was a sort of Jekyll/Hyde adventure, where Peter loves the power rush that putting on the black suit gives him, but soon finds that it is possessing him and turning him into something terrible. When he finally tries to free himself from it, it is intensely difficult. When it takes over Eddie, turning him into Venom, he loves the way it makes him feel angry, and at the very end, when Peter gives him the opportunity to escape from its clutches, he runs back in and embraces it as it is destroyed, taking him with it. He is so attached to the anger that he is willing to be destroyed rather than part with it. It is sad, but it's a great picture of how sin grabs onto our lives, makes us feel good, but eventually destroys us.

So it was an imperfect film and could have been much better, but I did enjoy it. If you want to see a great superhero film, though, watch the first two and Batman Begins. Those are the cream of the crop.

Odds and Ends XI

2007-06-06T10:19:00.000-04:00

Whew, it's been almost a month since my last Odds and Ends post, and I have a lot of great links to share with you guys.

Serious:

Nathan Williams at Pulpit examines the concept of God's "foreknowledge", which is very applicable to the post I will soon be writing in response to Karyn about predestination.
I linked to the Wilson-Hitchens debate taking place over on Christianity Today last time, but now the debate is over and someone has compiled all the arguments into one PDF. Wilson tore him apart nicely, I think.
Joe Thorn explains why it is good for Christians to go to the movies, an argument I have been trying to make for years.
Al Mohler reviews The Dangerous Book for Boys, which sounds like just what our effeminate culture really needs.
Centuri0n points to a statement from a top NASA official that makes one of the most critical arguments against the whole global warming controversy: how do we know that the current temperature of the earth is the best?
John MacArthur spent a week evaluating the Roman Catholic Church's claim to authority in interpreting the Scriptures.

Funny:

This right here is the story of my life.
Despair, Inc., the brilliant minds behind the Demotivators, have introduced something new: DespairWear. I want this one, please. Or maybe this one.
This should be required viewing for all men: how to give a perfect man-hug.
Marvel and DC superheroes gather after hours to discuss life...
Google shows the benefits of Gmail...with puppets. (If you don't have Gmail, repent immediately and sign up. You won't regret it. I promise.)

Interesting:

If you're like me and let your emails pile up on you, this article will be invaluable: how to clean out your Gmail inbox and keep it clean. I'm planning on implementing some of these suggestions today as I clean out the 300 emails in my inbox.
A fellow Na attendee posted this video recap of the conference...I almost walked in on him interviewing someone in an elevator while I was there.
C.S. Lewis explains why it is we enjoy reading...to which I give a hearty "Amen!"
Steven Speilburg and Peter Jackson are producing a trilogy of Tintin films! I grew up on those books, so I can't wait to see what they do with them.
I want one of these tables...will Bill Gates never stop?

Quotes:

One of my favorite humorists is Patrick McManus, who writes about hunting, fishing, camping, and all things outdoors. Reading one of his stories, no matter how many times I've read it before, never fails to bring a smile to my face. In one of his stories, "The Worry Box," he talks about an old man with whom he goes fishing, and they have the following exchange:

"Why are you always so cheerful?" I growled. "Must be because you have so few worries."

"Nope," he said. "It's because every morning this incredibly wonderful thing happens to me."

"I'm not so sure I want to hear this," I said, "but what's the incredibly wonderful thing?"

"I wake up again! Dad-gum if that don't make my day!"

If only we all had that view of life, I think we would all be a lot happier.

Graduated!

2007-06-05T14:00:00.000-04:00

Well, my high school graduation was last Saturday, and what an event it was. I was the the senior in charge of administrating everything (I was under Mrs. Hoover and the other moms, of course), and I'll be honest: I'm glad it's over. There are a lot of details that go into an event like that which I had no idea where even issues. But thankfully, everything went wonderfully, and the worst mishap was when one of the moms knocked off one of the graduate's caps when they hugged.

Bob Donahue spoke, and gave a nice exhortation from Psalm 90:12, which was our theme verse: "Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom." Bryce and Emily, the 10:31 winners for our class, eloquently thanked our parents for all their work over the years. And I got to give the charge as the unofficial valedictorian (it's hard to figure that out objectively in a homeschool class, but they chose me since I was a National Merit Scholar...of course, all that really means is that I do well on standarized tests, but they insisted). Here's the text of what I said:

Friends, after 13 years, we finally made it. We've been invested in by our parents and by our church, and we have been entrusted with the single most important gift we will ever recieve: the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, as we go forth into the world as adults, let us be faithful to live that gospel for a watching world to see. Let us seize every moment as an opportunity to glorify God, and let us pursue wisdom and maturity all the days of our lives.

Then my good friend Robby Sawyer (a fellow member of the PC crew) led the class in flipping the tassels on our caps, and then we ran down the aisle to the sounds of James Bond. What a wonderful feeling to run down the back hallway screaming at the top of our lungs. So exhilarating.

(Oh yeah, we also gave our senior pastor, Josh Harris, an honorary membership in our class, since he once mentioned that he has never graduated from anything...i.e. his parents forgot to graduate him from high school. So we gave him a cap and gown, filmed him walking down the aisle, and gave him a diploma. It was great fun, and now I can say that I graduated with a bestselling author, not to mention a prominent pastor and one of the men I greatly respect.)

Now that my life has cleared up a little bit (although not that much), I have a whole line-up of posts I've been working on that should be making an appearance in the next couple of weeks. A foretaste:

A meditation on Romans 3:26, inspired by John Piper's message at Na
A defense of the just war theory, inspired by Sergeant York
A critique of the "God is love" mindset
A fun browsing of different Narnia book covers
A response to Karyn's post about predestination (a continuation of this debate a few months ago)
A massive Odds and Ends post that has been piling up for weeks!
And of course the long-awaited Harry Potter post! (don't worry, I didn't forget)

So the next few weeks should be interesting as I head out on several vacations and other miscellaneous events. Tonight is my first new caregroup meeting, which I am very excited about. I'll let you all know how that goes. Hopefully this blog gets out of the personal life rut soon and back into some real meaty posts.

I'm Back!

2007-05-30T21:21:00.000-04:00

Those were some of the best days of my life. Seriously. I am in awe of God's grace shown to us on the cross, and feel so much better prepared to live out humble orthodoxy. Well...I need help with the humble part, but I feel like I've been helped in that too. Let me explain:

On Saturday morning, the first day of the conference, I was reading in Deuteronomy, and as I read Mark Dever's commentary, I came across this passage:

When you begin to grasp the great truth of this book--that God chooses his people--you begin to realize that our fundamental posture as Christians should never be anxiety or pride, but gratitude and hope. Anxiety may look more humble than pride, but it's really just pride with no make-up on. More than anything else, a confident knowledge of God and his Word will kill our pride and fuel our hope. It was true for God's people back in Moses' time, and it's true for God's people today. If you want to kill pride and fuel hope, study and learn God's Word. Grow in your confidence in him. (The Message of the Old Testament, p. 162)

As I read that, I realized that the area in which I really wanted to grow was in humility. I'm very good at knowing what I believe (orthodoxy), but I'm a very proud person who loves to share his own opinions instead of listening to others.

During one of the times of worship, the speakers all read meditations on the cross from different church fathers, and CJ read a quote from Charles Spurgeon that pierced me to the heart:

I received some years ago orders from my Master to stand at the foot of the cross until he came. He has not come yet, but I mean to stand there till he does. Here, then, I stand at the foot of the cross and tell out the old, old story, stale though it sound to itching ears, and worn threadbare as critics may deem it. It is of Christ I love to speak, of Christ who loved, and lived, and died, the substitute for sinners, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.

That's what I need to do! I need to spend every day at the foot of the cross, because only there do I realize my own insignificance and unworthiness. In the shadow of the cross, what reason do I have for pride? As we continued to sing about the cross, I was moved to tears to think that Christ would come to die for me, an arrogant sinner shaking my fist in the face of my Creator.

Am I humble now? Nope. But hopefully I have been humbled just a little more, and a little bit more of my pride is gone. Because that's how sanctification works: slowly but surely, God is faithful to bring my life into conformity with his character. As long as I dwell in the shadow of the cross, I will be humbled.

So that was one of my key takeaway points from the weekend. But for a general recap: the sermons were amazing, all eight of them (and are available for free from Sovereign Grace), the fellowship was incredible, and I had a great time in my first "singles" event without supervision. It was so much fun, I can't even begin to describe it. However, over the next few days I plan to write up an account of my experiences over on my Xanga, so feel free to check it out. And if you want to read some other detailed accounts, there were liveblogs everywhere, including Tim Challies, The Rebelution, Boundless, Kevin, and of course New Attitude itself. (Did I mention that I met Tim, Alex, and Brett? That was pretty cool, let me tell you.) So have fun reading about it, and start making plans to come next year!

Endings...and Beginnings

2007-05-24T21:36:00.000-04:00

Today I woke up and went to Bible class. Five hours later I walked out of my Latin final, and just like that, high school was over. Oh sure, I still have to graduate, but as of today I no longer have any assignments due for a high school class...ever again. Oh, it's a wonderful feeling, let me tell you. I've always enjoyed school, but the last week has been torture as I've suddenly been hit by a belated case of senioritis. And now that it's over, I'm free as a bird! Except for...

Ah yes, the day after school ends, I drive for 11 hours to join thousands of other singles in Louisville, KY, for four days of fun, fellowship, and growth in godliness. How cool is that? This is something I've been looking forward to all year, and it's finally happening. Things I'm most excited about:

The most amazing line-up of speakers: Josh Harris, C.J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, Eric Simmons, John Piper, and Mark Dever
The chance to fellowship with so many of my great friends from CovLife
The chance to reconnect with many friends who live in other parts of the country (from places as diverse as California, Philadelphia, Ontario, and Oregon)
The opportunity to meet many new people
Most importantly, I am excited about how God is going to use this conference to strengthen me as a Christian

So please do me a favor: if you're not going, pray for those of us who are. There are so many opportunities for God to work mightily, please pray that he will. Pray for safety, and most importantly that God would be glorified.

I'm bringing my laptop, so I may be posting periodic updates...but we'll see. I'm thinking life will be pretty packed over the next five days.

Books I'm Reading

2007-05-23T16:03:00.000-04:00

Well, Karyn has tagged me about what I'm reading, so here goes:

Just finished: A Brief History of the Western World. This textbook was pretty amazing in that it condensed all of Western civilization into 600 pages, and did it very well. I'll admit that I skimmed the last thirty years of history, which I'm already familiar with, although I did read the sections on philosophy and culture. I haven't actually finished a real book in quite a while.

Just beginning: Well, not having just finished something besides textbooks, it's hard to say I've just begun anything either. I guess I have recently begun The Gift of Prophecy by Wayne Grudem, because I wanted to understand how prophecy as practiced in my church could be considered biblical. My Bible reading did not seem to support the view, but after getting about halfway through the book, I can see the solid biblical foundations for non-authoritative prophecy. My theology now lines up with my practice, which I'm very happy about.

In the middle of: The Divine Comedy by Dante. Well, I've been trying to get through it for quite a while, but have not had much time. I'm almost finished with Inferno, and I may just stop there, which would be a real shame, but I'd rather read a lot of books this summer than be stuck in one semi-interesting one. However, I am enjoying it quite a bit, I just find it hard to pick up.

Planning to read next: The Count of Monte Cristo. It became my favorite book a few years ago when I read it, and I just want to read it again to refresh myself.

Now I tag Peter, Brielle, and Liz, plus anyone else who wants to do it.

A busy week

2007-05-21T22:51:00.000-04:00

Yes, I have been a very bad blogger. School's wrapping up, I had two AP tests last week (English Language and Economics) and a Latin final this week, plus preparing for New Attitude...basically I'm swamped. So I haven't posted all week, and don't expect anything profound until after graduation on June 2. While you're waiting, however, read Deuteronomy. That's where I've been parked in my devotions, and it has been cutting me straight to the heart. Here is one of the passagesthat has really stuck out to me, enjoy:

"For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations." Deut. 7:6-9

Happy Mother's Day!

2007-05-13T19:33:00.000-04:00

Dear Mom,

On this Mother's Day, I want to take the opportunity to honor you. You are a wonderful example of a Proverbs 31 woman. You love your family with your whole heart, and you love us sacrificially. You give all of your time, energy, and effort to raising us and training us in righteousness.

You are one of the greatest servants I know. Day in and day out you clean the house, do the dishes, drive us to classes, and I never hear a word of complaint. On the contrary, all I am aware of is your joy in serving.

I am so aware of your love for me. You feel my joy and my pain (often you feel it more than I do), and you're always there to walk me through trials, whether that is counseling me or just listening. You take me out for lunch at random times, and I can just talk to you about life and know that you actually care. I've observed the same actions with the other kids, and I know they feel your love too.

