The Sickness of Us

I got news today of someone throwing a birthday party for their three-year-old, and the parents registered their child for gift-buying. Yes, they registered their child. What is going on here? Parents want their child to have a fun-filled birthday party, and they want gifts, and they don't want repeat gifts, and they want gifts from a particular store, to boot.

They want gifts.

I don' t know if the couple is a Christian one, but I take a gander that they are, based upon the source of this malady. As a Christian, I grow more weary of not only our increasingly secularized culture which is (let's be intellectually honest folks) at war with Christian ideas. But what concerns me even more is the attitude of my fellow evangelicals: we want the American dream consisting of 1) the perfect job with the great perks 2) the perfect house in the nice neighborhood 3) the perfect spouse 4)and finally, the perfect church--especially a nice, big building. But I digress.

Or do I?

These parents reveal a gross symptom entrenched with roots deep in the ethos of the American experience: the big dream wrought through materialist gain which promises happiness. The child's name was registered? For the child's 3rd birthday party? Sigh.

I am a father of three children. I like to give my girls presents. But, along with the other children of the world, I think of the children I actually met in Ethiopia who don't even have parents. They don't even have parents. Ach! This action--this child registering--seems so out of accord with reasonable expectations not just of social mores, but of mere life itself.

The sickness of U.S. is not only our materialism, our so-called rights and sense of entitlement. But here is the deep poison: the slow, methodical, intravenous seeping Novocaine. It is that this practice will soon not make us bat an eyelash, but that it will become standard fare. Can you not see the advertisement now? The smiling, pretty woman says, "Make gift-giving easy for the little one in your life: register your child's name for birthdays today!" And we'll buy it. Because it's easy, after all. And that's what we want. Easy, carefree, happy. And stuff will bring it all to pass. Stuff. "More stuff please!" he says, as he holds out the already-full plate.

Now, rather than a mere (but justifiable) indictment, let's find a solution. Here's a helpful way to curb the materialism. I know of a family that, instead of asking for presents for their child, rather asked those invited to purchase materials for Christmas shoe box ministries. Many churches and other ministries send shoe boxes full of educational materials, trinkets, cards, etc. to needy children during the holidays, and this makes a great way to help others, show the child whose birthday it is what is really important in life, and also slap the materialism that pervades our lives in the face. Even if your child doesn't have a birthday close to the holidays, the shoe box idea can still work. And that's just one idea.

Now go help someone and give materialism the old heave ho.

Does Work Have Value? Thoughts on Vocational Triad

I think a lot about the work people do, and the work I do. And I tend to think of work on a theological level. I ask questions about the inherent goodness of my work, and how it relates to God’s kingdom. In a more general way, I share the angst that millions feel about the work they do: does it really matter? Does this work make a difference? Of course, some people are content to just have a paycheck. Nothing wrong with that, really. But Christians are (or should be) concerned with whether their work will produce something good in the world. Does this work help my fellow man? Also, does this work have any inherent goodness to it all on its own? For example, the guy who operates a machine in a shop—is that work “good” in all the ways described above, and is there any satisfaction and meaningfulness in doing the work?

Living in the post industrial age makes all of this difficult in many ways. For, industrial jobs can limit man’s ability to create, because the engineers have created the machines that do the work. A man merely “operates” the machine. In some ways, the machine operates the man: the man must “keep up” with the machine or things will fall apart very quickly, and he’ll be out of a paycheck. This is what Huxley was concerned about in his book Brave New World. So, I spoke with my buddy Vinnie (who fired me from my job as a chaplain and later took the job over—we’re still friends—it’s a long story), and Vinnie was telling me that he worked at a factory for five years prior to working that the homeless shelter (where I got fired from. Okay, I was asked to resign. But enough of that). While at the factory he told himself, “I’m making this chair, and I’m making it to the best of my ability for the good of the company, and somebody is going to buy this chair and enjoy it. This is a good thing and it glorifies God.”

