Perversion and Culture

I am utterly amazed at the acceptable perversion in our culture. I get the privilege of listening to kids 8-12 play in the pool and not only use some of the vilest language, but also comfortably navigate all types of sexual innuendo. I know this is no startling revelation, but I have been coming across teenage girls more and more that seem innocent enough, but will match any boy of equivalent age in sexual and coarse joking.

It seems our American culture is at an impasse of sorts. We want to be open and free with all forms of ..I've heard it said in the good tradition of European sexuality). But we still have some remnants of a previous age's morality. There is an invisible line that dictates acceptable standards of content for broadcast material, yet all forms of media are not trying to walk that line, but significantly push it. After all, some of the "best" television is "edgy", "pushing the standards", etc. This might be all in the name of a freer sexuality, but the end result is always a more blatant sexuality.

We could lament our culture and predict that this is the worst humanity has ever gotten, and the parousia must be around the corner. I do not think this is the best line of reasoning. A friend of mine once argued that it is almost better the way things are now, because apparently people still thought the same way 50 years ago, they just were forced to act and think in hiding. It was a sexually repressed culture after all.

I do know whether this is true or not, but I definitely cannot agree that it is better with "everything out in the open". First and foremost, a culture that is so openly vulgar and perverse can only move in one direction. Western civilization has lost any conscience, and all that is left is only the most minimalist morality. It is sad that children are growing up in a society where they experience not only peer pressure to have premarital sex and unheard of young ages, but also that they are quickly conditioned into the mindset of unrestrained freedom and entitlement to acting in the most degraded ways. This "open" and "free" environment might seem ideal because depravity isn't being hidden, but I think it is worse because its not only encouraging, but I think forcing many into bad lifestyle choices. Its like we're trying to socialize ourselves into thinking that whatever we want is okay, kids should be having sex, and if you are a guy with even the slightest bit of effeminacy you should rightly choose a gay lifestyle.

Of course humanity is naturally depraved, and this isn't just about sustaining an empty idealist facade. But it is sad to see a society fall as low as we have, especially one that was built on Christian virtues. Perhaps no society is immune to this, but we certainly have made a lot of progress in falling over the last 50 years. Just because this does not relate to salvation does not mean it is acceptable, it is still a sad state of things, and I think at some level something we should try to reverse.

Christians are called to endure evil societies, and live as lights in them. This does not mean that Christianity is about Christendom, but it does mean that if the church is functioning, one would hope to see a positive effect on society. At some level, it is hard not to wonder if the church has failed rather miserably, and the quick degeneration of Western society is the result. Sinful humanity will always be sinful outside of Christ, but shouldn't we see progress in the church instead of regress? I am no historian, but I can easily think of a few areas where this has been clear.

First, the enlightenment and later modernistic movements brought some terrifying blows on the church. It seems especially in the early 20^th century that many Christians took a defensive stance rather than went on the offensive. We "turtled" up, removed ourselves from society, and did everything we could to protect our children from the world. The more extreme side of the fundamentalist movement clearly demonstrates this, though the original movement was itself a good thing). It is almost as if, as soon as some powerful and dangerous ideas entered society, we quickly gave up and tried to hide.

They tried to kill God, and we surrendered. Again, this is only my impression from a limited knowledge of history, maybe I'm horribly wrong. But it deeply bothers me that some of the most profound thinkers during this same time period were shunned by many Christians (Lewis immediately comes to mind). In all honesty, it seems like the church is only recently beginning to recover from the initial attack of the enlightenment, and only now beginning to get together a counteroffensive. It only took us 200 years.

I think the battle against wrong ideas is important. It won't save people, but it will help affect the world for better, and who knows what kind of seeds this will sow? In the same light, I think we need to fight the battle for American culture. We cannot continue with an attitude of retreat. I doubt we will be able to transform culture, but I think we can at least expect to make an impact. There is no excuse for Christians giving into the cultural peer pressure on issues like morality. As Christians, we should never be ashamed of Paul's words in Phil. 4:8:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Christians who are in the film industry should not give in to compromising their morality in order to be "edgy". Nor should we sacrifice ideals of purity and righteousness in the name of not being legalists. Legalism and righteousness are very different things: one is an attitude of doing what's right for credit, another is doing what's right out of love. We need to stop acting like rebellious children who want to act in whatever way they want. We need to spiritually grow up, start being men and women of God who stand up for truth and purity.

I'm speaking as much to myself as to anyone else. I tolerate far too much, and have become desensitized to things that should be revolting. I've bought into the lie that "its not really that big of a deal", I've succumbed to this childish attitude of rebellion against all standards, and trivialized purity.

------

So, a bit of a harsh blog, and a bit random… perhaps I'm randomly connecting things that shouldn't be connected, I dunno.

Read more...

Leadership

A humorous moment from Atlantis was when McKay was recording his "final words" before he was about to die. They consisted mostly of ramblings and emotional introspection, but the humor was that every beat he would say "ah yes, back to my topic... Leadership."And every scene that came back to that recording, he had apparently yet again diverted from his topic.

For whatever reason, I feel compelled to offer some reflections on leadership. Whether or not this will degenerate into me rambling has yet to be seen. Further, it is possible (if not likely) that my presentation of thoughts on leadership (as with McKay) points more to a lack of leadership ability on my part, of which I freely confess.

So what is leadership? More importantly, what are the qualities of a good leader?

Here are a few thoughts of mine: (in no particular order)

1) Knowledge. This does not mean omniscience, or even specialized knowledge. Good leadership requires good comprehensive knowledge. Enough knowledge to always be able to see how thoughts ought to work, and how their parts generally should operate to accomplish their goal. A good leader will also have some degree of knowledge about how people function, and know how to recognize people's needs, reactions, etc.

2) Perspective. Good leaders are always able to see the big picture. As with knowledge, there is a need for awareness of the details, but a good leader will always see how each parts each function, and each step reaches the bigger goal, and is keenly aware when group diverts from its goal. On some level it is ideal for a good leader to be able to see when the smallest unite diverts, but this is not entirely necessary. What is more important is that the leader has a clear sense of the goal and a clear sense of how the parts will function to accomplish this goal.

3) Clarity. A good leader needs clarity in order to assess all the available information, filter out all of the irrelevant details, and then synthesize the correct decision. A good leader does not get confused when challenges arise. He does not get overwhelmed by their imposing nature, but is always sharp in seeing where such things actually pose a challenge to the goal, and what must be done to overcome these obstacles. This again does not require having the answer, but having enough comprehensive clarity not to be overburdened by an apparent challenge, and always maintaining clarity for the big picture. Further, the leader is aware of the needs of the individual parts, and is always factoring in the necessary steps in providing for these needs when appropriate.

4) Accuracy. A good leader probably will make mistakes, but he will always strive for accuracy. In our day and age, their is a common spirit of "fudging" the details, or getting by with the "gist". A good leader strives not necessarily for perfection, but that the parts function accurately, efficiently, and smoothly.

5) Lieutenants. A good leader will always assign skilled lieutenants. This means especially with bigger tasks involving several complex elements having people under the leader who work together well, and also posses some if not all of the qualities of a good leader. The lieutenant is necessary to supplement the leader's comprehensive knowledge with specialized knowledge, reporting the operation and needs of the individual parts (filtered appropriately), and advice and insight into problems based on their specialized knowledge. Lieutenants will likely know more than the leader in their specific field, but if the leader meats the criteria for knowledge, then they will trust his "big picture" knowledge, and submit their specialized knowledge appropriately. A good leader will also trust the input from his lieutenants, and filter this information through the "big picture" and direct them accordingly.