You have a passion to see all of your children walking with the Lord, and you disciple and discipline us with that end in mind. I catch a glimpse of your heart for us when we talk about prayer, and you tell me how much you've been praying for me and for the other kids. I appreciate that so much.

You are an amazing model of a woman who loves her husband and submits to him. I know that the biblical model of manhood and womanhood is the right one because I have seen it lived out at home. You are not the inferior half of the marriage, but you offer advice and counsel and then submit to whatever decision Dad makes. It's like the mom in My Big Fat Greek Wedding said: "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head however she wants." You are like that a lot of the time, in the best possible way.

I have inherited so much from you, from my love of history to my love of reading to many of my musical tastes, and we are able to have fun together in so many ways. I treasure our memories of late night movies, hikes in the woods, and reading next to you on the couch. Life's simple pleasures mean so much.

One day I will be married, and Mom, I can only hope that the woman I find is half the woman you are. Thank you for being my mom. I love you.

Imagine

2007-05-12T21:06:00.000-04:00

I just was listening to the classic song "Imagine" by John Lennon, and I was struck by the lyrics. Here's what he says:

Imagine there's no Heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

Now, obviously there are some pretty stark statements in that song. No heaven, no hell, no wars, no possessions, no religion, and everybody living for today. Sounds nice, doesn't it?

Honestly, no. That world, that "utopia according to John Lennon," strikes me as a terrible place. And really, it's not completely because I'm a Christian and know the value of religion (although that's part of my reason). No, the primary reason why this utopia sounds miserable is because it's a world with no purpose, no direction, nothing to live for, nothing to die for. I mean, what does "living for today" really mean? Not much besides instant gratification, which can turn into something terrible. If we're truly just focused on getting what we want when we want it, it's a very short step to widespread theft, rape, and murder.

"Imagine...nothing to live and die for"...who wants that? If you don't have anything worth living or dying for, what's the point? Existence becomes useless. We might as well be dead, because we have nothing that makes our lives important while we're alive. People can't function that way. We're hard-wired to find something that we care about. And that's not on accident; we were created that way. God created us to be passionate about things. Sin comes when we misdirect our passion to the wrong things, but that doesn't mean that we need to abolish passion. We just need to redirect it back to the only being worthy of all our passion: Jesus Christ.

So what am I imagining? I'm imagining a day when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. What a day that will be. That's when the world will be as one. And I'll die for that.

Odds and Ends X

2007-05-11T19:20:00.000-04:00

Serious:

Douglas Wilson responded to Christopher Hitchens' new book God Is Not Great with a very presuppositional post. Now they are engaged in an online debate hosted by Christianity Today that I have found very informative. Check them both out, and be further convinced in the effectiveness of presuppositionalism.
Tim Challies asks the question "Is error in doctrine always sin?"
William Saletan writes about the impact of ultrasound to the abortion debate.
Pulpit makes a brief but convincing argument for the Lord's Day Observance view of the Sabbath, which goes along with this discussion here at HoldFast from a few months ago.
Tim Challies also addresses the atheists who try to condemn themselves to Hell by blaspheming the Holy Spirit and contemplates the nature of the Unpardonable Sin (see key quote below).

Funny:

This is for my fellow Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fans: go to Google Calculator, type in "answer to life the universe and everything," and what do you get?
One of Joel Osteen's sermons gets a commentary track that is extremely revealing...this guy scares me.

Interesting:

People often ask me what "RSS" means. I tell them it's the best invention since the Internet. But if you actually want to know how it works, Challies gives a helpful overview. I use the built-in feeder in IE7, but Bloglines is also a great option.
I've been following this intriguing project from the Washington Post: onBeing, a series of interviews with all different sorts of people. This week's video was a boy with Down's Syndrome, and is well worth watching (it's short, only a few minutes long).
Pride and Prejudice condensed into ten minutes by two very talented NCFCA performers. John and I almost did one of these from The Hobbit, but had to drop out (remember my reference in my challenge to "having to back out of many other activities"? Yeah...).
This game is addicting. I've made it to 16.5 seconds.

Quotes:

"Admittedly there is some level of disagreement about what exactly constitutes [the unforgiveable sin]. But the vast consensus is this: that the blasphemy against the Spirit involves ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit, accomplished through Jesus Christ, to Satan. To commit this sin you must know that Jesus Christ is God and, despite that knowledge, ascribe the Spirit's work through Him to the devil.

"Reverend Richard Phillips, pastor at First Presbyterian Church Coral Springs, Margate, Florida, says 'There is no sin so great that the precious blood of the Son of God -- of infinite value before God -- is not sufficient to pay for it. The issue is that forgiveness comes only to those who believe on the Lord Jesus. And someone who knows who Jesus is -- who realizes that his work is by the Holy Spirit -- and yet so refuses to believe that he actually ascribes the Spirit's work to the devil, cannot possibly be saved. Why? Because that person is not just ignorant, but they willfully, knowingly, reject Jesus as Messiah, as proved by the Holy Spirit. So this passage describes not someone who in a fit of anger or temptation commits blasphemy, but someone who refuses to believe on Jesus as the Messiah, even when he recognizes the Holy Spirit at work.'

"So the great irony, based on what the Bible teaches, is that this sin cannot be committed by one who considers himself an atheist! This sin presupposes seeing and acknowledging the work of God, but then attributing it to Satan." --Tim Challies, "Challenging the Blasphemy Challenge"

Senior Challenge

2007-05-07T11:02:00.000-04:00

This is the challenge I delivered last Saturday night. I passed out right after I talked about the ice storms. Apparently somebody got it on tape, and if they did I'll try and get it on YouTube and post it here.

I was saved at the beginning of middle school, and really got serious about God as I moved into high school. In the fall of my senior year I auditioned for Godspell. Little did I know what a major impact that show would have on my life. To start with, I didn’t get the role I had wanted and ended up as an understudy, which left me disappointed. I was having trouble relating to a lot of the people in the cast, even though I was good friends with many of them. It began to take over my schedule so much that I was forced to back out of other activities I had been interested in. It was difficult for me at first, but my parents kept bringing me back to Scripture and helping me see that God works everything out for my good, even when I can’t understand how.

Godspell progressed, and it seemed as if I had everything figured out and under control. But God had different plans for the show. Production week rolled around, and suddenly everything went wrong at once. We had rehearsals shortened or cancelled due to storms and ice. Members of the cast began getting sick left and right until we were forced to do the dress rehearsal with four understudies out of a main cast of 13. I was one of those understudies, and I ended up performing in the role of John the Baptist for most of the week, including opening night!

I am so thankful for the leadership of our director, Cathy Mays. Every time something went wrong, her first response was always, “God is in control, and he knows what he’s doing. Praise the Lord!” She kept the entire cast focused on God during a time when our natural reaction would have been anxiety and panic. And the amazing thing was, as we focused on God and trusted that he was in control, he always managed to work things out for the best.

Godspell is over now, and I’m moving into a new season of life, but I feel that this past year, and my experiences in Godspell specifically, have prepared me well by teaching me that God is always good, no matter what. A life of ease doesn’t help me to grow, but trials and sufferings do. God gives me trials and sufferings to sanctify me and to make me more like Jesus. So whatever happens to me in college and further on in life, I can trust that God is working it all out for my good, for as Romans 8:28 says, “in all things God works for the good of those who love him.”

I’m not the only one who has or will encounter trials. Every one of you will face trials, and many of them will be much, much more severe than what I’ve just described here. If you don’t truly believe that God is good, worry and anxiety will take over your life. Instead of standing strong and glorifying God in the trial, you will not be able to stand. I once read an article by a pastor named Dan Phillips, and he said something very helpful: Christian friend, if you are going to believe what you say you believe, then there are only two kinds of situations: situations in which you will see God's goodness immediately, or situations in which you will see God's goodness eventually.

And that is why I, Sam Branchaw, challenge you, the youth of Covenant Life Church, to trust God with all your heart, because he works all things out for the good of those who love him.

How to Pass Out In Front of 800 People

2007-05-06T08:02:00.000-04:00

So that everybody knows, last night I almost passed out during our youth meeting. Here's what happened:

I was giving my senior challenge at our church's youth meeting (a short speech that a bunch of the seniors give at the end of the year to the underclassmen to pass on what they've learned throughout high school and exhort them to grow in some way). Mine was about trusting God even when things don't go the way you expect. I was the last person to give mine, and spent the time coming up to it crouching on the stage. When I finally stood up to give it, I started feeling nauseous, like I had stage fright. I don't normally get stage fright, but I kept on reading anyways.

As I read, I began to feel really, really sick, and suddenly I got really dizzy. I stopped (some people thought at first I was going to cry), and then stepped out from behind the podium and asked for a drink of water. As I asked, the blood rushed to my head and I staggered backwards as the world around me almost went black. My youth pastor told everyone to take a five minute break (which they were going to do after I finished anyway). A doctor rushed out of the audience, told me to put my head between my knees, but then I began feeling like I was going to throw up and they rushed me backstage to the bathroom. By the time I sat down, I was starting to feel fine, but I had at least six different doctors, three pastors, and my parents all peering in at me to make sure I was all right.

One of the doctor's called it fazo vagel or something like that, and said it happens when you stand up too fast. I think it was that combined with not enough water during the day. After resting for a little while, I was able to get up and finish my senior challenge, and I'll admit I was very happy with myself because when I got up there, I cracked a joke, and it was actually funny. I just said, "First of all, I'd like to thank the eight different doctors who came back to help me backstage. Your help was very much appreciated." It helped relieve the tension, and then I was able to finish the challenge. (I'm not normally able to be funny on the spot, so it felt good to do that.)

I found it very ironic that I would pass out during my challenge about trusting God even when things don't go as you expect. God is good, though, because I think it will stick in people's minds more than it otherwise would have. I'll post my actual challenge here in a few days. Until then, thanks to everyone who was there for your concern, and for everyone else: God is always good.

Unstoppable

2007-05-05T08:03:00.000-04:00

Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound! (2 Timothy 2:8-9)

As Paul is writing this letter, he is sitting in Rome. Within a few years he will be beheaded by the Emperor Nero for his faith. Being bound with chains means that he can no longer minister to the church in the way he loves, and must instead content himself with writing pastoral letters. But he is not depressed or dejected, moping in his cell as if it's the end of the world. On the contrary, he is joyful and energetic. Why? Because he knows the gospel is not about him and his work! He is an agent for the gospel, but the gospel does not rely on him. It continues to spread without him!

The word of God is not bound. The NIV puts it "God's word is not chained." Jesus once told this parable: "The kingdom of heaven [i.e. the gospel] is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough." What does this all mean? God's word is pervasive and unstoppable. All the kingdoms of the earth will try to stop it, to jail the leaders, to persecute the followers, but it will never work, because God desires his word to go forth to all the world. Observe China: it is one of the most heavily persecuted countries for Christians, and thousands of people are becoming Christians every day there. Why would people become Christians when they know they are going to be persecuted for it? Because God's word is unstoppable.

Isn't that amazing? It doesn't matter what people do, God is still in control, and his plan will not be thwarted. What a comforting thought!

III Movies

2007-04-30T21:55:00.000-04:00

So I have to admit that I am pretty excited about several of the movies coming out this summer, even though the vast majority of them are sequels. Actually--I found this amusing--most of the blockbusters this summer will be III movies, not just sequels. For example, the one's I'm really excited about:

Plus there are some III movies that I might see, although I'm not expecting much from them:

Then of course, there are a few movies that aren't III movies that should still be good:

Why do I bring this up here? No particular reason except that 1) I don't have time for a real post and 2) I'm going to see Spidy 3 at the midnight showing this week, so it's on my mind. Hope it lives up to its predecessors!

(And guess what? Batman Begins has a sequel coming out next year, with the original cast and Christopher Nolan back at the helm, and it's called The Dark Knight. So excited!)

Odds and Ends IX

2007-04-25T20:55:00.000-04:00

There have been a lot of good links I've found in a very short amount of time, so here's the next installment.

Serious:

Hadley Arkes explains the significance of small steps in eradicating abortion, starting with Gonzales v. Carhart.
On a related note, Tim Challies examines a woman being charged with first-degree murder for killing her two-hour old baby, and ponders why a journey through a birth canal changes the killing from acceptable to murder.
Nathan Busenitz is beginning a series on guiding principles for Christians who blog.
Tim Challies also explains the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption) and its relevance to our lives.

Funny:

FCN writes a brilliant satire piece that declares Harry Reid's reelection bid is already lost. Really, I don't know how college freshman can write at this level.

Interesting:

This is a personal item, but I had what was possibly the best day of my life so far last Sunday with a bunch of friends, and the amazingly talented Lydia Jane posted pictures of our excursion here. These are the days we remember all of our lives...
Superchick is offering a free download of their song "Hero" in memory of the Virginia Tech Massacre. I think the song is worth the download.
People can even make their books into art, as this website proves. Scary...
For all of you who don't know the difference between your second cousin and your cousin twice removed, here is a diagram that will solve all of your problems.