Vinnie and I talked about how so many Christians hold to a view of work that is directly opposite of the attitude Vinnie had--indeed, what the Bible has. Perhaps you’ve heard people say, “He’s got a secular job right now, but he’s thinking about going into the ministry.” This is a sacred/secular dichotomy that has roots in Roman Catholic teaching that sees nature and grace as opposed to each other. In other words, there is the natural world of work, and then there is the sacred work of “ministry.” Sacred work is for Christian workers in the church or some sort of ministry, while the rest of mankind works well, for themselves, ultimately. The Reformers, however, were adamant that individual persons who work various jobs can do so to the glory of God. The blacksmith, the shoemaker, the baker, the husband’s duties the wife’s duties, the civil magistrate’s duties—all these are done with a good heart to the glory of God. "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God," (1 Corinthians 10:31). This—this—is a sacred work.

Now of course, we come to the 21st century. People don’t have their own “shoppes” in the downtown Centre Square where they produce a specialty good with creative care, expertise and joy. At least not too many people do. Most people who work in production as I do, have a difficult time enjoying it because of the sheer monotony of it. Of course, many people tire of their jobs no matter what field they are in for the same reasons. On the other hand, it’s quite obvious that some jobs offer more creativity than others. Still, we get bored, don’t we? But the point the Reformers made, and the point Vinnie made, was that there was thankfulness in the work being done, there was a sincere effort to do a good job at it, and there was an attitude of doing it for the glory of God. There is therefore a triad in one’s work, or vocation: creativity, goodness, and thankfulness. One might call it a Trinitarian view of work, because there is a “threeness” to it that conforms to the true (thankfulness), good (goodness) and beautiful (creativity). It is the Father that created, the Son that redeemed, and the Spirit that applies the life that we have in Jesus Christ. When our work is creative, we reflect the glory of God in creation, and when our work is good, we reflect the goodness restored to the creation through the redemption of the Son, and when we are thankful, we engage in the life of the Spirit, who has set our hearts free in order to live a life of thankfulness to God.

Human Sexuality Syllogism

Mainline Protestant churches like the United Church of Christ (UCC), Presbyterian Church USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) and others have been losing members on a steady basis for decades. There is a mass exodus of congregations leaving these and other mainline denominations over the issue of homosexual marriage. Since July of 2005, for example, 256 churches have left he UCC. The impetus for this massive removal of churches was a decision made that month and year by the UCC's General Synod in Atlanta when it decided to promote same-sex marriage by proclaiming its sanctity, and marketing the denomination as Open and Affirming (ONA). This means that UCC churches, under the direction and guidance of the decision made in Atlanta, would marry homosexual couples. (The UCC ordained its first gay minister back in 1972, so it is quite strange that this decision made 33 years later would produce such a backlash). The homosexual issue, while by all means not a new one, seems to have had its limits in the minds of many congregations. But now those limits have been by-and-large removed en toto. Hence, churches are simply leaving their denominational affiliations, taking their ball and going home.

I have seen the document set forth in July of 2005 by the UCC, wherein homosexual marriage was sanctioned. What I've noticed about it is that there is a significant lack of textual interpretation regarding Scriptures traditionally cited that seem to deny the legitimacy of homosexual practice as something pleasing to God. But this is understandable, because the document is merely stating its reasons for the decision to sanction gay marriage; it is not a polemic in defense of it. As a marketing tool and promotional guide, the document is listed in a form of theses, or statements. Now, the lack of Scripture within the document is a bit odd. But again, the only time Scripture mentions homosexual practice, it mentions it in a negative light. It even describes it as an "abomination" in Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13. Because of such language, other tomes have been written to explain these texts away, in order to justify homosexual behavior (a common objection to the traditional understanding of these texts is that the practice being condemned here is a pagan, idolatrous, sex-cult act, not monogamous marriage, but such is an issue to be tackled in a different post or article). But this explains part of the reason why there is a lack of Scripture in the UCC's General Synod document which sanctions homosexual marriage: not a defense of something, but a marketing of it. And since Scripture markets themes such as love, grace, justice, et al., this is the direction the UCC document takes.