6) Confidence. A good leader recognizes his weaknesses, and also appropriately recognizes his mistakes. But a good leader never lets this lead to second guessing. This must be balanced with knowledge to that the leader is not overconfident, but also that when failures and challenges arise, that the group does not loose heart but can trust that their leader still knows what should be done and is capable of making the right decisions. Confidence does not mean being flawless, but a confident leader is astutely aware of what he can accomplish, what the group can accomplish, and does not let failure challenge what the group is capable of. Further, without confidence a leader will constantly second guess his decisions.

7) Communication. This will overlap with some of the above (especially accuracy). A good leader is able to communicate effectively. This means being able to convey information accurately and being able to accurately understand received information. This also means honest and accurate assessment of all input. A bad leader will simply ignore undesirable input of a subordinate.

8) Strength. A good leader may not possess physical strength, but definitely needs strength of will. This helps the group accomplish their goals when challenges arise, and helps maintain the unity and smooth operation of the group. Further, this is necessary when conflict arises.

9) Wisdom. This also falls under a few different categories, but essentially a good leader must have wisdom. This is not just knowledge or accuracy, but also knowing when and how is best to apply these skills.

The various difficulties that a leader may face:

1) Obstacles -- people, events, or things that get in the way of accomplishing the groups goal. These are either active or passive.

2) Conflict -- when the parts of the group no longer function together. This can be either interpersonal conflict, conflict of interest, or a breakdown of communication. This can also be when one part of the system is attempting to usurp leadership. A good leader knows how to respond to this in an appropriate, controlled, and rational manner. A bad leader will respond emotionally, or with inappropriate extremes.

3) Failure -- either part(s) or the whole fail, and the leader must know how to respond appropriately.

4) Decisions -- while decision making is an essential function of the leader, it is also the most difficult. Making good, rational, and accurate decisions is more than just the "flip of a coin". A good leader is able to assimilate all the relevant information, access the situation rationally, and conclude with an informed decision that he will stand by confidently. The most difficult time is when a decision has been made, and new information arises (either immediately, or later on). A good leader is able to assimilate the new information, and make any necessary corrections.

Finally, I will give some thoughts on what a good "follower" is.

First, he trusts his leader. Admittedly, this is something that at some level must be earned by the leader. In many situations, leadership is assumed and not earned, but the good leader will always take the necessary steps to earn trust. However, a good follower must respond with trust. For any leader to succeed, his subordinates must trust his decisions and perspective.

Second, he must submit. It is all too common that "followers" will attempt to challenge and usurp their leader unless he has demonstrated a strong ability to lead. This only breaks down the system further, resulting in some level or another of anarchy. This is especially difficult for followers when the subordinate has superior leadership abilities (whether perceived or actual). Submission is a necessary skill in life, as every leader is in submission to someone else. Learning to practice submission makes a better follower, and makes better leaders. This can also be difficult when the follower's specialized knowledge seems to contradict the leader's apparent perspective knowledge and decisions. This can either be a result of bad communication (the leader is not communicating how the big picture alters the perspective on the specialized knowledge), bad leadership (the leader is not assimilating the specialized knowledge), or stubbornness (the subordinate is not submitting to the leaders perspective knowledge).

Third, he must follow. This falls under submission and trust, but is separate. Even when the follower disagrees, he must follow the decisions of the leader. When he attempts to challenge or usurp the leader, the system only breaks down. This only breeds disloyalty and division.

Human nature is sinfully flawed, and so there are no perfect leaders or followers. But this does not remove the ideal of the perfect leader, and every leader, whether over large or small ventures must pursue this ideal and attempt to grow and better himself.

Read more...

I don’t buy it

I talked a bit in a previous blog about how a Christian's identity in Christ, and the truth about Christ should impact how we think and live our lives. This is something I think about a lot... and I wanted to add one more thought.

As Christians we rightly affirm that truth, and freely proclaim it. But as my preaching professor liked to say, I don't think we "buy it". We say we believe this, but it doesn't always translate to action in our lives the way the biblical authors assume. There is some disconnect at some level, where what we affirm we don't fully buy into. The Biblical truth is supposed to transform our lives, and the process of salvation is supposed to be conforming our minds to God's. But why does it seem like this sometimes fails? Or why do we sometimes forget about it?

I've put a lot of thought into this question, and have yet come up with a conclusion that is satisfying. This is a deeply personal issue to me, because I feel like I have a decent grasp of the basics of scripture, yet I see so much filth in my life. I think there are several different reasons, and here are a few that I have come up with.

1) Christianity isn't what we really want. This is a harsh statement, but what I mean is that God's way of things is not what we want. The process of salvation, the development of faith, and the lifelong pursuit of trusting God in a significant way is opposite of what human nature wants.

For example, suppose a Sunday morning sermon went something like this:

Everyone stand up. Now get out your Bible's. Now open them to the exact middle (the middle of your bible, not the text itself). Now hold your Bible flat in your left hand, hold it out. With your right hand, place your middle finger on the exact middle of the open bible, and position two fingers on each open page, in exactly symmetrical spots. Now, for the next 5 minutes, focus all of your concentration and energy on the tips of your fingers. Feel the page, and as you concentrate, begin to feel the power of God emanate from the page, and channel into your soul through your fingers.

Although this is fiction and superstition, I guarantee church attendance would be up if this actually worked. If Christianity were about a literal infusion of "power" for 5 minutes every Sunday, people would be very excited. The point is not that true Christians do not want God, but that God's process of things is slow and hard, and is not always immediately experienced by our 5 senses. I think part of us deeply wants this, because this is how things appear "real" to us. We experience the world us with our five senses, and this is all that we know of what is "real". God is still real, and he is still experienced, but we don't see, feel, and hear him all the time.

2) We've bout into a lie about salvation.

I recently heard a sermon by Paul Washer that a friend directed me towards (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=52906154239 ), and I think he might have hit on a significant part of why we don't buy it. We have a very unbiblical (he says heretical) pre-understanding about salvation.

For me, it started when I was a kid. I was told that Jesus lived in heaven, and that after I die I should want to live in heaven with Jesus (and presumably my parents and family). What I needed to do to get into heaven was say a prayer, and Jesus would come into my heart. As a kid, I imagined that when I said this prayer (something like magic words) then this little fairy like Jesus would flutter into my heart and let me into heaven.

Even though I know that this is far from the sum total of what it means to be a Christian, I think when faced with temptation a lot of times, even though I do not consciously think it, at some level there is the thought that "it is okay, because I said the prayer so heaven is not in danger". As I got older, I was taught the doctrine of grace. This meant that all of my sins were forgiven at the cross. This too can compound that unspoken voice when facing temptation, because not only did I say prayer when I was 5, but God will forgive me if I choose to sin.

It is said that the best heresy always has a good deal of truth to it, and just adds just enough falsehood in order to come up with a believable heresy. Paul Washer argues that our understanding of salvation as saying a prayer is such a heresy, because this "say a prayer and get into heaven" attitude removes all responsibility and action. He argues from Matthew 7 that Jesus says the road is narrow and the gate is small that lead to life. Although I do not agree with his strong Calvinist sentiments on the issue, I think he's really hit something here.

The biblical teaching is that the Christian life is tough. It is not about saying a magical formula and getting into heaven. It is about God's kingdom. It is about becoming a part of God's redemptive plan for creation. It is about joining the ranks of God's army and being on the front lines. It is about experiencing the transforming work of his Spirit, and experiencing his new life. But it is also about suffering and difficulty. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the Christian life is easy. In fact, Jesus' teaching of the narrow road points very clearly to the epic struggle that entails Christianity.