Quotes:

"Although the law of sin is in believers, it is not a law to believers. Nevertheless, even when the rule of sin is broken, its strength weakened and impaired, and its root modified, yet it is still of great force and efficacy. When it is least felt, it is in fact most powerful." --John Owens, Sin and Temptation

The Matrix

2007-04-24T22:31:00.000-04:00

If there was any movie designed for the kind of evaluations I like to write, it was this one. It's a worldview encapsulated in a film. There are, admittedly, analogies to Christianity, but ultimately it is a very New Age film. Dissecting all of the different paths this takes would be a much longer post than I have the time or the patience for, so I'll just touch on a few of them. (Once again, there are many spoilers contained in this review, and I'm writing it with the assumption that the readers are familiar with basic plot elements.)

People often point to a few different aspects of the movie to say, "Look, this is basically a Christian allegory." First, they point to Morpheus's explanation at the beginning when he says,

The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth...that you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch.

"See?" people will say. "That's a perfect description of sin. It's a prison that we can't sense, and it's universal to all humans." And those people are right. It's a good description of sin. However, I don't think that's what the directors were aiming for. As a matter of fact, I know it, and that's because of the very next line Morpheus says: "A prison for your mind." This line can certainly be interpreted to be Christian, but in the context of the rest of the film it most certainly is not. It is much more similar to the New Age thought that our minds are the only real part of our selves. The body is merely illusion, the mind is everything, and if you can properly understand your mind, you can gain great power. You can even become like a god.

Which leads me to the second evidence that people often point to: Neo as Messiah. He is the chosen one who will save the world (and it turns out he saves it through sacrificing himself, as I found out reading a plot synopsis of Matrix Revolutions, the final movie in the trilogy). Obviously, nobody says that he's a perfect allegory of Christ, but many people think it's the most Christian element of the film. And once again I agree, to a point. There are several parallels between Neo and Christ. However, these parallels are certainly not because the Wachowski brothers were aiming for it. On the contrary, as I've shown and as interviews with them demonstrate, they are much more New Age in their sensibilities.

On a related sidenote, I'd like to point out that the concept of a Messiah fits well into New Age thought, because many New Agers believe that some humans will move or evolve to a higher consciousness and that by doing so will pull the rest of humanity with them. For example, Marilyn Ferguson states "The proven plasticity of the human brain and human awareness offers the possibility that individual evolution may lead to collective evolution" (The Aquarian Controversy, p. 70). Sounds a little bit like Matrix, doesn't it?

What is my point in all this? Essentially, it's to point out something that the Apostle Paul addressed well in Romans 1: mankind knows the truth, but in his pride and self-sufficiency he suppresses the truth. Man doesn't want to believe that God is in control, so they invent their own world and force themselves to believe in it. Thus they simultaneously know the truth and don't know the truth. Yet God still loves them after that, and he pours out what is known as common grace to all men, allowing them to demonstrate aspects of his character without knowing it. He stops them from being as bad as they could be. Men still try to construct their own worlds, but because they know the truth they can merely borrow from the truth (albeit subconciously) to construct these worlds. Paul acknowledges this in Acts 17 when he speaks to the Athenians, telling them that their poets had the right idea but applied it to the wrong place. They were decieved, but they had a nugget of truth.

Matrix contains many of these nuggets of truth, possibly more than most movies. The idea of a prison that we're all trapped in and a Messiah that will come to save us from it comes straight from Christian doctrine. Yet the ideas are misapplied into a New Age sensibility. It's like a gigantic non sequitur, a logical fallacy that literally means "doesn't follow. It describes the fallacy wherein the premises are established and then a conclusion is drawn that completely doesn't follow from those premises. That's how the depraved mind works: it knows the truth, but it draws the wrong conclusions because it refuses to draw the right ones.

But there is common grace, or else this movie would be worthless. A Christian can watch The Matrix and appreciate all the nuggets of truth scattered throughout the movie. For example, at one point, Cypher, as he agrees to betray his crew, states that "ignorance is bliss." He knows what the truth is, but he'd rather have the illusion because it's easier, less painful, and he can get a juicy steak. That's how so many people are with Christianity. They are brought to the point where they know what the truth is, but they refuse to accept it because accepting it would make them lose control over their life, or because it scares them. They would rather not know at all, be ignorant of the truth, so they can go on being comfortable.

It's a beautiful analogy of responses to Christianity. Is that what the directors intended? Probably not. But the truth got through anyway. So as I watch this film, I can appreciate the common grace evident in the movie, and think about the obvious areas of deception. It's a valuable movie for prompting a reevaluation of my concept of reality. And it leads me to pray for the Wachowski brothers and the other New Agers who are still deceived. Common grace is amazing, but only saving grace will open their eyes to the whole truth.

Disclaimer: this film is rated R for language and violence. The violence is relatively non-graphic, most of it being kung-fu and gun-fighting, with blood sometimes coming through the mouth and one image of a character's face which has been severely beaten. There is also a scene at the beginning that takes place in a club that is sensual and not necessary to the plot. Please use discretion.

Odds and Ends VIII

2007-04-21T13:17:00.000-04:00

Serious:

Easter was two weeks ago, and over at Pulpit Nathan Williams explained why the resurrection is so important to the gospel and our faith.
Al Mohler praises the new "dinner party test" that seems to be reducing abortions in Great Britain: people don't like to say "I'm an abortionist."
Centuri0n addresses the different forms of apologetics, and why people who can't identify the differences between them make lousy apologists (see key quote below).
Tim Challies describes Satan's skill at perverting the good to make counterfeit pleasures.
Centuri0n also explains why our churches should imitate Sonic (the restaurant) by focusing on our famous product and demonstrating its tastiness to the rest of the world.

Funny:

Dave Barry is one of my favorite humorists, and every year he writes a "Year in Review" column for the Washington Post. I only just found this year's, so here it is in all of it's glory.
Down at Southern Baptist, someone got pictures of the pick-up game of the decade: C.J. Mahaney, John MacArthur, and Thabiti Anyabwile versus three seminary students. The old guys even won a game!
Gene Kelley's "Singin' in the Rain" is one of the classic film moments of all time...so of course it was a prime candidate for a Volkswagon commercial parody. Never thought I'd see Kelley pull moves like that...

Interesting:

ESV is releasing the new Literary Study Bible which evaluates the Bible as literature. Intriguing...
John Mark Reynolds posted the thirty books he thinks every college student should read, ten books everyone should read to be civilized, and ten modern books everyone should read. I have five of the ten civilized books down (seven if you count the one or two poems I studied of Donne and Wordsworth in Brit Lit). Not too shabby.
Even telephones can be made into art...for example, a flock of sheep. What will they think of next?

Quotes:

"Many of these lousy apologists cannot identify these categories, and therefore they are constantly in the wrong mode of approaching people with their apologies for the faith. And most often, it’s not that they are erring on the side of being too philosophical for people: it’s that they are usually wielding a very big hammer to drive in a finishing nail, and sadly when they do get the nail in, they often have set the molding crooked, or upside down." --Centuri0n

United 93

2007-04-19T00:05:00.000-04:00

Some movies are hard to watch because they are brutally graphic. Some are hard to watch because they portray something that makes us squirm. Some movies are hard to watch because they hit so close to home. United 93 falls into the latter category. It's the story of United Airlines Flight 93, one of the four planes hijacked on 9/11 and the only one to not reach its target, crashing into a field in southern Pennsylvania. (Warning, this review contains major spoilers, although I think everybody is pretty familiar with this story as it is.)

The movie starts as a normal morning in the United States, moving around to different airports and control centers as the morning rush begins. Things progress in an unremarkable way...until American Airlines Flight 11 stops responding to air traffic controllers. It disappears over Manhatten as flames shoot out of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The story quickly unfolds as two more planes stop responding, and the film hops to all the different control centers trying to figure out what's going on as the South Tower gets hit, then the Pentagon.

Throughout all of this, interludes are taken with the passengers of United 93, who are unaware of everything that's going on except for the four Arabs scattered among the passengers. Finally the terrorists jump out of their seats, shove everyone to the back of the plane, and take over the cockpit, killing both pilots and a stewardess. The passengers huddle in the back, sneaking calls on their cell phones until they discover that the WTC has been hit. They decide that this must be a related hijacking and decide to take the terrorists out. The film ends as the men charge and incapacitate the two terrorists guarding them, and then break into the cockpit and, while trying to wrench the controls out of the hands of one of the remaining terrorists, crash the plane into the ground. As the ground approaches on the screen, it goes black and silent.

I can honestly say that of all the thrillers that I've seen, my heart has never pounded so hard as when those men charged the cockpit. Even though I knew the ending, the way that the tension had built and built until it finally broke in those last five minutes left me almost gasping for breath as the credits rolled. I felt a stirring in my heart, a pride in the selfless, self-sacrificing bravery of these men who knew that they were saving countless lives by giving up their own. It was an emotional ride.

For most of the movie, I felt like I had a fist in my gut, just waiting for the next blow to fall and knowing it would come. When the second plane hit the WTC, it was like I was seeing it for the first time, and it was just as shocking and just as painful to watch. That's what makes this film so hard to watch for most people: it strikes so close to home. When watching a movie on other great American tragedies, such as Pearl Harbor or Lincoln's assassination, it's possible to watch without being too emotionally attached because the events took place so long ago. Not so with this movie. These events took place only six years ago, and the memories are still fresh in most of our minds of the horror we experienced on that day.

There are two movies that I think everyone who is emotionally and mentally prepared should see at some point in their life: The Passion of the Christ and Schindler's List. Both should be seen because they remind us of the depravity of man and of the providence of God. They remind us of our own sorry history as a human race, but also of the possibility of redemption. I think every person should be forced to face the horrors of the Holocaust at one time, because it keeps us humble and in awe that God would choose to save monsters like us. And I think that every person should be forced to face the horrors of the Crucifixion, because it was only through those horrors that mankind has redemption.

However, I'm considering adding this movie, United 93, to that list. Why? First, it shows us that our sorry history didn't end with the Holocaust. It continues up the present day. Second, it shows us as Americans what we're up against in this war: fanatic Muslims who are ready and able to destroy us. We can't sit back complacent because they are not complacent. Third, it is a reminder of the depravity of man that anyone would be shocked by, but it is also a reminder of the common grace that God has poured out on mankind. Fourth, it is a wake-up call that we don't know what tomorrow brings. None of those people got on that plane expecting to die. They were expecting to get home, to talk to their family, to get back to work. They were thinking about the present, and the future never came. We need to seize every moment we have, because every moment could be our last.

These are just some thoughts inspired by the movie. It was amazing, one of the most amazing films I've ever seen. Paul Greengrass as director did a marvelous job making it real. They weren't actors talking for a camera, they were real people going about their real lives and real jobs. He actually managed to secure around 15 people to actually play themselves in the movie (various men around the air control centers, both civilian and military). The film was shot with a handheld camera that moved around, jerked and bumped, had to maneuver around people in the way, as if it was just a home video being taken of these important events. The movie was technically and artistically excellent. But more importantly, it was thematically excellent, and treated this true story with the respect it deserved. Greengrass deserved his Oscar nomination for directing, and maybe should have won it. Either way, this is an excellent film, one which I would highly suggest for those prepared for it. But be warned: you'll come out changed. There's no doubt about it.

Disclaimer: This film contains strong language and some graphic violence. Most of the violence is hurried and not focused on, but there are still stabbings, beatings, etc., as first the terrorists and then the passengers fight to take over the plane. Additionally, it is an emotionally moving film that could easily disturb the viewer. Please use discretion.

Virginia Tech and Providence

2007-04-18T15:02:00.000-04:00

I'll make this quick, but Centuri0n posted some thoughts on the Virginia Tech massacre that also dealt with the concept of God's providence. He made what I thought were two crucial points:

1) "I am just like Cho Seung-Hui -- not that I am unlike him and he's the one who did something God hates. I am like him. If I am honest, I can see in my own life the moments when I could have gone one step farther than I did in some sinful act and stepped into a life which would have meant that I was the one who would have killed 30 people who didn't even get a chance to be grown-ups yet...He could have been me: I am a sinner, and I am the cause of sin."

2) "God allows these things in order that a greater redemptive purpose can be manifest in Creation. So that nobody gets their nose out of joint more than I mean to put it, this purpose is God's purpose for God's own end and intention -- but it saves men."

He at the same time points to the depravity of man, but also to God's sovereignty even over such a brutal, mind-numbing event. This ties back to the discussion we had a month or two ago about predestination, because ultimately I may not understand God's purpose in allowing sin, but I know that he is sovereign over it. It's a mind-boggling thought, but it's comforting in a time like this.

I'd encourage you to read the whole article, he makes some very helpful points.

A Tree Falling...