Justice. Love. Grace. These are themes found on almost every page of the Bible. And this is the starting point in the homosexual marriage argument for those who promote it. Justice, love and grace are important virtues that every Christian should pursue. Christians are called to love their neighbor as themselves, they are called to be graceful (and hence, forgiving), and they are called to justice as well (taking care of orphans and widows for example). William Wilberforce was a Christian driven by a dire sense of justice in Great Britain during the slave trade. He sacrificed a magnificent career in politics in order to abolish slavery in the United Kingdom. He succeeded. Justice is a major theme in the UCC. The UCC rightly prides itself as a denomination that pushes its surrounding culture to reject things like racism, poverty, educational inequality, and the like. However, the Atlanta decision of July 2005 has overstepped an important boundary for many in its desire to promote justice and equality for all.

Enter the syllogism I promised in the title. Imagine if your starting point in determining the legitimacy of human sexual relationships begins with the concept of love (or justice):

1. Loving, committed relationships are not immoral
2. My relationship is a loving, committed relationship
3. Therefore, my relationship is not immoral.

And this is the approach the UCC and other Christian denominations have taken regarding this issue. Logically, it is a valid argument. That is, the conclusion follows from the premises. But the argument is not sound. That is, at least one of the premises is false. Which one is false? That would be premise number one. Premise one has a lot of problems with it. For example, how do we define "love" or "committed"? Furthermore, the premise can logically extend to other aspects of the human race, and indeed the creation. Why not a man and his sister as lovers? Or, a man and his animal (pantheism at its finest)?

The problems with love as a first premise is that it is abstract and subject to the vicissitudes of life. It lacks definition. It lacks staying power. What if the two people no longer feel love toward one another? Should the marriage dissolve? Virtues like love and justice cannot serve as the premises or starting point in this debate. We need something more concrete.

The better solution is found in a law. If there is a transcendent, moral law which guides, directs and defines which sexual relationships are permitted and which are not, then we have some solidity. We have something to which we can point. We have something from which we can start. The better way is to observe the law of God, which has very plainly defined marriage as between one man and one woman. This is what we find in Genesis 2:24 , "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." If we start with what he law of God actually says about a subject, and not with concepts found within it, and try to apply them to the subject in question, we do ourselves big favors in understanding the nature of a debate such as gay marriage.

Fundamentalism

At Notre Dame, my friend Dave Hartman co-wrote an article on Fundamentalism. Its focus, as I recall was on the religious type of fundementalism. The article covers a lot of ground--like the link between fundamentalism and violence, for example--but I also remember coming away with the idea that fundamentalists--of no matter which religion or creed--feel a great sense of hostililty toward and uncomfortableness with a lack of certainty. A lack of certainty leaves no room for doubt, leaves no room for "throwing up the hands," leaves no room for "I just don't know." For this reason, many Christians are regarded as fundamentalists because the Christian religion--in its historic, orthodox tenets--is particularly exclusivist. However, we have heard of Hindu fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists, and the like. Without invoking the issue of violence here, the common factor in these groups is most certainly an utter disdain for a lack of certainty in all areas of life. Without a lack of certainty comes a lack of freedom. Freedom of choice regarding how one lives life on the practical level, necessarily precludes a fundamentalist approach to life.