Washer says that if we're not living a life like God wants, a life that walks this narrow path, then we are not saved. I think things are far from this simple, because so much of the New Testament is written to assumed believers who are not always walking this path. Instead, I think that salvation is a process. There is a beginning, where the Spirit begins to open our eyes to the truth of God in the context of the preaching of the Gospel. At some point we choose to put our trust in that truth (not going get into the order of salvation issues). And from that point on, our trust is challenged. Walking the narrow path is about suffering, about having to sacrifice the pleasures we want to enjoy in our humanity for the sake of our love for God. It is about suffering at the hands of unbelievers who see these very odd people living weird and intolerant lifestyles. It is about rejecting the old way of life for the new life in Christ.

3) We don't really have faith. Faith is often defined as believing, and we treat evangelism as primarily changing people's beliefs. We must declare Christ as Lord, believe in his Gospel. This is surely important, but this is not the sum total of faith. Biblical faith also (equally if not more) includes trust. No Christian will deny this, after all trusting God is a huge theme in scripture. However, I think that truly developing trust is a long and hard process.

Part of this is the definition of trust. Trust isn't just "hope", nor is it just "probably". I am a person who has grown to not trust very many people, but I can trust that my family will always be there for me when I'm in need, I can trust the sincerity of my wife's love, and I can trust a few of my friends to fight along side me if the need arose. These are rare and special and rare things today. But can I say I trust God in all things? Trust and doubt are complete opposites. I think a significant part of the Christian life is having our doubts proven false, and God proving himself more and more trustworthy. The foundation of trust is knowledge, and we can clearly see that from scripture God is in fact trustworthy. All he asks is that people have faith in him, and he always does what he promises.

One aspect of God's order of things that sometimes causes me to doubt is that his intensions are not the same as mine. I wish I could say I trust God to give me an awesome job in the next month, (because my current one ends in a few weeks). I cannot say this, because I have seen far to many times when God's will is different than mine. However, I am fairly certain I can say that I trust God will provide, because no matter how many times it has seemed like we might not be able to pay next month's rent, he has provided.

Trust is more than just confidence. I think trust must manifest itself in action. You cannot say you trust God will do something, and then sit there idly. There is a delicate balance here, because we can trust God will do something, and then set out to do it in a way different from his plan. But trust also must result in action, because action is where the proverbial "rubber meets the road".

4) We aren't willing. I think this is one of the central defining aspects of Christianity. Are we willing to sacrifice what our natural desires want for God's way? I think initial conversion begins with this question, and the rest of the process of salvation is daily being confronted by this same question. After all, if we are really growing in the Spirit, then we are also regularly being confronted with new areas of our lives that God wants to work on.

This means that for true growth to happen, we need to be working through these issues as they arise. This is part of the danger of habitual sin in the Christian life: habitual sin means that there is awareness of sin, there is recognition that the associated desires need to be sacrificed, and it means that at some level, the person is unwilling to. The danger is also that habitual sin can lead to a hardening of one's heart, and I think this can be very dangerous for a Christian. The story of Israel in the desert is appealed too several of times in this context: they habitually rejected God's way, and ended up missing out on God's blessing in the promised land.

So why don't we always "buy it"? Why do we so easily forget the kingdom perspective, why do we fall into sin so easily, why do people so often fall into the "religion" of Christianity instead of the new life?

1) Its not what we really want. Christianity is a slow and hidden process, and we want to see, hear, and touch the reality of God instead of have faith in his work.

2) We've bought into a lie. At some level, we fall into the trap of thinking that since we said a prayer at 5, we're okay.

3) We don't really have faith. We don't really trust that God will do what he promises, that he has our best interest in mind. Our "trust" doesn't manifest itself in action.

4) We aren't willing. We do not always want to sacrifice the natural desires that God wants us to sacrifice in order to experience growth.

I'm not sure if this entirely answers the question, but I think it is a definite starting place.

God please reveal these wrong attitudes in my heart. Forgive me for not submitting to you. I repent of trying to make you into what I want, instead of letting you make me into what you want. Give me the strength and courage to trust you more, and I know you will continue you to walk with me and help me overcome temptation.

Read more...

My addiction to World of Warcraft.

I have spent far to many hours of my life playing this wonderful temptation. I refuse to post how many actual game days I have spent since I started playing 10 months ago, but I freely admit that number is high.

What is it that attracts me so much to this game?

It is such a detailed and immersive world. Even though I've seen a lot of it several times, I just cannot get enough of it. There is always more to do. I have leveled two characters to 70. It takes a good 6-7 days of play to get to 70 (note this is game days: in other words, 7x24 hours of play). This part is fun enough, and because of the size of the world, I ran a lot of new quests the second time around. Once you hit 70, you may think the game is over, (at least until the expansion comes out next year). However, this is far from true. First, you need to start getting better gear in order to run the heroic dungeons. This takes a decent amount of time. You'll also be finishing up quests to get more money, and start running dailies (which you will probably run for a very long time just to get money). On top of this, you'll have to grind rep for a number of factions, in order to get better gear. After having run them a number of times, you should be close enough to start the raiding content. This is where the game is taken to a whole new level. Now, you get together 10 buddies, (and later on 25) and tackle the most difficult dungeons. There are half a dozen "end-game" raids that progress in difficulty. The latter 2/3 require a good month or so each for a group to get good enough in order to actually complete. You also have to progress through these in a specific order, because each new raid is increasingly difficult, and requires better gear.

So.. needless to say, there is a lot that I find attractive. If I ever hit a place where I never had a new goal to achieve, I would probably drop the game. But that likely will never happen.

I feel rather guilty, because the reality is there are plenty of other things I can do with my time that would be far more productive. I heard a girl once lament that so many future Christian leaders were wasting away their lives at games like World of Warcraft, and this certainly is not far off from the truth.

But, for what it is worth, here is how I justify it. The reality is, we already live in a culture that is addicted to entertainment. I know from experience that the time I play WoW is time that I would have spent watching TV, or bumming around on the net. I really wish that we could have counters on our TV's that said how many hours they have been on, and I think we would be severely humbled by those numbers. I've heard numbers as high as 4-5 hours a day for most young adults.

Although this is far from substantial, I have learned from this game. I think some of my teamwork skills, leadership skills, and communication skills have increased. Again, I freely admit the weakness of this excuse.

So is there a solution? I have thought many times about giving up the game. After all, that would be a number of hours each week that would then be free for more productive tasks like study, music, and devotions. For me, this is unrealistic. I know that if I had that time free, I would just find other avenus of entertainment to fill it. Perhaps this is a weak excuse also, but I do like that WoW keeps track of my time played. I can (and do) pay close attention to this. I haven't worked out a healthy balance, but my goal is that as long as I am:

- Regularly spending times in devotions

- Giving Marcy her fair share of my time

- Spending time studying / preparing for ministry responsibilities

- Am working at a decent job (or working towards)

... as long as these are in place at healthy levels, then maybe WoW isn't such a bad thing. Its just an admission that instead of TV and other pointless entertainment, that WoW fills those spots and keeps track of the time played so hopefully I can maintain balance.

I wish I was the type of person that could schedule all of my 24 hours each day towards specifically productive tasks, but I know this is not possible. Hopefully as I mature I can grow closer to this, but I know from experience that if I do not have a few hours of entertainment each day, I quickly get depressed.