2007-04-16T19:19:00.000-04:00

On my English wwwboard, we had a random little discussion about the age-old question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's around to hear it, does it still make a noise." I thought that the direction the conversation went showed how you can approach an argument from a presuppositionalist point of view (not that I did an especially good job at it, but the idea is there).

Karyn: Question...if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it make a sound? I think it depends on what you think sound means, does the tree make the air vibrate aboud it becasue it fell...yes. But is there anyone there with ears that can convert the soundwaves into hearable sound...no. So what's the answer? I don't know, and thoughts on my random question!

Madison: Yes, the tree makes a sound when it falls. Even if no one hears it, it still makes a sound because every other time that a tree falls in a forest it does make a sound, and so why should it be different whether or not there's someone there to hear the noise?

Karyn: True, the sound waves are still there, but is sound the waves themselves or our ears interpretation of them?

Sam: Can you prove that the soundwaves are still there? Can you be absolutely sure of something you cannot observe? Or is the most you can say that since every other time a tree has fallen it has made noise, it must have made noise that time? You are using inductive logic to make that assumption, which can only ever be probably true, never absolutely true. All of science is inductive, so none of it is absolute.

I'm giving the ideas of David Hume here, the great skeptic. Question everything, he said. However, since my worldview is not founded on science, but on the absolute Word of God, and that Word says that God has set certain laws in place to govern nature, I can be absolutely certain that the tree made a sound when it fell.

This is something I've been learning this year: everything comes down to worldview and basic presuppositions. Even a question as "simple" as that.

Karyn: nice answer Sam. Personally, I think that sound is only present in the mind, that is, moving airwaves are not "sound" until they enter your ears and then your mind iterprets them. So I would say no, the tree did not make a sound. But I see your point, and agree with it. Again, it all comes back to what you see as "sound".

Sam: Here's an example from David Hume: you hold a marble in the air and let go. What happens? It drops to the ground. Why does it drop to the ground? We want to say its because of gravity. Gravity pulls it towards the ground. But what is this gravity? How can you prove it exists? Well, we've done lots of tests on it and we know that when you let go of anything and it's not being supported, it will drop to the ground. That's the force we call gravity.

Here's where Hume throws in the twist: How do you know that gravity exists at all? Why couldn't it be that when you let go of the ball, the ball just happens to decide to fall at that very moment, and our experience is merely a series of coincidences that support our construction of gravity? This seems highly unlikely, but we can't discredit the idea entirely because we cannot prove that everytime anybody anywhere falls to the ground it's the result of gravity. Gravity could be nonexistent for all we know.

By extrapolation, you can never prove that causes and effects exist in general. It could very well be that we have the most remarkable set of coincidences taking place time and again, but one thing never certainly caused another to happen. That's the very heart of skepticism: how can you know anything?

Therefore, it goes even deeper than defining sound. You can't even prove that the tree obeyed any laws of nature as it fell. It didn't have to produce sound waves, because there is a possibility that sound waves exist independently and are not caused by anything. So even the question of whether or not the air vibrated when the tree fell is up for grabs with this question.

Madison: Okay. So why can't I jump off a cliff and fly? If there's the possibility that gravity doesn't exist and it's my choice, why can't I fly? And marbles have intelligence? Because if it decides to fall, then it must have a brain of sorts. If everything is coincidence and choice, then everything must be able to think.

And does China exist?

And if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear, does it really matter if it makes a sound?

Anyway. Some things we accept as true, whether or not we have actual proof. If a person is present when a tree falls, the person hears a noise. The chance the the tree would not make a sound falling, whether or not the sound is heard, is very, very small. The tree falling will cause vibrations, or sound waves. That the fact would change because someone is not there is improbable.

Claire: To add my two cents...

"If everything is coincidence and choice, then everything must be able to think." Nope, that doesn't logically follow.

You do understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, right, Madison? All science can give is probability. Something completely different than what we hypothesize might be going on.

Does China exist? I believe so, but I don't know so. That's an important distinction. I believe in God's existence more firmly than I believe in China's existence. When you boil it down, the argument to convince me China does exist would run something like "well, lots of people say it does."

"And if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear, does it really matter if it makes a sound?" Maybe not. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? :) The larger point here is that you're willing to take scientific probability as the only convincing way to "prove" something. In other disciplines, you can prove something logically, but in science, you can get only a probability. Scientists have been proven wrong time and time again throughout history. They constantly revise their ideas - the definition of scientific fact is basically one that the general scientific community supports. Science doesn't claim infallibility. In fact, it's the worst discipline in which to seek truth.

Madison: Going by Sam's example of Hume's work. If the marble decides to drop, then logically it has to have some sort of brain. Something can't decide to do something without being able to think. If the marble does decide to drop, then something inside that marble is telling that marble to drop, if it's not gravity forcing that marble to drop.

Okay. So if everything is coincidence, then not everything has to be able to think. But if everything is choice, then everything must be able to think to some extent. If everything is coincidence and choice, then many objects must be able to think to some extent.

Inductive is inference; deductive is...where's my geometry book when I need it. But yes, I know the difference.

Really, nothing is the best discipline in which to seek truth. Honestly, nothing really can be proven to be certain. cogito ergo sum. The only thing Descartes knew for certain was the he was real. But you can't even know that for certain. How do I know that I'm real? I don't. So how do I know anything is real? I can assume, but that doesn't make it true.

That's what scientists do. They carefully observe and determine what is most likely to be true at the moment. And if they're not certain, they'll keep searching. Otherwise, there wouldn't be scientists. Scientists search for ways to explain this world and why it works the way it does.
What can you prove logically? Very little. Just geometry proffs. :-)

I'm open to logical arguments, but the fact is that you cannot logically prove philosophical questions. Philosophic beliefs are what many thinkers thought were logical, but maybe really aren't.

If a tree falls in a forest and there's someone there to hear, the tree makes a sound. How likely is it be different? The tree falling will cause vibrations which will carry sound. And something will be there to hear. Like other trees, and maybe a squirrel or a fox. Maybe not a human, but other things can receive sound too.

Basically, it's a matter of what you're willing to believe. I'm willing to believe that the scientists tell me, if it also makes sense to me. But I'm not willing to believe my chemistry book because it tells me that there's no way to really prove that atoms exist, which is utterly ridiculous because in my geometry book, there's a picture of gold atoms taken by Japanese scientists in 1979. :-)

Sam: You're actually proving my point with what you're saying, Madison. Here's why: my basic point is that you cannot know with certainty that the tree makes noise when it falls. You can only know that it most likely makes noise. You can never prove it absolutely, as you've admitted. But my point is that, by extension, how can you truly be certain of anything? You say "I'm willing to just trust the scientists." Scientists have been proving themselves wrong since time began (just think of Aristotle, who single-handedly set scientific process back 1000 years with his wrong-headed theories). You really can't be certain that there are causes and effects to anything because of the possibility that there are just a mass number of coincidences taking place in our perception.

Here I'd like to clarify something: using "decide" to describe the ball's actions was unhelpful. I did not mean that it actually made a conscious decision to fall, but rather that it just happened to fall to the ground at that exact moment.

You summed up what I'm trying to say here: "How do I know that I'm real? I don't. So how do I know anything is real? I can assume, but that doesn't make it true." That's exactly what I'm trying to tell you. You don't know anything for sure, but the reason you don't is because of your basic assumptions about how life works. Are you truly willing to base your very notions about reality on the work of scientists who have been proven wrong time and again? People you can never be sure are right?

That's the benefit of Chrisitianity: because of my basic assumptions about reality, I have complete confidence that when a tree falls, it makes a sound, because I believe that God created the laws of nature and the laws of cause and effect. Do you see how that works? Your basic assumptions about the world only lead you into uncertainty about the nature of reality, while mine allow me to be certain about that nature.

Sadly, it was at that point that Madison, with whom we've had many arguments of this vein before, decided that she didn't want to have another religious argument and withdrew. And to be honest, I don't totally blame her. Hopefully, though, this has planted a seed that may someday bear fruit. I can only pray.

Exult in the Gospel!

2007-04-11T22:06:00.000-04:00

Just a quick thought today. I listened to a fabulous sermon from the Resolved Conference the other day by a professor named Rick Holland, and he talked about the greatness of the gospel using Romans 5:6-11. He concluded by drawing our attention to verse 11, where it says,

We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

He pointed out that the Greek word here translated "rejoice" is also translated "exult", and he read the definition of exult from his Greek dictionary:

To overflow with gladness, to jump up and down with happiness, to spew forth joy

We are called to exult in God's goodness, to exult in the Gospel, to let everybody know about what he's done for us. He cited an illustration from a preacher he once heard who stated that it should be like we're carrying a bucket filled to the brim through a crowd of people, and every time we bump somebody some water spills onto them. Holland laughed and said that the illustration didn't go far enough. No, it should be like we're carrying a fire hose through the crowd, and everybody we look at gets blown away. That's the kind of joy we should be carrying around. It should be immediately obvious to everyone who sees us that we are filled with joy and gladness.

Do you exult in the Gospel? Do I? Or do we need to meditate once again on the marvelous work Christ did for us to acheive our reconciliation to God?

(Pssst. This is my 50th post on this blog. Just thought you might like to know.)

Happy Easter!

2007-04-08T16:23:00.000-04:00

I saw one hanging on a tree
In agony and blood
Who fixed his loving eyes on me
As near his cross I stood
And never till my dying breath
Will I forget that look
It seemed to charge me with his death
Though not a word he spoke

My conscience felt and owned the guilt
And plunged me in despair
I saw my sins his blood had spilt
And helped to nail him there
But with a second look he said
"I freely all forgive
This blood is for your ransom paid
I died that you might live"

Forever etched upon my mind
Is the look of him who died
The lamb I crucified
And now my life will sing the praise
Of pure atoning grace
That looked on me and gladly took my place

Thus while his death my sin displays
For all the world to view
Such is the mystery of grace
It seals my pardon too
With pleasing grief and mournful joy
My spirit now is filled
That I should such a life destroy
Yet live by him I killed.

--John Newton and Bob Kauflin

"But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” And they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest."

--Luke 24:1-9

The Lord is risen indeed! Have a blessed Easter as you remember our Savior's glorious death and resurrection!

(photo credit: Brittany Kauflin)

Odds and Ends VII

2007-04-04T14:39:00.000-04:00

Someday these posts might actually come on a regular day, on a regular week-by-week basis. Today is not that day, however. There's a good line-up this edition, though, so enjoy it anyways!

Serious:

Phil Johnson blogged last week on why every Christian is a Calvinist of sorts, whether they believe it or not. I thought this was particularly applicable to the discussion we had a few weeks ago (and which I have every intention of restarting in the near future).
The Washington Post published an editorial a few weeks ago which admits that the "surge" in Iraq may be succeeding. Coming from the Post, this means a lot.
Dan Phillips explains why Christianity is a rational religion.
Tim Challies compares Al Gore's "carbon offsets" to indulgences, and demonstrates the human desire for justice, even if perverted.
David Limbaugh condemns the politicization of the recent firing of eight U.S. attorneys with his signature wit and insight.
Al Mohler evaluates prominent postmodernist Stanley Fish and his statement that the Bible cannot be studied as just literature...and agrees wholeheartedly.
Tim Challies talks about the gray points of life (like two girls born conjoined in the torso), and how we can treat them with biblical discernment.

Funny:

FCN gives a guide to girl's cosmetics...which seemed particularly relevant since I was forced to wear some of this stuff during Godspell.
Better be careful when you follow directions on Google Maps. It just might give you results such as these (look at step 20).
Beatboxing is cool, especially in the kitchen. I'll have to try this recipe sometime.
I guess the book is pretty difficult to use in some parts of the world...this reminds me of my mom's response sometimes when I'm helping her on the computer.

Interesting:

In light of my recent Godspell performance, I thought this interpretation of "All for the Best" was very amusing. I would have given a lot to see our Judas do this.
A library organization did a study to see which books appear the most on library shelves. Here is the very interesting breakdown...good to know the Bible was right at the top, but Mother Goose at number 3? That's a little strange.
A Spanish family has photographed itself every year for the past 30 years...and the progression is pretty cool to watch.
For my fellow David Crowder fans out there, this is great: a Bulgarian performance of "No One Like You."
And for my fellow Narnia fans, Douglas Gresham (C.S. Lewis's stepson) discusses the filming of Prince Caspian and the effects of the Narnia books on the world.

Quotes:

My handbook for membership to my church (my Starting Point journal) had this wonderful little clarification in it that I thought was remarkably profound.

At regeneration, the power of sin is broken and we are made alive in Christ. In justification, the penalty of sin is removed as we are declared righteous in Christ. In sanctification, the pollution of sin is progressively removed as we are made holy in Christ.