For example, Christian fundamentalists have historically abandoned the wider culture and intructed their parishoners and children to hold the wider culture in disdain. This means movies, theatres, music, tobacco, alcohol, cards, etc. are all "not allowed" by Christians "in this church." To wit, even the women are forbidden to wear pants, because it is understood that such clothing violates Levitical law (a misinterpretation, in the lauded opinion of many). Fundamentalism in the Christian Church has also manifested itself doctrinally as well, whether it is one's view on the days of creation, which version of the Bible to use, or which eschatological paradigm to promote. Of course, simply because one believes that God created the world in six days in a matter of six to ten thousand years ago does not necessarily make one a fundamentalist. While Christians and non-Christians alike would declare such a belief makes one a fundamentalist, fundamentalism is more of a state of mind than a belief system. So, fundamentalism is extremely mental, and it's typically no fun to be one. If I can't read my Tolkien because there's a wizard in it and enjoy my microbrew at the same time, well--that's no fun.

Fundamentalists then, are easy to point out, you say. Good enough. But perhaps there are fundamentalists who are the opposite of what we just described. A good number of Christians these days insist that the Bible is not really the word of God, but merely the words of man as they try to relate God to man. Moreoever, many Christians are pushing the idea that human sexuality should no longer be so oppressive as to relegate proper relationships to monomy between members of opposite gender. These same people would denounce the so-called evils of unequal wealth distribution. What if they also insisted on being heard, believed upon and listened to regarding their own interpretation of Scripture at the expense of a very vocal minority, especially regarding the nature and authority of Scripture regarding human sexual relationships? Perhaps fundamentalism is more than a few strange, out-dated doctrines or practices. Perhaps a person is a fundamentalist when they insist that their interpretation of Scripture must be believed upon no matter what.

But then we have ourselves in quite a pickle. If there is no standard by which we come to conclusions on these things, then what are we left with? Well, I think it does start with a high regard for Scripture, and an abandonment for one's own agenda. The Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) serves as prime example of how to come to grips with changing tides in the ideas of scholars, pastors, and the rest of us within the Church. The Scripture, while not the only authority concerning matters of faith and practice, must be regarded as the highest authority. Equally important is a spirit of genuine humility and reverence for the Scripture. My pastor put it to me this way: I don't care what your idea is about (the documentary hypothesis), what I care about is, Do you look down on the Scripture, or do you look up to it? This is a good starting point for Christians who want to avoid fundamentalism: the authority of Scripture and a healthy dose of deep humility toward others.

The Death Penalty

Taking the test at Kalamazoo Valley Community College propelled me into the journey of labeling my personality in neat categories. I turned out to be extroverted, and....some other stuff. ESTJ is what I recall. Most poignant to me was the section on word preference. Which word do I prefer: justice or mercy? Well, as a then die hard Metallica fan, I had to pick Justice, after their 1988 album, ...And Justice for All.

Now, when we answer such questions, our musical tastes and cultural proclivities should obviously be set aside as we seek to apply these concepts to public policy and our personal lives. You may recall Justice John Roberts' "trial" before Senator Ted Kennedy regarding Roberts' conservative, Catholic views and his application of Constitutional law to public policy as a would-be Supreme Court Justice. Roberts stood his firm ground against Kennedy's belligerent prodding, admitting that regardless of his views on the authority and inspiration of the Bible as divine revelation, Roberts would apply the Constitution on its own terms and not through the lens and authority of his Catholic presuppositions.

Of course, Kennedy needs to know, and I think Roberts held his peace of this bit of knowledge, that epistemologically, unless there is a transcendent moral law and revelation, we humans are left with an ultimate relativism that is not sustainable on its own grounds. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes, Roberts heeded the call to the integrity of the Constitution on it own terms. This type of pragmatism works--that's what pragmatism does--for up to a certain point, as long as the Constitution is understood on certain epistemological, linguistic and historical grounds. So Roberts was wise not to get into a philosophical and theological debate with Kennedy. Surely, Roberts would win the debate hands down, as he is brilliant beyond comparison. Now, the question remains, as to the application of justice and mercy concerning our public lives here in the United States.