Things like WoW are very dangerous, because it is very easy to spend 10 hours a day. But if you can keep it in a health balance with your other responsibilities, and still feel satisfied with your level of productivity, I do think it is possible to be a WoW addict and still live a healthy life.

Of course.... this could just be denial :)

Read more...

Why Harry Potter is Evil

Having grown up in a small town in Georgia, I've heard almost every argument for why things such as Harry Potter are evil. It supports witchcraft, portraying it positively. It encourages kids to want to explore magic. Because of it, youth are flocking to wika cults. Some would go so far as to accuse Harry Potter as pure propaganda for Satan. I remember hearing stories about how witches would pray over certain toys (I believe they were related to the movie Beatlejuice), praying to the goddess (although the stories said it was Satan) to use the toys to influence children's lives. For the churches I grew up in, things like Harry Potter were the front line offensive of the enemy. Therefore, they required the majority of our energies to prohibit, picket, protest, etc. This was pure evil, and our children must be protected from it.

This of course has some major flaws. First and foremost, some of the greatest Christian writers saw no problem with using magic in their stories (viz. Lewis, Tolkein, etc.). One might try to argue that for them magic was always evil, but this certainly is not the case of all. So is this fear of Harry Potter entirely irrational and a result of overzealous fundamentalism?

Probably so, but as a fan of Harry Potter, I want to try and present an argument for why literature / media such as this can be bad. I think Reynolds has made a good case for why good Christian media is important. The stories (especially fiction) paint metaphors and images, and convey themes that are fundamentally Christian. One cannot help but be impressed with Lewis' genius in the Chronicles of Narnia. In an innocent story, he paints a vivid image of the battle of good versus evil, and the characteristics of evil being selfishness, greed, and so on. The characteristics of pure good are seen in Aslan himself. Aslan is a divine figure, but is never overtly described as such. Aslan is powerful, fearful, gentle, loving, and so on. Further, Aslan demonstrates a sacrificial atonement. Aslan's relationship with Narnians and with the children points to aspects of the divine-human relationship, and subtly touches on some complex theological questions such as sovereignty and responsibility in a simple, profound, and understandable way. After all, Lewis wrote for children.

The point is that Lewis did not feel (as many Christian writers) that he had to put the clear Gospel message in every chapter of his Christian fiction. He used fiction to first tell a great story. And this story dealt with metaphors that are fundamentally Christian. Redemption, Messiah, true and pure love, and so on. As Reynolds said, as a child after reading the Narnia books, he had that common emotional feeling of "if only such a world really existed". Such metaphors can strongly impact how we view the world, after all this is one of the great powers of good art. Its not in the literal interpretation, but the themes and metaphors.

This is also where works such as Harry Potter can be dangerous. It is not the presence of magic, but what magic is a metaphor for. Magic is something that the children utilize freely to control the world around them, viz. the force in Star Wars. After reading a Harry Potter book, one has the same feeling of "if only such a world existed", but although this world is a world of good and evil, it is a world where we primarily can control our own destinies by the forces of magic.

Again, it is not magic's fault. It is the metaphor. I believe this control theme strikes at something primal in humanities sinful nature. Eve's temptation was to be like God, to have the power and knowledge of God. I think it is fair to say that all human sin can be summed up in some form or another of pride: a twisted inward focus that places value on self above all else. This is fundamentally contradictory toward the biblical notion of faith.

I believe that metaphors such as the magic of Harry Potter, or the force of Star wars excite us and appeal to us because we want that kind of control. We want to be able to impact and control the forces around us that seem to dominate and master our destinies. We want that super human power. What kid has not wished he could move objects with his mind? Or manipulate people?

What is the solution? Should we shield our children from such evil? Should we hide any influences that might encourage this anti-faith attitude? The reality is nothing we can do will shield our children from it, because they are born with that attitude. And outside of living in a literal bubble, they will encounter this attitude in its plethora of forms in human society. Further, stories such as Harry Potter are good literature, and we certainly don't want to force our children to endure mediocre stories that are "safe", thus encouraging stunted growth in their God given love for art?

I think this metaphor of control is only dangerous when we are not properly developing the foundation of biblical truth, specifically the biblical notion of faith. We cannot help children by shielding them from evil, but by developing the proper world view and understanding of truth that will allow them to grow in the right way, and respond appropriately to wrong metaphors. If children are driven to cults after reading Harry Potter, something was already fundamentally wrong in their developmental processes, and Harry Potter cannot bear the blame for a larger pre-existent problem.

Instead, it seems to me that parents must first examine their own lives. Do they live the life of faith that Paul describes? Is their life a life of submission to the will of God, and to the Holy Spirit? Is their faith the biblical faith? Only when they start to "get it" can they model and develop "it" in their kids. And of course, this is only in the context of the Holy Spirit also working in their lives.

Harry Potter, Star Wars, and all of the other stories that contain mythical powers to control one's destiny should not be a reason for fear for parents. Instead, if they are good art (and this of course can be debated) then they should be celebrated, and used as an opportunity to address some of these fundamental questions and issues that they raise, both intentionally and unintentionally. Good art is hard to come by these days.

It must be noted, when I say "good art", I mean art that is not just appealing, but good, pure, and beautiful. Harry Potter has a lot of redeeming themes in it, and it is a very good, touching story. It might have its flaws, (such as the author's postscript that Dumbledore is in fact gay), but it is still a good story and can be rightly appreciated by Christian families.

Read more...

Government

I don’t think I’ve ever blogged about politics. I tend to shy away from even talking about it, because no matter who you talk to, discussions are either preaching to the choir (which while providing some sense of belonging and encouragement, seem futile), or disagreement, (which it seems like everyone always has some extra tidbit of information or fact that the other cannot prove or disprove which apparently seals the deal on the argument). So, needless to say, talking about politics bugs me.

But I thought I might reflect some on some of the attitudes in politics that bother me.

1) Entitlement
It is not difficult to find somebody who feels entitled to something. In America we love to appeal to our rights to various things. We act and talk as if anything we individually want should be within the bounds of our rights. However, many of these are hard to sustain outside the basic rights of freedom (within the bounds of the law) and security. Freedom of course must include speech, religion, thought and action. But the reality is the government exists not to provide for us, but to restrain evil. Please note that I stress “restrain”. Government is an imperfect institution that attempts to restrain the influence of evil so that people can live, and so that humanity does not self destruct. But it is impossible for government to eradicate evil, because the solution to evil in humanity is far beyond any mere human institution. Biblically, we know that only through the power of Christ’s death and resurrection can evil be eradicated.
Governments exist to provide some sense of order and control of evil in humanity. Although unpopular, this is essentially legislating a basic moral system. This system includes murder, theft, and harm. Beyond this though, government has not right to function.
So the government does not “owe” us anything. Our taxes are supposed to secure us from outside attack, provide for policing, some control to sustain a basic level of order, and other areas of safety (such as aid in natural disaster, fire, etc.). Further, the government is not responsible for providing basic necessities or luxuries. The idea of people living off of welfare simply because of their laziness is disgusting, and clearly contradicts the biblical principle of 2 Thess. 3:10: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat”.
Finally, this attitude towards entitlement on many levels is a lazy attitude. It is relegating all responsibility (or most of it) to someone else, and for many the easiest target is the government.

2) Government and good will
In a similar vein, many seem to presuppose that the government is responsible for good will towards those in need, whether foreign or abroad. This simple is not a reasonable expectation of an institution that is designed to restrain evil. Good will is virtuous, but it must be enacted freely by individuals or institutions. Government is not designed to provide good will to others. There are definite ways that government can assist good will movements, but government is too inefficient and poorly designed to solely be responsible for good will.