Testimony Tuesday

2007-04-03T17:12:00.000-04:00

Tim Challies has declared today to be Testimony Tuesday for the Christian blogosphere, and I thought I would join the club and post my testimony. This is actually a revised version of a post I made on my Xanga over a year ago.

I was born in Shady Grove Hospital early on the morning of July 10, 1989, joining such illustrious alumni of that day as John Calvin and Jessica Simpson (no kidding, and those are the only two famous people born on my birthday. what a boring day...never mind). I was raised in a loving, Christian home, went to one of the most wonderful churches on earth, etc., but it didn't make any difference to me. From the beginning I was a rebel. I am still remembered by relatives and my parent's friends as never sitting through an entire dinner without being spanked several times and then being sent to my room (I didn't eat Thanksgiving dinner until I was seven).

When I reached grade school, I went to a small private school, where I quickly became well acquainted with the principal because I was in his office at least once a day during kindergarten and first grade. Some people still think that I should have won a special award for "Most Trips to the Principal's Office in the Space of One Year." Throughout all of this time I was arrogant, disrespectful, disobedient, and just plain mean. I always had a rotten attitude about everything. I was also best friends with Josh Tucker (who used to be a contributer to this blog), who lived across the lake from me (about a five minute bike-ride from my house). Two more sour, disagreeable kids it would have been hard to find. At least once a week, and normally more than that, we would declare that we never wanted to see each other again and march off for home with our noses in the air, only to see each other the next day for carpool as if nothing had happened.

I prayed the "Sinner's Prayer" many times throughout my childhood, but never really meant it. I knew all the answers, but I never applied them to myself. I enjoyed my life and my sin, and didn't really see why I needed to change. As I got older, the sin went from external to more internal. By the age of ten I was an okay kid, certainly not as visibly sinful as before, but more sinful inside. I was still disrespectful, unkind to my siblings and my friends, and concerned mainly with satisfying the desires of my flesh. As a matter of fact, I managed to drive off most of my friends or be banned from their houses during this period. It was during this period of my life that I moved to a little brick house on Georgia Ave., where I only found more ways to sin.

Then the amazing happened. One night during Christmas break, my brothers were spending the night at somebody's house and I had my room all to myself. Taking advantage of this, I grabbed my CD player and brought it up to my room to listen to Christmas music , specifically the compilation God With Us (during that time I absolutely loved the Christmas season. I loved everything about it: the music, the decorations, the movies, the presents, the family. I kind of went crazy every December with artificial Christmas spirit).

Somewhere between Out of the Grey's "O Holy Night" and Cheri Keaggy's "What Child Is This?", the Holy Spirit swept on to me, revealing what a horrendous sinner I was and that "the Babe, the Son of Mary" had come down to save me. It was nothing short of miraculous, since I was involved in some serious sin at the time and had no desire for God. Fortunately, he had a great desire for me. As he revealed the truth of the gospel to me, I realized my need for a Savior and prayed that God would cleanse me of my filthy sin and clothe me in his righteousness. As I did so, I felt an a joy like none I'd ever felt before sweep over me, almost physically lifting me off the bed. As I lay there, I must have had one of the biggest smiles ever as I relished my newfound freedom from the burden of sin I hadn't even acknowledged I had earlier that day. It was an amazing feeling, and the unexpectedness of it demonstrated how far God had to come to get me. There's no telling what God will use to bring his children to him.

After that night, things changed. My natural tendency is to keep things to myself, so I didn't share my conversion with my parents at the time, but they noticed an immediate difference in me. I was kinder, more respectful, quicker to apologize (none of this was a huge difference, but it was definitely an improvement). God was transforming my life. I began to actually bring my dad into my life (which is still an area that I need to grow in, but I've improved), confessing hidden sin. It was all evidence of God's grace in my life.

I slowly grew in godliness, becoming more involved in the church and actually began to really enjoy worship and the sermons at church. About three years ago, however, God revealed himself to me anew at the youth retreat, giving me just a glimpse of his holiness during the ministry night that struck me to my knees and set me crying uncontrollably (something that doesn't happen often, let me tell you). Since then, I have been blessed with amazingly godly friends who have helped me grow in so many ways, with amazingly relevant sermons that have challenged my faith and helped me grow, and with amazingly godly parents committed to helping me grow. My life has been just one sign of God's mercy after another, and I am so humbled that he would pour out his favor on me.

*****************************************************

Since writing the above testimony post last year, lots of things have happened. I have encountered God in a different way than I communicated then. I think I can say that those years were my "honeymoon" period, where everything was amazing. Especially this last year I have learned to trust God through trials. The trials haven't been incredibly dramatic, but they invloved a lot of what I communicated in my post about Godspell's production week. I've been learning a lot about trusting God even when I things happen that I don't expect, or happen when I was expecting something else. I've gone through dry spells, relationship problems, and have been constantly battling sin that it feels like I should have defeated a long time ago. It seems that the lesson I've been learning this year is this: "God is good." Three simple words that have revolutionized my life. No matter what happens to me, I can rest assured that God is good, and is working things out for me.

So life as a Christian is no longer all joy and smiles and sparkles. I guess everyone has to leave that phase eventually. I'll miss it, but to use Paul's metaphor, it's time I moved past milk and got some more substantive food. I'll be heading off to college next year, entering a new phase of life, and I can honestly say that I will be so much better prepared because of all the lessons I've learned this year.

I know I've said it before, but I can't think of a better way to end this post than this:

God is so good.

My Hero

2007-03-30T13:08:00.000-04:00

My dad's birthday was last week. For the first time I can remember, we didn't celebrate it on March 22nd. This was because Allison and I were at Godspell that night, he was working through some complicated situations at work, and in reality none of us had seen each other for any significant amount of time in about two weeks. So we decided to postpone it for a week and celebrate on Wednesday night, the only night when I didn't have rehearsal.

It was a wonderful feeling to sit back, relax, and honor my dad by just being with him and talking with him. That got me thinking, and today I thought I would honor my dad in public. I want the world to know what a great man he is.

One of the most important things about him is his love for God and his Word. Every time when we're walking through conflict, he is able to pull out a Scripture that perfectly applies to the situation at hand. He loves to spend his time in God's Word, sometimes hours just sitting and reading and meditating and praying. He has always been an example to me in this area, and I can only hope that one day I will have as much Scripture treasured up in my heart as he does.

He is one of the wisest people I know. There have been so many times when he has sat down with me for hours at a time to walk me through this sin issue or that struggle. I'm a very logical person who has to see all sides of the issue before I'll admit to something, so time and time again we would talk through "Okay, what were your heart motives there? How could that be considered a sin? etc." Through it all he would be kind but firm, helping me to see my sin and put it to death. He has the ability to ask questions that move beyond the surface and get straight to the heart. So much of what I've learned about viewing life through a biblical lens I learned from him.

He has very high standards, especially when it comes to entertainment. Throughout my childhood he watched what came into our house very closely. We didn't have TV when I was little because of this, and so the only shows we watched were Wishbone and Magic School Bus on PBS. Although back then I didn't like it too much, today I am so greatful that we are not a TV family. Today we have cable, but it almost never comes on. Instead, we sit in the living room and talk and laugh. The only exception is every Sunday afternoon between September and December when we order buffalo wings and watch the Redskins game on FOX. But even that is a family activity that we all do together, and just enjoy each other's company (hopefully next year we'll also be able to enjoy a winning season, too, but I'll take the family). He never wanted the TV to be something that's always on in the background, and it's not. And personally, I feel we are a stronger family for it.

The family is his top priority. Dinner is one of the most special times of the day because he has always made it a point to be home for dinner. We spend an average of half-an-hour sitting at the table as a family, and we have had so many amazing conversations because of that. He works hard 24-7 to provide for us and yet still manages to make it home for dinner almost every night. It's one of those small things that makes a world of difference in how a family lives together, and we owe it to him making it a priority.

He still loves his mom and his brothers and sisters. He calls my grandma at least once a week to talk, and will talk for hours. His brothers are his best friends, and he talks to them all the time as well. People like to give horror stories about their extended families, but I've never been able to identify, because my extended family is wonderful, and my dad has always made sure that we get to see them relatively often.

He's one of the hardest workers I know. He carries a lot of stress at work as co-owner of his company, but I never hear him complain. I don't know how he does it, but when he starts something he always finishes it. I've learned so much from him, and although my work ethic still needs work, I wouldn't even have one if it wasn't for his amazing example.

One of the most amazing things about him is that, even though he's always under so much stress, he still is one of the most fun-loving people I know. His sense of humor is hysterical (and I inherited it to a large degree), and there's nothing he loves better than to play with his kids. When we were little he wrestled, now he plays football or even Ghost Recon with us, but he just loves to have fun with his family.

We are two very different people. We look pretty similar, and we have the same sense of humor, but I am your poster student, and he is your poster outdoorsman. He was a biology major; I want to be a history major. My favorite activities are reading and blogging; his favorite activities are hunting, fishing, and camping. We are so dissimilar in so many ways, but he still takes an interest in the things that I do. He embraces me for who I am and doesn't try to make me into a miniature version of himself. He supports me in all my pursuits and loves to see me succeed.

He loves my mom more than any other person on earth. The two of them are just as in love with each other as the day they got married, maybe more so. In him I have the image of a wonderful husband, one who loves, leads, respects, and supports his wife with all of his heart.

He has this amazing talent for talking to people. It doesn't matter who the person is, he can start a conversation with them and within ten minutes know their whole background and possibly their life story, and then he finds ways to witness to them, reach out to them, and become their friend. It doesn't surprise me that for fifteen years he worked as a salesman, and an amazing one at that (he won Top Performer for Abbott Labs several times, and even won a trip to Puerto Rico). He's helped me gain some of his skills, although I'm still a far-cry from a good conversationalist. But I'm learning, and I have some amazing help.

He and my mom love opening up our home. One year for Christmas dinner we invited a Taiwanese family that we met through an immersion program at Montgomery College. We're still friends with the family to this day. Another year we invited some people over for Easter dinner from church. One was a single lady that my dad had met while ushering who was new to the church. The other was a lady we met in church that morning and who was sitting right in front of us. When he discovered that she didn't have anywhere to go for Easter, he invited her over. Last summer there was a desparate call for help from the Pastor's College: one of the students was moving down with his family, but the house they were going to live in was not ready for them yet. With barely a second thought, he and my mom opened up their home, even though it was during one of the busiest times of our lives when he was just returning from a fishing trip to Canada with my brothers and my mom and sister were leaving for France for two weeks (not to mention I was gone somewhere or other). The Kurtzs became close friends, and we are still in touch with them. I've learned so much about sacrificial giving at home from him.

Probably my favorite memory of us so far was the weekend when he surprised me for my 16th birthday and took me up to New York City. We took the city by storm, watching two Broadway shows (The Lion King and Phantom of the Opera) and seeing most of the major sights in just two days. We just had a blast being together and seeing the city on our own.

I can only hope that one day I am half the man he is. We've had our disagreements and conflicts, we have different interests in a lot of things, but there is no other man I would rather have for my father. Dad, I love you, and I hope that we'll have another 45 years together to glory in God's goodness together.

Grey Balloons

2007-03-27T16:05:00.000-04:00

The characters in the beginning of CLC's Godspell are people you'd see any day at the train station. A sales executive with a briefcase in hand. A sports jock with her iPod cord dangling from her ear. A homeless guy begging for spare change. One by one they hurl out their philosophies of life into the universe, using the words of Socrates, Galileo, da Vinci, and Sartre. They are all in the same train car, but they live worlds apart. They are completely and utterly alone.

One of the images is especially poignant. A harried mom is dragging her kid across the stage, talking on her cell phone, when a balloon salesman approaches her. The kid begins begging for a balloon, until the exasperated mother shells out the money for the trinket and yanks the kid out of the station. What makes it so interesting is that the balloons are grey. As a matter of fact, almost everything on the stage is grey. All the clothing is grey. All the accessories are grey. But what really gets the point across is that even the balloons are grey. The whole picture carries a feeling of despair, of hopelessness. In what kind of world are balloons grey?

When the director conceived this interpretation of the prologue, she focused on the balloons. In the process of explaining the concept to the actors, she made a comment that I will never forget: "Life without God is like a grey balloon." That's the point she was trying to make in the whole prologue. These are people without God. They live and interact with people, but they are alone. Their lives are falling apart. They are without hope, without real purpose. That is, until Jesus comes along with good news. Suddenly the whole stage fills with color as the handyman, the student, the runaway are suddenly dressed in the brightest shades of red, blue, green, and yellow. Life suddenly has meaning, and nothing is the same after that.

"Life without God is like a grey balloon." What does that mean exactly? Well, what is a balloon? A balloon is a sign of festivity. They appear at birthdays, at dances, anywhere where people are having fun. Kids love balloons, amazed at how they float in the air, and they love the bright colors and goofy designs that often appear on them. Balloons are fun. And yet what do you do with a grey balloon? All of a sudden the festivities aren't so festive anymore. If all your balloons are grey, where is the color? Even something as happy as a balloon isn't happy anymore when it becomes grey. It is the ultimate sign of hopelessness.