Should people be put to death for certain crimes? Can this question be answered by means of Constitutional study, along with the Bill of Rights and other founding documents? Or, do we need a grander, transcendent ideal from which to apply this question of life or death? (The Nuremberg trials appealed to "natural law" as a transcendent ideal in prohibition of murder). It should be obvious--though it isn't--that unless there indeed is a moral law higher than ourselves, then relativistic notions of "fairness" are balanced for either the victim or the criminal based upon categories of thought within the finite realm only. The question of the death penalty may be subject to conjecture based on popular vote, states rights, the rhetoric of the defense attorney, the rhetoric of the prosecuting attorney, the emotional state of the jury, and so on.

For those familiar with the Bible, especially the Old Testament Civil Law Code found in Exodus 21 and following and the Levitical and Deuteronimic laws in the 3rd and 5th books of the Torah, the question of the death penalty is made much simpler. The answers are not easily applied, because the theological problem of the application of the law of Moses under the administration of the new covenant remains a debate among Christians. Nevertheless, the death penalty was to be rigidly applied to Israel in the thousands of years before Jesus.

A simple keyword search of "put to death" in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy on the Bible Gateway website reveals the various scriptures applied to those eligible for the death penalty: adulterers, sorcerers, those who curse their parents, murderers, kidnappers, rapists, those who own an animal that kills a person, and who knew the animal had a violent past of harming people, but did nothing to prevent the animal from killing, those who commit bestiality, Sabbath-breakers, homosexuals, blasphemers, and finally, those who sacrifice their children to Molech (or any other god).

To most in the West, the mere sniff at the idea of the death penalty is cause for great alarm. However, when we think about matters of justice "versus" mercy, we are threatened with the overwhelming sense that allowing a rapist or a murderer to live is the result of mere sophistry. A recent search on "voyeurism" for example, reveals that many psychologists and psychiatrists enjoy labeling such activity under the rubric of "disease" rather than "perversion." A "disease" is an uncontrollable malaise over which a person has no control. Perversion, on the other hand, reveals a matter of the person's will. A person wills to spy on another and violate her privacy.

Perhaps we've gone too far with our "scientific" explanations regarding human behavior. Much more can be said about this, but this paradigm of thought coming from our research institutions and meted out through the media is indissolubly linked to a precommitment to philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is a worldview that believes that everything in human experience can be explained by means of the five senses. On this view, criminals are not sinners, they are victims. They are victims of their disease whether it be propensity to alcohol abuse, anger, depression, sexual "abnormality" or whatever. The homosexual community for example, has had vast, incredible success in communicating the idea that homosexual behavior is purely natural based upon genetic predisposition as opposed to an action based upon desire coming from one's will.

From a Christian perspective, A person wills to take another person's life. A person wills to destroy a child or a woman violating that which is most sacred to her: her body. A person chooses to live a certain way. Applying this to the death penalty, the Christian really has only one dilemma, and that is how to apply the law of Moses within the new covenant administration. Most Christians agree that the death penalty should remain en force based upon God's covenant with Noah, which preceded the Mosaic covenant by hundreds if not thousands of years. In the Noahic covenants the Lord commands that

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,for God made man in his own image," (Genesis 9:6). The covenant with Noah is a universal covenant that reaches to all humanity. Paul makes an allusion to the power of the sword to punish "wrongdoers" as instituted by God even in the Roman Empire in Romans 13:1-5. But which specific crimes, other than murder, are worthy of capital punishment carry over from the law of Moses?

What should we do with rapists, child molesters, drunk drivers who kill people? What about voyeurs? Should such a person be allowed to live? Why? Do you really think a man who rapes a child and murders her deserves to live? Does a person who poses a threat to the integrity of a family by spying on them and peering through their windows deserve to live? I would suggest that such laws, extending justice would make our country a better place. Those who contend against the death penalty say it poses no threat of deterrence of committing certain crimes. Let's leave that aside, and ask the question of simple and pure justice. A man who rapes, or murders, or carelessly drives an automobile in a drunken state so that he takes the life of another has lost his right to live.

What do you think?