3) War
Another troubling attitude is towards war. For governments to properly restrain evil, sometimes war is necessary. There is far too much evil in the world for any government to effectively police the world, (and no government is pure enough to objectively function as such). But when there are powers in place that pose a real threat, government is responsible to respond in an appropriate way. Many are cynical towards the reality of war in humanity. It is all to common in science fiction to have some outsider reflect on the savagery of humanity, that we kill one another and are so naturally violent. This is a true reflection of humanity, and attempting to distance ourselves as if the seeds of such destruction are not in us is only naive and self deception. Humanities’ violence IS a tragedy, but we cannot ignore the source of this problem. It is not some “barbaric notion” that we will evolve away from, but it is at our very core. Biblically, this is unmistakably our sin nature. Roddenberry’s vision of the future was that humanity would evolve away from this, but any examination of history will make clear that we aren’t doing any better. As civilization has progressed, many of us are free from much of the chaos and destruction of life, but this does not mean we have removed the core reasons why such chaos exists in the world. We have only built a wall high enough that we can sometimes forget about it. For many, this may sound like a criticism of the western world, and that we should be more sensitive and “enlightened” about the plight of the 3rd world. At some level, this is certainly true. But at another, I think we should also recognize that all humans are sinful, and although we may have some luxuries the 3rd world doesn’t have, we also have a whole different set of issues and problems that to them are ludicrous. And yet, in all of this, even the “ideal” socialized countries of western Europe, sin still reign sin all humanity.
All of this to say that war is necessary. We should grieve the losses in Iraq, but I am still strongly convinced that it was a right thing. Of course there are other places where things were worse, but there were a number of necessary ingredients involved to make Iraq viable. (Such ingredients that currently are not setup for places such as Iran and North Korea). Further, establishing a peaceful, democratic state in Iraq can ultimately only be good for stabilizing such a turbulent region. We can point to the suffering of Iraqis, and how the new government is only stirring up more trouble in the Middle East, but can we really be foolish enough to accuse the whole venture as wrong? When there are forces and governments bent on evil and not restraining it, we can only expect that when we act to bring such restraint, they will only resist. Such restraint is simply not achieved by pacifism, and it is truly tragic that countries that suffered at the hands of Nazism still are proponents of such a philosophy.
It would be difficult in our globalized world to have another Hitler, (though surely not impossible). But leaders such as Saddam that posture themselves and support terrorist organizations are only trying to bring chaos and destruction to the world. If Sadam brought order (though oppressive), yet still sought to bring chaos and evil to the world, is it not ultimately right (and the right function of government) to remove such leadership? This undoubtedly would (and has) cause suffering, but if its for a greater good, I think it is necessary. Bush may have his failings on many levels, but I do think he has done a right thing in Iraq, and the fruits of his persistent will are beginning to show. My fear is that when Obama becomes president (which it seems all but likely will happen) that he will be so concerned with appeasing the mass that he will undo some of the good that Bush has begun. This attitude towards war is very nearsighted, idealistic, and naive.

4) Cynicism
Most people have some level or another of cynicism towards to government. It is only “out to get you”, it is only there to control you, and in an almost child-like fashion, it is only there to spoil our fun. This attitude presupposes that the government is always corrupt, always out to oppress, and the people who lead in government are only out to secure more power for themselves. These things are certainly true of some, (if not many), but the institution of government is not a singular identity that can rightly be blamed for such things. Such blame is only appropriate when dealing with a dictator. Under more democratic systems, checks and balances are in place to hopefully sustain some level of balance (although admittedly these rarely work perfectly). Further, when governments do function wrongly, in a democratic system it is only the fault of the people. If we elect officials who appealed to us visually and who seduced us with flattery and unsubstantiated promises, and yet prove to lack character, substance, and right vision, then it is our fault for being superficial.

5) Equality
There seems to be a common notion that equality on every level is good. This is often relegated to the function of government to impose this level of equality. Of course inequality in areas such as race are clearly wrong, but other areas of equality such as economic seem hardly fit. Communism (and to a lesser degree socialism) has made clear that human nature is the antithesis of economic equality. It is sad when there is a great disparity between the poor and rich, but in the ideal situation wealth should reflect work. This is a necessary motivating principle for humanity to function. Very few people gain wealth simply by ancestry. It is not the role of government to make sure all resources and opportunities are evenly distributed. If equality at a basic level is truly a virtue, then this must be taught and must operate from the mass, and not legislated.


In summary, here is what I think government is responsible for:

1) Restraint of evil
- Basic ethical code and enforcement of it (including appropriate consequences)
- Protection of citizens from outside evil
- Consequences for unrestrained evil
- Sustain balance of security and freedom (even though these two are in antithesis)

2) Order
- Basic level of management of financial system
- Transit system
- Some basic checks and balances to encourage fair commerce
(though it is difficult for government to be solely responsible for fair commerce)
3) Foreign
- Maintaining good relations with other countries to encourage trade
- Restraint of evil against nation
(note, this must be balanced with a sense of justice towards foreign nations. It would be wrong to commit an injustice towards another nation in the name of security.)
Read more...

The Good, Beautiful, and True

I believe this triad comes from JMR. It seems a fitting and well rounded triad of the things that should be important to and dwelt upon by Christians. It is an interesting triad for sure. The Good is obvious enough, the one true morality, the biblical Righteousness, and the divine ideal of how things ought to be ordered. Skipping ahead, nothing should be more important than the true. God is the source of truth, has revealed himself through the True one, and all of reality as it actually is can only be understood by some grasp of truth.

So good and true both make a lot of sense for a Christian perspective. A Christian perspective being those things that should be most important to a Christian, those things that he should spend his time dwelling on, and those things that should occupy the majority of his thoughts. These are things that draw him closer to God because these are essential characteristics of God. To dwell on these at some level is to dwell on the character of God, because these things are defined and shaped by his existence. Further, growing in these areas means one is being conformed to God's likeness, because he is allowing these realities of God to shape his thinking and permeate his being.

This is all good and true (no pun intended), and should be plainly obvious to most. But where some (possibly many?) will disagree is whether or not beauty should be included in this category. After all, is not beauty superficial? Is it not vanity to be concerned about the mere aesthetic?

Of course we can say that a term we often use in a subjective sense can find its only objective meaning in God himself. I am far from qualified to provide any philosophical definition of beauty. But, despite being amateur and unskilled, I will give it a shot in order to answer the question, is beauty in the same category of the good and true?

Beauty is attraction. It is elation. It is some sensory experience that brings pleasure. But it is must be more than neurons firing in specific patterns, because beauty transcends the individual, transcends the community, the culture, and the race. Although many will dispute some forms of beauty, it will be nearly universally agree upon about others. Beauty is something external that stimulates our senses and raises our opinion of the world around us. Beauty can be perverted of course, as with all good and true things. Beauty involves pleasure, but is also certainly distinct and greater than pleasure.

Beauty is the motivation behind art. Beauty is allusive, even though it is all around us. Beauty is beyond function, and can be seen in order, chaos, symmetry, and asymmetry. Whether spoken, music, or picture, artists attempt to create something that conveys and captures some degree of beauty. Man stands out from all creation in his appreciation of beauty.

Is it possible that beauty, like the true and good, is actually a reflection of the divine? That those things we find genuinely beautiful in some sense reflect the divine glory? If this is the case, then we find things beautiful (in a pure sense) only when we see some echo of the divine glory. Only when we seen something that reminds an innate sense in our soul of the one and true Beautiful. When we enjoy a breathtaking sunset, or are awakened by a fresh sunrise, or enjoy a landscape, or hear a song that we are experiencing the fingerprint of God on creation. This would explain its elusive nature, because we are only detecting the imprints of the divine glory on and in creation. But this also explains how it can be all around us at the same time.