That's what life without God is like. Even the happy things lose their joy. Life is hopeless, purposeless, meaningless. We seek after things to give us pleasure, but they don't fulfill. They feel worthless and empty. We run around, grabbing onto this balloon and that one, hoping that it will be something other than grey. But it isn't. They never are.

Then this guy comes around. He tells us that he has a place where life is full of purpose. He has color and laughter and festivity. Most importantly, he even has a red balloon that's just for you. "This balloon used to be grey," he says, smiling, "but I found a way to make it red. Welcome to true joy." Then you see his hands, which are marred by these two enormous scars, and you realize where the red came from. You look at him, shocked. But he smiles, and places the balloon in your hand. "It's okay," he says, "I did it because I love you."

The hopelessness is gone. Life has a purpose again. You can experience true joy because of the sacrifice that this man made to give you a life with meaning...like a red balloon.

(Photo credits: Kate Price and Kristen Leigh)

A Chronicle of God's Grace

2007-03-25T18:35:00.000-04:00

Well, I have to say that my "sabbatical" was a very good idea. I'll probably be picking back up again this week since our rehearsal schedule is a lot lighter, but I thought I would direct those who are interested to a post I wrote on my Xanga about my experiences during production week for Godspell. I make it a point to try and avoid lots of personal details on this blog, at least when it comes to names, places, and specific events in my life, because there are a lot of people who read this who don't know any of those names, places, or specific events, and nobody wants to read the diary of someone they don't know personally. However, I have learned so much about God's grace this week that I just had to pass it on to the world at large. I'm going to excerpt the most important parts here:

Throughout the week, as everything was going wrong with the weather, rehearsal plans, and sickness, as we were losing cast members left and right and performing with a third of the cast as understudies, we all were constantly being reminded to trust in God. What became my theme verse for the week was a verse that Anna had read during prayer on Saturday morning:

You keep him in perfect peace
Whose mind is stayed on you,
Because he trusts in you. (Isaiah 26:3)

I had to keep my mind stayed on God the whole week, and so did everyone else. All of us had periods of discouragement, but God was so good to keep bringing us back to him, and we were drawn together as a cast through the trials. It was marvelous to see how God worked...

The amazing thing is how God's grace has been manifested in the peace he gave all of us this week, through all the problems and setbacks and sicknesses. Mrs. Mays can be commended for always keeping our eyes focused on God's grace and providence whenever things went wrong, setting the right tone for the whole week. I am amazed at the grace God gave those people who are sick and those people subbing in for them. He has helped everyone, even the understudies, perform at an incredibly high level, and most importantly to proclaim the gospel to over 2000 people. I am just so amazed at how God works through adversity to bring us closer to him.

God is so good :)

(Props to Kate Price for the photos)

And now for a word from our sponsors...

2007-03-19T23:39:00.000-04:00

Well, I have all kinds of things to say in this whole predestination argument...but it's going to have to wait. Life has become absolutely nuts for the primary reason that it's production week for Godspell! Nonstop rehearsals since Thursday only broken up by classes, homework, and graduation planning. Not to mention looking for scholarships...

Anyway, my point is that I have decided to take a break from this blog for the next week, and possibly the following week as well. I'm sure that Claire, Peter, and Paul will still have many good things to say on the subject by then, plus I'll be able to do a little brushing up on what I believe in the meantime.

Just to clarify for Claire, I am an essentially Reformed charismatic, meaning that I hold to most of the basic tenets of Calvinism (i.e. TULIP), although I differ in many important respects (i.e. baptism), and I believe that the Holy Spirit is still active and gives miraculous gifts to the church. For a more detailed summary, click here.

Can't wait to see you all again in a few weeks! Pray for Godspell, with God's grace it will be quite a show!

The Line Cannot Comprehend the Cube, Part 2

2007-03-15T11:13:00.000-04:00

So my post on election stirred up some controversy, albeit a little belated. I thought this would be as good a time as any to examine the biblical evidence for predestination. One of the things that Karyn and Claire keep saying is stuff along the lines of "It just doesn't make sense that God would..." or "it doesn't seem in accordance with God's character that he would..." What I think is that we need to leave that kind of conjecture behind and examine what the Bible says on the topic (many thanks to Joe for his help in compiling these).

First we need to figure out what is man's state before God.

Romans 3:10-12 says “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside."
Isaiah 64:7 says “There is no one who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to take hold of you."

There are many more verses throughout Scripture, but I think we can safely concede that the biblical view is that man is inherently evil and has no ability to save himself or even make a choice to save himself.

Second, we need to figure out what God says he does when he saves us. Here the evidence is also very clear. I've already addressed one verse on this topic, but I'll quote it again here because it is so vital to our understanding.

Ephesians 1:3-5 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."
John 15:16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you."
Ezekiel 36:26 "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."

I could go on, but the overwhelming biblical pattern is one in which God chooses us. You'll notice that none of these verses say anything about God merely knowing what we would choose, but he takes an active role in choosing us before time. God is not passive, he is active.

Finally, I want to clarify what man's purpose here on earth is. If you look in the Westminster Catechism, which accurately sums up Scripture on this topic, it says this: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." This carries the implicit assumption, which is further borne out it Scripture, that God's chief purpose in everything he does is to bring himself glory. He loves people, he redeems people, but ultimately he does it to bring glory to himself since he is infinitely worthy of glory.

This, I believe, goes a long way in answering Claire's main question, which I'll restate here: Why would God create man to damn him? It really comes down to this: God created man and predestined him to sin because it would bring him greater glory to redeem them. In the gospel, he shows his wondrous love, his wrath, his mercy, his justice, and his holiness in one action. To draw sinners to himself brings him glory.

Here's my question for Claire and Karyn: if God allows humans to make independent choices that he has no control over, how is he sovereign over anything? How can he control anything that happens anywhere? If we're the ones making all the decisions, and God has nothing to do with it, then God has no ability to "work all things together for good." He is merely a passive bystander, watching and occasionally sticking his hand in when things get too out of control. One thing you said, Karyn, really scared me: "God did know that would happen, but he didn't want it to." So you're saying that something can happen contrary to the will of God? That would seem to completely deny his sovereignty.

Speaking of sticking his hand in, you did acknowledge that God does interfere sometimes. So are you saying that it is loving for him to interfere with someone's free will occasionally (as he did with Pharaoh), just not all the time? I don't quite understand that argument.

I'm also not saying that God wants men to go to hell. As you said, he loves all men and wishes for all men to be saved. However, here's the deal (and something I haven't been emphasizing like I should): although God predestines all things to happen, he also holds men accountable for their actions done by their free will (see my definition of free will back in my original post). Man chose sin, and here's the difference in the picture of salvation as seen by Calvinists and Arminians:

God stands at the door of Heaven with His arms outstretched, inviting all to come. Yet all men without exception are running in the opposite direction towards Hell as hard as they can go. So God, in election, graciously reaches out and stops this one, and that one, and this one over here, and that one over there, and effectually draws them to Himself by changing their hearts, making them willing to come. Election keeps no one out of Heaven who would otherwise have been there, but it keeps a whole multitude of folks out of Hell who would otherwise have been there! Were it not for election, Heaven would be an empty place, and Hell would be bursting at the seams!" That does put a different complexion on the thing, doesn't it? -Mark Webb

God does not save all, and he does not want any to go to Hell. But it brings him the most glory to save some instead of all. How is that? I don't know, it's one of those things I don't quite understand, but I believe it because Scripture says it's so.

Finally, I just want to address Claire's interpretation of Ephesians 1:3-5. It says nor implies nowhere in the passage that God predestines ALL of us as you said. If he did, that would mean that we have the ability to do something completely contrary to his will. We are able to contradict God. No, in the passage it gives the very clear idea that those God predestined to be adopted, he also adopted. There are no lost causes in those whom God chooses.

In your responses to this, make sure you bring it back to Scripture. Ultimately, everything that does not come back to Scripture is conjecture that means very little without solid backing. Bring me Scripture that demonstrates the fact that we all have free will of the kind you describe.

Meditations on Romans II

2007-03-13T08:05:00.000-04:00

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened...Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. --Romans 1:18-21, 32

We've spent a lot of time on this passage in Bible class this year, as we've used it as the platform for discussing the question "Does man know God and know sin?" It's a hard question. If man does know God and know that he's a sinner, than he is fully responsible for all his actions, but if he doesn't know God and doesn't know that he's a sinner, that would seem to remove any guilt from him for his sin.

This passage states pretty clearly, though, that man does know God and his character. But, importantly, they rebel and refuse to recognize him as their God, becoming futile in their thinking. What exactly does that mean? Essentially, it means that they lose their ability to reason effectively, to use their minds to find God. God created all things good, including our mental faculties, but because man rebels, he is unable to use his reason to get him to God. This doesn't mean that non-Christians are stupid, but it does mean that their thinking is flawed and there are certain things they cannot get on their own by unaided reason.

This idea is the basis for presuppositionalism, which states that as a Christian, we can't start on "neutral ground" in our apologetics. As Christians, we have had our thinking mostly restored, but when we try to abandon Scripture and start from a neutral point, we are basically putting ourselves back on the level of non-believers, abandoning the gift that God has given us. Saying, as C.S. Lewis does in Mere Christianity, "Let's see how far we can get on our own steam," is an insult to God and the gift that he's given us. We are called to use the reason he has given us as a tool, not as an ultimate authority.

This ended up coming out slightly hodge-podge, but hopefully the general idea comes out. I am obviously a presuppositionalist, and I'd love to discuss this with anyone who's interested.

One of those days

2007-03-11T21:51:00.000-04:00

So today was just one of those days. I'm still recovering from a nasty cold, I saw firsthand the effects of a close friend's rebellion, I was distracted during church by a bunch of rebellious kids, the senior meeting didn't go nearly as well as we'd hoped, I got in a fight with my mom, and life just seemed like it couldn't get much worse. After reconciling with my mom, she made the comment, "You know, it's days like this that make me long for heaven." After we had finished talking, I came down to my room but couldn't think of anything to do, so I started thinking about heaven. Then I decided to turn on some music, and it dawned on me to make myself a mix of songs about heaven. After sorting through many good songs in my collection, here's the final mix I came up with.

"Foreverandever, Etc." by David Crowder*Band
"Perfect Day" by Josh Bates
"I'll Fly Away" by Jars of Clay
"When I Get Where I'm Going" by Brad Paisley
"Smile" by Chris Rice
"Elijah" by Rich Mullins
"Homesick" by MercyMe
"Great Expectations" by Steven Curtis Chapman
"On Jordan's Stormy Banks I Stand" by Jars of Clay
"Up Where We Belong" by BeBe and CeCe
"Before the Throne" by Sovereign Grace
"Our Happy Home" by David Crowder*Band
"Breakfast Table" by Chris Rice
"Ready for a World" by FFH
"Take Me Away" by Sarah Kelley
"One of These Days" by FFH
"I Can Only Imagine" by MercyMe

I can wholeheartedly suggest that you track down all of these songs and buy them and listen to them when you're feeling down. I know that nothing ecourages me more than the thought of heaven, where conflict will be gone and we'll rest forever in the light of his glorious face. So like my mom said, I can seize on days like these to meditate on the glories of the future. There's a reason Hope is one of the three things that remain in 1 Corinthians 13, it's what keeps us going when nothing else will.

The Line Cannot Comprehend the Cube

2007-03-10T07:11:00.000-05:00

No, this will not be an exhaustive treatise on the issue of Free Will and Election. I don't have time for that. However, I do have some thoughts that aren't mine and are quite profound. It all grew out of a conversation we were having last night during the Godspell dinner break. We began talking about this issue, and Eli quoted Randy Alcorn as saying "Free will and election are parallel lines that meet in heaven." I thought that was a profound way of saying it. I am a firm believer in the doctrine of predestination, but at the same time I believe that man does have free will. How does this work? How can I believe both? It basically comes down to two things.

First, I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. It tells us all that we need to know. I also believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. What it tells us is totally true. So the way I approach this question is as follows: 1) The Bible tells us clearly that God plans out our steps and directs our actions. But 2) the Bible also tells us clearly that we are held responsible for our actions. I know that both of these facts are completely true, but in my finite human mind I cannot completely match them up. They are an apparent contradiction, a paradox. I can work as much as possible to reconcile the two facts, but I must never downplay either fact.

Second, what I find to be the best reconciliation between the two is from Jonathan Edwards. He said (and this is a paraphrase since I can't find the exact quote), "Free will is the ability to choose that which we most desire." The definition of free will is terribly important to this whole discussion, and this is the best definition I've been able to find. Edwards goes on to explain that while we are perfectly free to choose what we most desire, because of our sinful natures we can only ever choose sin. It takes God to reach down and transform our desires so that we begin to desire good things. We don't reach for him. So we find that in this definition, we are able to uphold, to a certain extent, both free will and predestination.