The Meaning of Brynne and Nylah

"Brynne" is a Welsh name and means "mound or hill." Her middle name is L'abri, is French, and means "shelter." It comes from Francis Schaeffer's L'abri in Switzerland. It was a chateau in the mountains used as an apologetic ministry, with a popularity primary to the 1960's and 70's.

Nylah is an Egyptian name stemming from the Nile River, and means "princess warrior." It also has Celtic origins with the meaning of "cloud."

I love my girls!

Note: per July 24, 2010--This seems to be the most popular page on my blog. Please leave a comment on why you wanted to look up the name "Nylah." According to Statcounter.com, most people are looking up this name on vanallsblog. Are you looking for a baby name? Is it a popular name where you are from? Do you know someone named Nylah? (Where I'm from, virtually no one has heard of it).

PBS' Nova: Archaeology and Yoohoo

I like PBS. I may peradventure aver the word "love" in reference to it. Shows like Masterpiece Theatre, Antique Roadshow, Red Green, This Old House are a great contribution to television watching that spur cultural necessities for a full life. The science department at PBS includes the program, NOVA. I love science too. In fact, if it weren't for science, I probably would not be alive today. The same goes for my wife and two daughters, perhaps....

However, I watched a NOVA program last night about archeology and the land of Israel. In the show, scholars from Hebrew University, the University of Arizona, Harvard and others affirm a strange "synthesis" about what archaeology teaches us about the Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of Canaan. I say it is a strange synthesis because in the past, liberal scholars have used higher criticism, socio-cultural study, archeology and other sciences to debunk the biblical text as unworthy of historical trust. Conservative scholars have fought against this, of course. Today, the work of scholars is not simply stated as 'unbelieving' scholarship, but "un-unbelieving" scholarship.

In last night's program, "The Bible's Buried Secrets" seen here, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/, we are told that the Israelites indeed were in Canaan during 1250 BC and possibly earlier, but not because they took the land by conquest. Rather, Canaanite culture disintegrated over time and Israelites emerged quickly as nomadic tribes gathered in a place left fettered and undone. In fact, we are told, the Israelites did not merely enter the land, rather, they were already there. Conclusion: Israelites and Canaanites are one and the same people.

What about the so-called Exodus? Well, archaeologists from Israel are quick to point out that there was indeed an exodus, but not on the grand scale of which the Bible speaks. Rather, because of an inscription found in Egypt written as YHW similar to that of Israel's god YHWH, we may conclude that YHWH was taken from Egypt during a minuscule, small-scale escape from slavery in Egypt, except that YHW was incorporated into this "new identity" of Israel as YHWH. I had to laugh when the narrator of the show in all scholarly seriousness, replete with dramatic, drum-based background music told us the pronunciation of Egypt's YHW: Yoohoo.
That's right. Yoohoo.

But why, inquiring viewers ask, would we have such elaborate tales in the book of Exodus and Joshua of a mass exodus, victory of Yoohoo (evolving eventually into Yahweh) over the masses, a blitzkrieg (NOVA's words) military campaign over Canaanite city-states, and consequent settlement in the land? Why all these tales if they did not indeed happen that way? Well, we are told, it is because this new tribe of nomads were on a Freudian/Jungian identity crisis. The solution? Create elaborate tales of rescue by Yahweh (formerly Yoohoo), so as to create a name and culture for the new people in the land.

It is interesting to me that the archaeologists do acknowledge that in the land of Canaan, there is evidence of a mass extermination of city-states with a population of approximately 3,000-4,000 people, with a subsequent population explosion of approximately 45,000-50,000 people. How can this be explained? Not through a mass Exodus from Egypt (whose numbers, according the "new identity text" are in the millions, actually), and military conquest, but rather a simpler, more reasonable way. The way in which we must understand the mass population upheaval and shift, says NOVA is because the Canaanite culture disintegrated from within, as peasants revolted against the upper class. From this peasant revolt sprang up the "new people" who called themselves Israelites. This, and along with the small nomadic Yoohoos from Egypt explains the massive population explosion in the land of Canaan in 1250 BC.