There is no reason for beauty to exist. Some might try to explain how morality is just a pragmatic way to help the species endure, (though this hardly will due), there really is no practical or beneficial reason for beauty to exist. One might try to define beauty as those things which also will help the species continue, but this is easily refuted by one's experience of beauty.

Beauty is also sinister. As flawed humans, we can only enjoy so much beauty before it becomes perversion. At some point, we either become numb to the reality of beauty, or we became gorged on it.

Once again, I have neither the skill nor the knowledge to further articulate this point. But it does seem clear to me that those things we find genuinely beautiful (without perversion) are a dim and minor reflection of the divine glory. If this is the case, then beauty definitely belongs in the same category as the good an the true. And if this is the case, then learning to appreciate beauty at a deeper and more mature level is a goal that all Christians should have, right alongside growing in understanding of the good and true. It is because all three of these are reflections of the Divine, and in dwelling on these and growing in our appreciation of them, we are growing closer to the mind of God.

So why is it that Christians should not settle for poor art? Or should not settle for mediocre music? Or should not settle with trends and clichés? It is the same reason why we should not settle for simple truths and basic morality. We are not growing as persons, and we are not growing as Christians. Gaining a deeper appreciation and understanding of beauty in art, music, literature, and so on are all important goals that as people, as Christians, and as disciples of Christ we should wholeheartedly pursue. It is the good, the beautiful, and the true.

Read more...

There is Power in the Blood

As Christians, we cherish the theological truth of the power in Jesus' blood. Jesus' death on the cross is easily the center of Christianity. The worship song "There is power in the blood" articulates this notion, that there is power in Jesus' blood, "wonder working power". A few months ago, it struck me while spending some time in thought that Jesus' sacrifice rightly should stand as our center focus. After all, it was his blood that established the new covenant, it is by his blood that we will stand justified before God, and it is by his blood that God's plan for redeeming humanity is accomplished. What struck me though was that I could not think of any Biblical significance to the resurrection.

Paul certainly believes the resurrection is core, as he is willing to say that his entire ministry is in vain and his and the church's faith is in vain if Christ didn't actually rise from the dead, (1 Cor. 15:14). So the resurrection is certainly important, if for anything as a demonstration of God's power, and Christ's living presence today. But theologically, is this the entirety of its significance?

One might chime in at this point that in fact there is more, because the resurrection proves Jesus' deity. But the New Testament authors consistently attribute the power of Jesus' resurrection to the Father, and though theologically we could add a note here about the Trinity, this role / distinction should not be removed. However, there is in fact a lot more significance to the resurrection. There is a very good and solid theological basis for Paul's strong words about the importance of Jesus' resurrection. We must first begin by defining the significance of resurrection in a Biblical framework.

First, resurrection is most importantly a resurrection to life. This mostly goes without saying, but it cannot be overstressed. Man's fall into sin brought death. This curse was not only manifest itself in man dying (spiritually and likely physically Gen 3:19), but also all of creation suffered a curse. The undoing of this death obviously would need to be brought about by a new infusion of life. Paul says as much in Romans 5, that Jesus' death undid our enmity with God, but it is by his life that we are saved.

So, resurrection means new life. This infusion of life and restoration can be seen in the Old Testament prophets, (such as Jeremiah's stone of flesh). 1 Peter also picks up on this theme, that we are a part of a new creation, we have new life in salvation. This is seen again and again throughout the New Testament.

As Christians, I think we reduce Christianity to simply dealing with the problem of sin. We stress that Jesus not only paid the debt, but also stands in our place before God, so that God only sees Jesus' righteousness. In a more Pauline vein, we are redeemed from enslavement to sin and freed to live righteously to please our Father. Salvation is not just about having our debt of sin paid. In fact, I think that the issue of sin is actually secondary.

Sin is what brought our death and enslavement, and thus it has to be dealt with. But God's purpose was not just to pay a debt. His goal was redemption. The reason the Biblical narrative begins and ends with Eden is because Eden is God's goal. A righteous and pure human race that has an unhindered relationship with God. More than this, God wanted a restoration of all creation. New Creation is primarily about humanity, but Paul and John both see this applying to all of creation. Dealing with the debt of sin does not transform. Death is the problem, and it was caused by sin. So sin must be dealt with, but Jesus' sacrifice does not bring life, it only deals with the problem of sin. Of course we will admit that God makes us righteous, but it often seems like the details are averted to Sanctification, and then glossed over. How does God want to make us righteous?

The solution is new life, new creation. God wants to remove our slavery to sin by Christ's death, and pay our debt. But it is by the power of his resurrection that he wants to transform us. Jesus' resurrection is the first fruits of God's promised new creation. This is not only spiritual life, but physical life. New life means an undoing of physical death and decay. Our new bodies will not suffer the same ills as today, and thus Paul can say that Jesus' resurrection is the firstfruits of a wider physical resurrection of those already dead, (1 Cor. 15:20). We cannot relegate God's salvation only to our spiritual lives, it must encompass all of creation because God's kingdom is repeatedly couched in such language throughout scripture. One has a hard time studying John's theological of life and its biblical background to miss this. In the same line of thinking, Jesus' death brought the New Covenant, but the purpose of covenant is to bring life.

Many passages speak of our present experience of this new life. We are both freed from sin and giving this new life. Of course it is natural to expect this to be progressive in this already/not yet period. And naturally our hope is looking forward to its finality, when our transformation is completed (Christ's return and judgment).

So we need to celebrate Jesus' resurrection just as much if not more than his death. His death was necessary, but our only hope lies with his life. We are not slaves to sin, and we are new creations with new life. It is then fitting to say (as is often said in scripture) that we need to live a life that reflects this reality. Living a contrary life either points to the illegitimacy of what we proclaim (as in, one has not really experienced new life) or something very dangerous: one has experienced new life, but is choosing to live by his old life. I think it is in this light that we can see a clear application of the message of Hebrews: Jesus is far greater than anything we formerly had, so we need to press on and hold firmly to the faith we profess.
Read more...

LTE review

just gotta say this was the absolute most amazing musical experience I've ever had.. I cannot begin to convey the overwhelming emotions I experienced.... needless to say, my socks have been officially knocked off. It wasn't just the experience of hearing songs I've loved and cherished over the last 10 years live for the first time, but also all those extra little DT moments :) (like the extended ending of Kindred Spirits).

First off, they covered a lot of the LTE 1 and 2 material.
Here is a rough breakdown (not in order) of what they played (best I can remember):

Acid Rain
Kindred Spirits
Biaxident
Freedom of Speech
Hourglass
Universal Mind
When the Water Breaks (you better believe this was amazing)
Another Dimension
Osmosis
Paradigm shift

And all of it was note for note perfect. Including the improvised solos, they covered them perfectly (I really expected them to be a bit more loose on some, but nope). There were only a few very minor rythmic parts that were off (and taht is from somebody who has memorized those albums note for not).

They had a couple of improvised songs that brought in elements of 3 minute warning and chewbacca, but still very improvised and abstract. They were okay, but these were my least favorite part.

Halfway through the jam part of universal mind, Petrucci's rig died. Especially after what happened in Chicago, tensions were high. The timing wasn't that bad, because it was right before Rudess began his piano solo. It was obvious it was going to take some time to fix Petrucci's rig, and Portnoy slipped a note to Rudess which obviously said "keep going".