This helps us to a point, but it still leaves us with questions about God authoring sin, how we still have much freedom in choosing anything, etc. Here is my very Calvinistic answer: It's a mystery to me. And I'm okay with that. My Apologetics teacher Nathan Sasser once said that Arminianism is the refuge for people afraid of mystery. They don't want to believe that there's anything they can't understand, so they've decided to play down predestination and play up free will in order for things to make sense to them. It takes a truly humble man, though, to be able to admit that he doesn't know something. That's where I stand on this and many other doctrinal topics. I seek to understand them as much as I can, but I must eventually cede that I am like a line, and God is like a cube. How can I possibly comprehend what is in a complete other dimension?

Odds and Ends VI

2007-03-09T14:02:00.000-05:00

So I've been sick all week, but am finally getting better (except for this nasty headcold that's decided to stick around). That explains my apparent abandoning of the Romans meditations...hopefully they'll be back next week. So in lieu of a more intelligent post, here are this week's Odds and Ends.

Serious:

The Resolved Conference was a few weeks ago, and all the messages (from greats such as John MacArthur, C.J. Mahaney, and John Piper) are available as a free download here. Can't wait to listen to them. (HT Challies)
This has been a good week for Dan Phillips. First there was his post about God's goodness that I mentioned a few days ago, and then he gave this meditation on the death of John Piper's father earlier this week (see below for key quote). May all our epitaphs be "What he had, he used."

Funny:

The fight of the century! Barney versus Hip Hop Harry! Who will win? I think it's pretty clear cut (I've never seen little kids do moves quite like that before).
FCN is convinced that George Washington didn't exist, and they're holding the Washington Seminar to discuss it. Anyone interested?
For those of you who missed the Oscars, here is one of the most amazing choirs ever performing scenes from classic movies.
My pal John Benefiel sent me this link...I dunno, you think Google might be spying on us?

Interesting:

For my fellow Calvin and Hobbes fans, here's the entire collection in one searchable location. (HT Challies)
I had no idea it was possible to stack cards like this.
13 things that make no sense to scientists...this is really cool. (HT Challies)

Quotes:

It's funny, isn't it? Some single people will get married, some won't. But all think about it. We think a lot about many things that may or may not ever happen to us. But the one thing that is about as statistically certain — our death — many seemingly never give much serious thought. --Dan Phillips

Comics:

In awe of God's goodness

2007-03-06T09:25:00.000-05:00

So as I was writing yesterday's post, I wasn't feeling so great (which is obvious from some of the stuff I wrote down). After taking my temperature, my parents decided that I had a fever and that I should skip Bible class and rest. I promptly took a three-and-a-half hour nap. Of course, with my schedule for this week, that was the last thing I wanted to do. I had a major research paper due that afternoon, I had to start on my incredibly difficult Hillsdale Honors' Application, and I had several hours of Latin homework to finish by this time this morning. Obviously, I was feeling a little discouraged, wondering why on earth I would have to get sick on that day of all days. Then I stumbled across an article by Dan Phillips on trusting God, and he had this quote that helped me throughout the rest of the day:

Christian friend, if you are going to believe what you say you believe, then there are only two kinds of situations:

1. Situations in which you will see God's goodness immediately.
2. Situations in which you will see God's goodness eventually.

This is another of those marvelous truths that I so quickly lose sight of. God is ALWAYS good, no matter what the situation may be. I was then able to pass the same wisdom on to a friend dealing with chronic illness and lifted her up as well. So thank you Dan Phillips for your timely wisdom, and thank you God for your everlasting goodness!

(By the way, I'm still sick this morning, so if you could pray for me, I'd greatly appreciate it.)

Meditations on Romans I

2007-03-05T06:42:00.000-05:00

For the last month or so I've been reading through Romans, and when I finished it was so good I started again. This time, to help me meditate more on the truth I'm reading, I thought that it would be a good thing to blog through selected portions, since I think best when I'm writing, and I write best when I'm typing, and I'm most likely to type when I blog (welcome to my life). So this is a part of my devotions, but I hope you can benefit from my thoughts.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17)

This verse is an important one to church history, for it is the one that changed Martin Luther's heart and helped reveal to him the idea of "salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone." I just want to briefly go through each phrase here with some thoughts.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: Am I ashamed of the gospel? Being ashamed is when I avoid the gospel and don't live my life with it in view, thinking "that's for unbelievers, I don't need it anymore." We need it every day and every moment, so am I embracing it?

For it is the power of God for salvation: the gospel is so amazing in that it is able to save! What other message do you know that can save? Not the message that a book or movie is trying to teach you, not the politician's message to give the poor more money or to do something in Iraq. Only the gospel can save, because contained in the gospel is the truth that Christ died to save sinners, including me. He gave his life for me as an atoning sacrifice in my place so that I could live forever with God!

To everyone who believes, to the Jew first and then to the Gentile: the gospel can save anyone! Just think about that: it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done. You can be a goody two-shoes church kid, a serial murderer, or anyone in between. It doesn't matter, because Christ died for all! This means that we never have to give up hope on someone, because they could at any time have their hearts changed by the Holy Spirit, no matter how far away they may seem. On the flip side, everybody needs the gospel! It doesn't matter who you are or how good you act or how much money you give to charity, you still need the gospel for your salvation.

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith": As my pastor Robin Boisvert said yesterday, "Faith and repentence are not the gospel, it is the hand we reach out to take hold of the gospel." And the most amazing thing is that, even as we're reaching out that hand, even that move is empowered by God! This is such a crucial truth that we often take for granted, but the only way we can be saved is not through anything we do, but through accepting what Christ has done for us. Through faith in what he has done for us, we can live forever with God.

Welcome to Socialism, thanks for your freedom

2007-03-01T12:18:00.000-05:00

Reading through my paper today, I came across two different articles with a common theme. First, on the front page of the Washington Times Metro section was an article that began thus:

[Maryland] Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. wants to increase Maryland's sales tax on gasoline by 12 cents a gallon, part of a revenue plan that also includes bringing 15,500 slot machines to the state and cutting government positions. "There's going to be cuts, there's going to be slots, there's going to be tax increases," Mr. Miller said yesterday. "And it's going to be tough for some people, but they're going to have to suck it up and move forward for the good of the state."

Is anyone else worried about that last statement? "The good of the state?" Sounds like something else in recent memory. (Hint: it was officially declared dead in 1991.)

Then, moving deeper into Metro, there was an interesting article about subtitles in Switzerland and how you can see almost any movie in up to six different languages in a single theater. But stuck in the middle of the article was this little detour:

A fondness for subtitles is not the only difference between Swiss and American movie theaters; consider the Swiss movie ratings, which are both more varied and more rigid than their U.S. counterparts. A movie can be rated K/6, K/8, K/10, J/12 or J/14, which means a child or teen has to be that age to view it. Babies and toddlers are banned unless a special family matinee is advertised. Parental discretion is not allowed. "No babies, no young children. We have a different approach to movies than the United States," says Charlottte Waltert, an employee at Zurich's Arthouse Alba theater.

That means you must be at least 8 to see "Happy Feet" and "Flushed Away," while "Night at the Museum" and "An Inconvenient Truth" are reserved for those 10 and older. "The Holiday" and "Eragon" can be seen by those 12 and older, but you must be at least 14 to view "Casino Royale" or "Deja Vu."

Whatever happened to parental discretion? No, it's the government's job to decide what your children can and can't watch. Parents can just take a backseat and let the government take over education, the workplace, and now it appears the movie theater.

Is anyone else worried about how much these version of socialism sounds like communism?

How to lose...and still glorify God

2007-02-26T22:10:00.000-05:00

Saturday night was the Covenant Life School girl's varsity basketball championship game. The team has been amazing all year long, blowing out most of the opponents by something like 25 points average every game. Everyone (at least, all of us CovLifers) was expecting it to be an easy game. But the team, Grace Brethren (GB) fought back, and fought back hard. At the half, GB was leading by 8 points. CLS broke away in the second half, though, scoring close to 20 offensive points to GB's 5. Easy win, right? Wrong. GB also got to take an estimated 25 free throws, almost all of which they sunk, leading them to a 52-43 win. Then the CLS girls must have played really dirty, right? Wrong again. It all gets summed up by what I saw at halftime: one of the refs walked up to one of the GB girls, winked at her, spoke to her with a smile, and patted her on the arm as she walked away.

It was one of the most frustrating games I've ever watched. The refs were so obviously biased towards GB; they called probably close to 35 fouls during the course of the game on CLS, compared to 15 on GB. And any observer could have told you that the vast majority of the fouls were not really fouls. Especially in the fourth quarter, anytime a GB player would take a shot, there would be a foul called on CLS, leading to more and more free throw points. Four of the five CLS starters fouled out of the game, one of them on a technical foul that was not a real technical.
I walked out of that gym fuming mad and ready to vent to anyone who would listen. I couldn't believe that that much blatant bias could exist...in a game between two Christian schools, no less. Yet the defeated girls took it all so well. They weren't jumping up and down in happiness, of course, but there was no throwing objects, no trash-talking. They merely congratulated the other team, packed up their stuff, and left. And that said so much to me.

I am a very competitive person by nature, but I've always thought of myself as a good sport. When my middle school football team lost a very tight game, I blamed the refs for a bad call but acknowledged that it was ultimately one of our mistakes that lost us the game. When we lost the championship game to the same team, I acknowledged that the other team just played better than we did. Whenever the Redskins lose to the Cowboys, I accept it (luckily, I haven't had to deal with that too much lately). When the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl, I shrugged off the good-natured jabs from friends and moved on.

But this game has made me rethink the whole idea of sportsmanship. Why are we good sports? Do we not have to be good sports if we only lost because of a bad ref? Does that make it okay to have a bad attitude? Do we only have to be good sports in a fair game? No, and that becomes clear when we think about what the purpose of good sportsmanship is: glorifying God in our reaction to anything that we win or lose. This can be a chess game, a game of tag, or the championship basketball game. How we respond when we lose says a lot about how we view God.

I have graciously had my attitude corrected by several people (since I seem to be refusing to learn this lesson), most importantly my mom, but also several good friends. One of them, Liz, responded to my complaint with the simple phrase "but God is sovereign." Although that's not really what I wanted to hear in the midst of my complaining, that's what I needed to hear. When I (or my team) lose, God planned for that to happen. It's not a surprise to him. This doesn't mean that we don't try our hardest when we're playing, or that we can't be disappointed, or even that we can't report unfairness to the authorities (which I plan on doing), but it does mean that whatever the outcome, God is in control. We shouldn't have a bad attitude, fuming and reliving it all in our heads or just yelling at the other team. This is exactly what God planned to happen to us, and whatever God does is meant for our sanctification. He makes us lose to make us more like him.

Another aspect is that being a good sport is a good witness to a watching world. I know that the girls' measured response, respectful and accepting, impressed many in the audience as it did me. Yet, knowing most of those girls, I know that this peace came from their inner trust in God. I respect those girls highly for their God-glorifying response to the game, and also for the way they represented God to a watching world.

I'm still struggling to come to grips with this loss, but just writing this post has solidified in my mind how I was sinning in my response to the game. I was mad, steaming mad, and forgot that God had planned the game that way in ages past. So I can rest in God's providence, knowing that he is doing what is best for everyone, including me. But I can also still say, "Beat Grace Brethren on Thursday, Cougars!"

(photo credit: Lydia Jane)

Odds and Ends V

2007-02-25T12:36:00.000-05:00

A real post is in the makings, but may not be done for a few days. Until that, enjoy these links.

Serious:

Al Mohler discusses the TIME cover article on crisis-pregnancy centers as encouraging to the pro-life movement.
Michael Flaherty, president of Walden Media, gave an excellent speech at Hillsdale a few months ago about reading books and redeeming Hollywood.
The Wall Street Journal describes the deficiencies in the new Wilberforce movie Amazing Grace; namely, the way it downplays the role of faith in the whole anti-slavery movement. Not to diss the movie or anything, since my parents liked it and I plan on seeing it, but I find this disheartening. (HT Justin Taylor)
Have you heard? James Cameron, Academy Award-winning director of Titanic, is out to prove that the bodies of Jesus, Mary Magdelene, and his children have been found. Thankfully, James White has details and the proper apologetic response to these charges. (HT Centuri0n)

Funny:

There are new Demotivators! Here's my favorite, for your viewing pleasure:
God Version 6.0 has been released. It's softer, non-judgmental, and totally compatible with any faith type! Plus it's been totally restructured! It's a sure-fire winner, get yours today! (HT Dan Phillips)
Casey posted a way to find your gangsta name, Witness Protection name, and superhero name. I like my Star Wars name: Brasa Stroc (my complete results are in the fourth comment down).

Interesting:

Greg Patillo is a beatboxing flute player...need I say more to convince you to watch him perform Inspector Gadget? (HT Kevin)

Quotes:

I'm reading an amazing book right now by Stephen Ambrose. It's his personal reflections as a historian, and I encountered this amazingly profound quote about our presidents.

The Washington Monument and the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials remind us that greatness comes in different forms and at a price. Jefferson, by his words, gave us aspirations. Washington, through his actions, showed us what was possible. Lincoln's courage turned both into reality.

Comics:

I used to always do this on my Xanga, but since I've mostly abandoned that, I'll start posting my favorite comics from the week on here. I will mainly be drawing on Pearls Before Swine, Frazz, The Buckets, and Monty, with the occasional Foxtrot and Peanuts thrown in. (Can anyone tell me where to find a daily online syndication of Calvin and Hobbes or Farside that doesn't cost money?)

Schindler's List

2007-02-21T22:29:00.000-05:00

Not since The Passion of the Christ have I experienced a movie quite like this one. It's one of those movies where you just sit there as the credits roll and blink, trying to process what you've just seen. And the first thought is, How is that even possible? How can anybody participate in the mass extermination of an entire people?

The movie is based on the true story of Oskar Schindler (played masterfully by Liam Neeson), a German-Czech business man who enters Krakow to start a new business. With the help of his Jewish accountant, Itzhak Stern (played by Ben Kingsley), he amasses a fortune by using the Jews to work in his factory. His factory soon becomes known as a haven, a safe-house, and although he initially resists, he eventually becomes more active in helping to save Jews from death. This culminates when the entire Krakow work-camp is to be sent to Auschwitz, and Schindler uses his entire fortune to buy the lives of 1100 Jews to work in a new factory he's built in Czechoslovakia. The movie won 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director (Steven Spielberg, and was nominated for 5 more, including Best Actor (Liam Neeson) and Best Supporting Actor (Ralph Fiennes as the German commandant).

The movie doesn't pull any punches. It shows you the full depravity and savagery displayed by the Nazis as they ruthlessly slaughter the Jews. The fact that the entire movie, save the beginning and end and symbolic flashes of color throughout, is in black-and-white, does little to alleviate the brutality of what the audience sees. While you read in the history books that they stripped the men and women down in the middle of winter to see how physically fit they are or to herd them into the gas chambers, this movie shows it in all of its graphic detail. You read that the Jews would dig ditches, and then line up to be shot and buried in those same ditches; here you see them do it. You hear that when they burn the bodies, the ashes rain down like snow; here, the ashes fall right on Schindler's face.

When I walked through the Holocaust Museum, I was sobered by the reality of what occured during those ten years in Germany. Yet all you can see at the museum is pictures and text. This movie is like a live-action Holocaust Museum and is all the more brutal for that reality.

The character of Oskar Schindler fascinates me. He is one of those men who is great because he sacrificed his own fortune and his own safety in order to save the lives of thousands of Jews. When the movie finished, my mom instructed me that I was to name my first child Oskar. He is a truly amazing man, and I can only wish I would have done the same in his place.

The first question to come to mind when any account of the Holocaust is given is, "Why?" And I really don't have an answer for that. Sure, God predestined it to happen, but I can't for the life of me understand why. And although I know that man is inherently evil, still I can't understand how any man could stoop to do what thousands of Nazi soldiers did. It's humbling, to tell the truth, because the Bible tells me that, apart from grace, I am just like them. This doesn't seem possible, but I am a master at trusting myself. Sure, I may never have shot anybody in the head just out of spite, but I could. It's a scary thought.

These thoughts are a little hodge-podge, but I'm trying to pull them together. On the one hand, I am once again sobered by the depths of human depravity, but on the other, I realize that I too was a sinner like that before Christ saved me. I can't understand the Holocaust, but I can trust God that his ultimate purposes will be fulfilled through such a terrible event. And I can be thankful that he gives these kinds of movies to make us think and make us tremble.

*Disclaimer: this film contains graphic nudity, violence, and language. Most (but not all) of the nudity and violence is true to historical accounts of what actually happened, including stripping the women down to go into the gas chambers. There is some gratuitous nudity and sexual content, though. As such, I do not suggest it for anyone who is not fully informed of the content, and would also highly suggest watching it with a parent (like I did).

Odds and Ends IV

2007-02-18T15:15:00.000-05:00

Serious:

Centuri0n discusses how to read the Bible and why anyone can read the Bible.
John Piper explains why being pro-abortion should disqualify a candidate for public office. (HT Justin Taylor)
Al Mohler chronicles the dangers of the self-esteem movement (doesn't surprise me a bit).
Peggy Noonan explains why the presidential campaign races have started so early this year...is anyone else depressed by the notion of McCain, Guiliani, or Romney running against Hillary, Obama, or Edwards?
WORLD magazine describes the rise of "Holy Hip Hop", and features our very own Curtis "Voice" Allen. Go Curt! (HT Challies)
And for the rest of you who took 20th century philosophy with me last year (taught by the one and only Scott Somerville), here's an interesting article I found about Karl Barth.

Funny:

David explains the thoughts that go through his head when he reads some Bible stories...I'll tell ya, this guy weirds me out sometimes.
Want to know why I hate Macs? Charlie Brooker sums it up pretty succinctly in this article from the Guardian. (HT Challies)
Anyone else looking forward to the release of The Bourne Ultimatum later this year? Supposedly, there's a new Bourne hotline set up for us addicts to help us cope with what may be a tragic ending.
For my fellow Star Wars freaks, here's a good one: the coronation of the Pope has gotten a makeover.
FCN describes their own Super Bowl experiences, which sound remarkably similar to mine...or not.
And on the football theme, a letter to FCN describes the relationship between girls and football...I've seen this so many times (with four girls living next door) that it's almost not funny. Almost.

Interesting:

Turns out that when you compare men's and women's desks, women's have four times the amount of germs on them. Take that, girls ;-)
Crisis pregnancy centers now outnumber abortion clinics in the U.S. Praise the Lord!

Quotes:

Vicki Hearne, in an essay entitled "What's Wrong with Animal Rights", explains what Jefferson meant by "happiness" in the Declaration of Independence:

Happiness is often misunderstood as a synonym for pleasure or as an antonym for suffering. But Aristotle associated happiness with ethics--codes of behavior that urge us toward the sensation of getting it right, a kind of work that yields the 'click' of satisfaction upon solving a problem or surmounting an obstacle. In his Ethics, Aristotle wrote, 'If happiness is activity in accordance with excellence, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest excellence.' Thomas Jefferson identified the capacity for happiness as one of the three fundamental rights on which all others are based: 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

And I'm reading an introduction to quantum theory (Colin Bruce's Schrodinger's Rabbits) for fun, and this little tidbit just made me laugh out loud.

To illustrate, I am tempted to ask you to imagine a wall with two slits in it, and a gun capable of firing a cat toward the arrangement, but cats (even hypothetical ones) have already suffered enough in the cause of quantum physics, and Stephen Hawking has threatened to shoot people who mention Schrodinger's cat to him, so I will choose an alternative.

And now to leave you with a comic to show you exactly how not to respond to your mom.

Free Grace

2007-02-17T07:49:00.000-05:00

Don't you just love how you can read the same passage of Scripture over and over, and then one day you read it again and it's like you're reading it for the very first time? That just happened to me again this morning as I read in Romans 11, the crux of Paul's extended argument about Israel and the Gospel. In this particular passage he is defending the fact that God has not rejected his people, even though they are all in rebellion against him. He tells the story of Elijah who asks God to kill them all because they are all going to kill him, and God says "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal" (v. 4).

Then Paul says, "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (v. 5-6). As I read that, the truth of those words hit me, and I just read over them again and again. In this verse is the very definition of grace itself, that marvelous gift of God to me. What is it? It is FREE! I don't have to work for it, I don't have to do anything for it. God has chosen a remnant of people on the earth, and he chose me because he wanted me and for no other reason. It wasn't because I was smart or kind or able to do big things for him. He chose me because he loved me.

I know that my first temptation as a proud sinner is to want to add to grace, to give my little contribution: "See, God, here's what I can do to make myself worthy of this." Yet I love Paul's pithiness at the end of the verse: we can't add anything to grace because "otherwise grace would no longer be grace." Grace is totally, completely free. What amazing news! What an amazing reason to praise God anew!

(photo credit: Brittany Kauflin)

Happy Valentine's Day!

2007-02-14T16:18:00.000-05:00

Valentine's Day is a tricky day for some of us. For people like Dave and Casey, it's pretty easy. They're engaged, they know exactly who they love, and the rest of us get to watch and laugh. For people like my parents, it's even easier. They're married. But what about for singles, or, even worse, high schoolers? Highschoolers in my church don't date because the point of dating is to find a potential spouse, and we're not at that age yet. So what are we supposed to do about Valentine's Day?

I can't really say I'm an expert at this, but here's my suggestion: find a way to serve the girls in your life. The Godspell guys last weekend bought all the girls roses and candy and then honored them as we presented it to them. I realize that normally an opportunity like that doesn't present itself, but I'm sure that everyone can think of something. Just look around you, find a way you can serve the girls around you, and do it. And even better, find a way to serve your mom and sisters, since they are the most important girls in your life right now.

And with that said, here's my Valentine's gift to all of my girl friends out there (or, as one of my best friends says it, "girl space friends"): the Modesty Survey has just been released by The Rebelution! I was one of 1600 guys who chimed in answer questions about everything from glitter lotion and lip gloss to swimsuits and skirt slits. I know that my sister is just one girl who is already excited to have this helpful resource to help her when it comes to modesty (because, let's face, her brother's opinion probably isn't the best). I hope it serves all of you well!

Also, guys, they are still accepting signatures for the Modesty Survey Petition, so this is an opportunity for you to still share your voice on the topic of modesty! (I'd like to point out that I was one of the first people to sign it, there's my name right on top, 14th on the list. Just to announce it to the world :-P )

Finally, let's try and get the word out about this resource. Link to the survey, send an email to your contact list, or whatever. Let's spread the word!

!Hero

2007-02-06T21:47:00.000-05:00

A Jesus with dreadlocks? A triumphal entry into Yankee Stadium? A crucifixion on a street sign? What’s up with this? Don’t be afraid, it’s just !Hero: The Rock Opera, a modern day retelling of the story of Jesus as envisioned by Eddie Degarmo, CCM industry veteran, told in the vein of Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell. The first reaction of many will probably be, “Isn’t this blasphemous or something?” Well, no, I don’t think so. Merely bringing the story into the present and adding some wailing guitars and driving rap beats is not in and of itself wrong. The real question is how they do that. This article is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the show (which I watched in Live on Stage), but merely an evaluation of what it actually is: a presentation of the gospel.

First, though, I need to touch on the music. I love music with a passion, and I will admit that this music got me excited. From the rapcore of “Raised in Harlem” to the dark pop of “Shadowman” and the Brit rock of “Secrets of the Heart”, most of the songs here are top quality, keeping my head bobbing and my earworm singing long afterward. Visually, it was full of amazing modern dance, lots of wild lights, and two huge screens constantly showing applicable images. As a show, it’s top quality. You can tell that many of the singers were chosen for their names and not for their acting ability (Michael Tait of dcTalk does an adequate job as Jesus/Hero and Mark Stuart of Audio Adrenaline is so-so as Peter/Petrov, but they definitely were not chosen primarily as actors). However, it’s quite a show to watch and hear.

But how’s the theology? Does the show actually get things right where it really matters: the gospel? I’m sorry to say that I don’t believe it really did. And that’s too bad, because these are some of the biggest names in Christian music we’re talking about here. What seemed to be the biggest statement of Jesus’ mission came in “I Am”, a dcTalk-type ballad that had Tait singing “I am, I am/the one to make a change/who's gonna do it if I don't step to it/I am." Hero himself never says that he’s come to save the lost, but merely that we all need to love each other. Rebecca St. James, who plays Mary Magdalene/Maggie says more about the actual gospel than Hero does. In place of the real gospel—Jesus came to die on the cross and save us from our sins, since we can’t save ourselves—we get the social gospel—Jesus came to spread love and teach us to love our neighbors. And that’s just too bad.

I actually borrowed the DVD of the show from Mrs. Mays, the director of our youth musicals. She told me that they had actually considered doing this show last year, but eventually decided not too. After watching, I think I know the two reasons why. First, logistically, we don’t have anyone who can come even remotely close to rapping like T-Bone. And second, when you have a show like Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat with just about no religious convictions anywhere, it’s relatively easy to put in a biblical worldview and preach the gospel through it. But when you have a show like !Hero that tries to be theological and ends up preaching the wrong gospel, it’s very hard to redeem it. And that’s the main problem with the show. It has great music, but the theology is what kills it. What a pity.