This was amazing... Rudess just kept going... what an awsome time of improve. Its a bit ironic for albums that were recorded at the speed of improv that they've been forced into long improv sessions on two shows :)

They had a 5+ camera video shoot going on, so I'm really hoping they are going to make a DVD. From the camera's point of view, you never would have known that there were technical difficulties, Jordan just kept the show going. After about 5 minutes, they fixed the guitar rig, and the rest of the band transitioned naturally into the rest of the song.

I think the highlight of the night, and definitely worth the cost of admission, was a version of Rhapsody in Blues LTE style. I really hope there is a DVD, or they jump into the studio for this song. I wasn't too familar with it, but after hearing they were playing it on this tour I listened to the original all afternoon. What a great song, and they definitely owned it. There were just some classic LTE moments with this newer material.

So all in all, no question about it, this was the absolute BEST musical experience I've ever had. The bar of my expectation for musical performance has been raised a lot higher than I care to admit. Part of me is uncontrollably drive to play my guitar, another part is terrified to ever pick it up again.
Read more...

Gratitude

God is really good.

I so rarely spend time reflecting on all the amazing blessings he has brought into my life. This is a brief blog to mention a few.

First, he blessed me with an amazing family. Sure, we have a lot of flaws, but fundamentally I have parents that love me, are godly, and have done their best to cherish me and raise me in a biblical way.

Second, he blessed me with an amazing wife. She is the most patient person I know, and she cares deeply about others. She also has a deep love for God that blows me away. And, although it is a bit shallow of me, she is also beautiful. When I think about the girls in my past that I was enamored with I realize again and again that God definitely knew what was best for me. I am totally undeserving of her.

Third, he has provided for me even in the most difficult of times. When I was a grad student, on many occasions we would make our budget each month against all odds and reason. Further, I have been unemployed for 2 weeks now, but he has been bringing in money to support us.

Fourth, he has blessed me with an amazing church to call a family. The people there love God, love community, love his truth, and love people. And for some reason, despite my failures and inadequacies, they keep asking me to be involved in ministries. I've grown so much in the last few years and have learned so much about God and what it means to minister to others.

Fifth, he has blessed me with safety. There have been a number of situations in my life where I was in danger, but he always brought me through it. We live in a world full of hatred, injustice, and natural disasters. We also live in a neighborhood that has a decent amount of crime, but he continues to keep us safe.

I could list a lot of other things, like being able to have a few really sweet toys, or being blessed with an education that lets me study his Word, or being able to enjoy music and art, or simply being able to eat food that I enjoy.

The real question is, how should I respond? Gratitude yes, but I think more. I think that because he has given so much, the very least I could do is respond by living a life that is pleasing to him. That is not why he blesses me, but I think it is the appropriate response. It is part of living in relationship with him.

I think also that my love for him shouldn't be contingent on these blessings. Sometimes God takes away his blessings for us to grow in our trust of him. I'm afraid I do not know how I would respond to that. I talked to somebody today who is loosing his home, his family has gone through multiple crises over the last several months, and his wife just lost a job. I do not know how I could handle that. I've felt some sense of loss in my struggle to find a job, but that hardly compares. Its easy to love God and be thankful when he gives, but how will I respond when he doesn't? Only time will tell, but I do know this: God is faithful. He will continue to carry me along and provide for needs. When he brings difficulty, he will sustain me as long as I hold on to him and trust him. That is what faith is: trusting God through difficult times. Holding on because you know that he is the only way.
Read more...

Biblical literracy, Christian education, and Life Principles

I haven't been blogging much in the last several months.. and since I am presently unemployed and have a decent amount of free time, I am committing to starting up again.

I feel caught in a tension. Christians seem to be stuck in an "all or nothing" mentality when it comes to biblical education. Either we study grand overarching systematic theology, or we reduce the text to mere life principles.

This has been painfully clear to me in my present quest for finding a new job. I've been researching a lot of high schools, and many seem to have no need for somebody with a Masters degree in New Testament. Their Bible curriculums are so basic and simple that it is no accident that they pass out Bible classes to coaches or teachers with specialties in other fields.

In my mind this is very discouraging. If we believe scripture is God's revealed truth, and if we agree with Paul that God's wisdom makes any mere human wisdom appear foolish, then we must start with a solid understanding of scriptural truth before we can really proceed with any other. It would seem that this simply means that if we're trying to educate our kids to actually think critically and well about issues of truth, then why would we want to simplify their biblical education? I have no problem with other subjects being taught at a high level, but my problem is when Bible is seen as the "easy subject". We should NEED more specialized high school Bible teachers, (and I say this with conviction, not self interest).

Instead, a lot of what I have seen is basic Bible survey, and lots of "Life Principles" classes. In my opinion, at least out of the schools I've seen, many have a Bible program that is just a glorified youth group. This content is what I think is appropriate for parents to teach in the home, and also covered (and then some) in the church. What is the point of repeating this material a third time? If being raised in a Christian family and attending a church is not enough to explain why you should not go out and have sex, or what Christian dating looks like, then I doubt a Bible class at high school will really change your mind. Of course no family or church is perfect, but I do not think that then should shift the focus of Bible classes, especially when the classrom is hardly the place for a mentoring relationship. Instead, Bible classes need to suplement the home and church, building a solid Biblical literate basis with the principle of pursuing Christian excellence.

Its been my experience at Biola that a lot of freshmen already have an established opinion on theology, and many are overwhelmed with Biola's Bible classes. This is really sad, because at least those who came from a solid church, and certainly those who went through a Christian High School should find Biola's Bible classes no more of a challenge than Biola's English or History classes. College is the next step up, and when your finding that instead of a step you have a chasm to cross, something is wrong. And I do not believe it is that Biola's standards are too high.



But here is where my tension lies. On the one hand, I feel like we need more and much better Biblical education. On the other hand, I think we must keep this in balance with the intensions and purposes of scripture. When we read a book like Hebrews, and simply want to teach it as "Doctrine about Christ", or worse, after teaching find ourselves with no application at all, then something is wrong. Just like Paul with Romans, the author of Hebrews had a very specific exhortational purpose for the book of Hebrews. He did not write it just so the audience could have a better understanding of Christology. For the author, the truth's he elaborates on about Christ are supposed to directly impact how the people live. This is clearly seen in his repeated exhortation to living faithfully, and persevering through trials and tempatations, (specifically the tempation to return to Judaism). Because of Christ's surpassing greatness, because of his role as high priest, becasue of the culmination of salvation history in Christ, we need to hold on and continue a life of faith, just like so many heroes of the faith did before us.

But this really gets at the problem. Biblical authors give us theology with the intent that it impact how we live our lives, but it seems like in the church we've divided these two. We'll either teach theology (though usually systematic, so its a bit removed from the text), or watered down life principles. This really hit me when I was teaching on 1 Peter a couple of weeks ago. In my mind, it made a lot of sense. The first half of chapter 1 basically says "see what an amazing salvation we have in Christ", and the latter half says "now live faithfully". For the author, the whole reason of talking about the truth of our great salvation was to motivate his readers to live faithfully. But when I taught it, I was not able to convey this. I felt like the kids were not connecting. This is probably because I'm not a great teacher, but still it really hit me that we're so accustomed to either being bored by "truth", or exhorted by "relevant application". And usually (it seems), the more relevant the application, the less it is tied to the passage. But for the Biblical authors, truth is supposed to impact how we live. If we believe the truth, it impacts our identity, and impacts us so deeply that in order to really believe it, we must live differently. Perhaps I am unable to explain this connection better because I have this mentality of separating truth and application so ingrained.

So I am caught in a tension, on the one hand, I think we desperately need greater biblical literacy, but on the other, I think we need less "theology" and more of the intended message. There is certainly an important role that systematic theology plays, and I do not want to undermine that. There are certainly difficult questions that the message of scripture raises, and I do not think we can really and satisfactorly remain agnostic on issues such as sovereingty and responsibility. But these are secondary. We cannot loose the message of the text. But we also should not water it down in the name of relevancy, or worse, to be more interesting. Of course, the greatest hindrance to this is first learning how to "get at" the message. Learning how to actually read a book rightly, learning to pay attention to historical and literary context, and learning to follow an author's logical and thematic developement can be frustrating. But without it, we're in danger of loosing something precious. We have to maintain that delicate balance between the study of scripture and its application.

That's all for now....
Read more...

Ben Stein

Had to work for an apologetics event tonight at Biola... it was about the upcoming documentary made by Ben Stein "Expelled".

Anyway, some interesting testimony tonight, and Ben Stein gave a good speech about his motives for the documentary. What strikes me as incredible is looking up the movie on wikipedia how /already/ (movie wil be released on April 18) the majority of the entry is full of slams and responses to the movie. It is just very fascinating....

You know, it just blows me away how loud, powerful, and prevelant the voice of liberalism is in our country.... sometimes its almost overwhelming.... Like just a split second thought of... "wow I am a fool for not buying into the whole package deal"

It just amazes me how at the drop of a hat groups can come up with so much convincing data.... its sort of like debating a Calvinist.. they will throw so many scripture passages, that the cumulative effect is very convincing.... if it weren’t for the nagging feeling that the picture painted is too perfect, and the data doesn’t match your own interpretations (or leaving the metaphore, experiences).

Not that Ben Stein is flawless... the few clips from the film did seem a bit extreme, I seriously doubt he is no Michael Moore, but he is also an entertainer. But I’ve heard to many testimonies from Christian scholars I trust of the extreme bias they have faced in the scientific community... I have seen too many times that "intelligent design" is referred to with the pejorative term "creationism" (when I know first hand that there is a very clear difference)... I have also seen all too often how the media catches on to trends (like any evidence of global warming automatically = man caused)..... The testimonies of scholars who have been black listed and kicked out of universities for writing articles or supporting intelligent design is very believable.

It truly is ironic that we live in a society that exalts freedom of speech so high, but at every turn we make sure that you "freely" speak about the right things in the right way.
Read more...

Dream Theater Concert Review

This is my review of the Dream Theater concert Friday night at the Universal Studios Gibson Amphitheatre.

Into Eternity:

Overall, this was a very disappointing set. The audio was so poor that it was often hard to hear the guitars and vocals, enough that at parts it was very difficult to hear the melody/chord progression. Further, the bass wasn't even in the mix. This didn't help their performance, which was the typical thrash/metal deal, which isn't really my taste and a bit boring "hey look, another cram as many notes as possible solo".

Redemption:

This is a band I want to hear more of… some interesting stuff, but some also some more typical metal stuff. They use a lot of odd tempo changes, and are very rhythmically interesting. What I don't get is why bands will have a riff that has very little to do w/ the vocals its behind. It just doesn't work. The audio and lighting was also mediocre for this group… at this point in the show, I was wanting my money back.

Dream Theater:

Wow… just wow. Best dream theater show ever. When the curtain dropped, the band rocked my world. They played over 2 hours, which was surprising because both opening bands played for just under an hour. They played a lot of new stuff, but also covered a lot of older songs. There were a couple I'd never heard live before, like misunderstood, surrounded, and caught in a web. All of the extended solos were very interesting, the stage presence was good, and the band was very tight (though got a bit loose at a few parts). Highlights included Rudess breaking out a keytar and playing a duet w/ Petrucci the way we always wanted him to. Another highlight was the new Dream Theater medley. They have 9 albums now… so its hard to cover a lot of that material in one show. The new medley incorporated parts from the previous 8 albums, including Finally Free and In the Name of God. The Spirit Carries on was a special moment for sure.

While the lighting for the first 2 sets was mediocre (12 intelligent lights), when the curtain dropped fro DT, I was blown away to see over 40 intelligent lights on the ceiling. Consequently, the lighting was very amazing.

Petrucci's tone was also outstanding. He preferred his new wooden design guitar.

Rudess' setup seems to grow each tour. He has a new keyboard stand which is a molded hand point upwards at its base, with the main keyboard resting on its fingers. He also has a second controller and a tone generator attached to the main keyboard, making it quite a monster.

Labrie was also on for most of the night. Sometimes he's hit or miss, but he nailed it.

Walking away from the show, I realize even more so how amazing this band is. Some of the new songs that I'm not as fond of were awesome live. The opening bands really contrasted starkly w/ Dream Theater. Dream Theater has a metal element to them, but it is entirely inaccurate to call them metal. Hearing them side by side w/ metal bands makes this painfully clear. The production of their songs is outstanding, and despite their virtuoso chops, they remain melodic and creative. It is amazing that after 9 albums, they've still got it. That, and each album has such a distinctive tone to it, each so unique and creative. This band truly is the best band ever.

Read more...

Gospel Worship

Just wanted to note that I'm starting to fall in love with Gospel music...

There's just something about classic hymns being sung with that kind of groove and musicianship. I am all about simplicity, (as in, Dream Theater should not lead worship), but I think simplicity is often used (especially in western non-charismatic churches) to mean simplistic.

What bugs me about Gospel music is often it has a lot of shallowness to it (theologically), but when you mix classic hymns... somehow.. it just feels complete. Its like, here God, we're going to worship you in truth and we're not going to worship you in mediocrity, but with our full persons to our very best.


Anyway.... so the question is,
if music is such a powerful medium to worship God in, why should we not strive for excellence?
What qualifies as distractions (both in being too musical and not enough)?
What does it mean (spiritually) if we are not striving for excellence?
Why is it that the very best (musically) worship teams usually are so weak theologically, and the strongest worship teams (theologically) usually are so poor musically?
How does better music benefit worship? Does it help people worship more, does it glorify God more?

That's all, any thoughts would be appreciated!

Read more...

Battlestar Galactica

I love Battlestar Galactica... but normally not because it has a redeeming moral message, but rather the drama and action are amazing, the characters and plots / commentary on humanity facinating, and the show is so incredibly dark.

I just wanted to comment how awsome last Sunday's episode was though in its message about marriage.

Its been awhile since I saw anything TV/Movie related that had such a high view of marriage. The ep. was very counter cultural:
(spoilers for those who care)

Two main characters have had this love thing building from the beginning of the show, but one problem: they both are married. The last few ep.s they've been toying with an affair... you know, the popular idea of "go with your feelings", "follow your heart" etc. Basically, its okay that your married, you made a mistake but it would be worse not to follow your heart and be miserable the rest of your life.

Except this is not what they did.... the girl was all for the affair, the guy was one step away. It came down to a choice, and he ended up choosing to stay with his wife. This was in part to the advice of another main character: who pointed out that since he was married, he never looked back.

This was just incredible.... and the episode portrayed it as both were happier for staying with their spouse. Breaking their marraiges would have been destructive and ultimately made both unhappy. Further: the plot was believable. In a culture infatuated with our own selfish desires, this was a pretty amazing message.

Anyway... great drama, good values... that's all..
(besides... who knows, next week maybe it will all fall apart, but thats why I love the show!)

Read more...