NOVA would therefore tell us that it is perfectly justifiable to believe in the exodus--just not the way in which it was exactly written. And it is perfectly justifiable for us to believe in the conquest of Canaan--but just not exactly the way in which it was written. In fact, the "new Israelites (Canaanites, really) from Egypt merely created tall tales about Yahweh in order to produce a new, cultural identity for the new, peasant-revolt victors--who are not a new people at all genealogically, but rather they are new in the sense of Yoohoo evolved into Yahweh and along with a new, emerging god, comes new, fantastic stories with which a new (sort of) people can fancy themselves a formal identity.

"Or," I said to myself, "The reason for the new population growth in Canaan is because the Israelites actually did take over Canaan with the one true God, Yahweh as their leader, guide and everlasting Father." But, I'm just a Bible-thumper. Lastly, I think I'd like a chocolately drink.

TV Preachers on the Go

If our society gets worse and worse, as many of my Christian friends are expecting it to--mostly because of a negative view of history than anything else--then I shall be glad. With the exception of increased violence, I welcome an increasingly anti-christian move in our society. You ask, how could I be in support of marriages that are absent from the traditions and norms of which Christians desire and expect? And how in the world could I welcome liberal judges who sanction murder of unborn children? Hold on to your oreos. Just listen for a moment and do something we're lousy at: listening to people before making categorical judgments and screams.

I recently received one of those emails in petition form. This one concerned the awful tragedy that Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and other televangelists are under federal scrutiny and will soon be withheld from the airwaves. Oh no! Persecution! Persecution? I say that's a blessing from the Almighty. What do Osteen, Meyer (and others) preach on the flash-flash screen day after day? When was the last time you heard an idiot box preacher say, "Ok. Open your Bible to Romans chapter 1"?

Shut us down. Limit our freedom. Make us go to church to hear the word of God. Put us in jail for hate speech. Put me in jail. Come on, Chris! Anyone but you, you say. Not in my backyard, you say. Yes, I say. If it means getting back to the Scriptures and reading them and getting arrested for it, then great. Purge the church.

Purge the church of its Me-centered theology (an oxymoron). Wring the mop of its dirt and grime. Make us meet in houses. Make us sing acappella. But, that probably will not happen. Maybe the antichrist isn't coming. Maybe he already came (1 John 2:18). Maybe a lot of the stuff in "Revelations" happened in AD 70 when Titus sacked Jerusalem. Maybe Jesus really really was talking about his generation when he predicted destruction in Jerusalem. Maybe John wrote his Apocalypse prior to AD 70, and spoke mostly about the coming destruction from Rome against the Jews in Judea. Maybe "the end" did come--that is, for Jerusalem (see the context of Matthew 23-25). Maybe the gospel was preached to the whole world (24:14, cf. Col. 1:23).

So, maybe...we Christians have not to look forward to ever-increasing destruction, but gospel victory on the earth (Psalm 2; Psalm 110 Matthew 6:10; 13:24-52). And in the meantime, we will suffer persecution, peril and evil at the hand of Christ's enemies. But, if removing tv preachers from tv is what they want, then I think that is a good thing.

My Lunch with Don Garlington PhD

A small, hasty foal I am, among the warrior riders. I fidget among them basking in their veteran's glory. "These," thought I, "have fought on many fronts, have ridden in numerous battles, have traversed mountain ranges and swum deep, charging rivers. And I have only read of their accounts. I have merely identified vicariously through tales of their wanderings."

Nevertheless, accompanied by a humble man of many years around whom the weekend centers, this colt's presence is welcome. We sit at a round table, and folks peruse its circle introducing names, occupations, and other pleasantries. Resting at this knight's round are many of whom I admire: their scholarship, education, and numerous, big-league affinities. Surrounded by scholars and writers whose faces I had not previously seen, but whose names I had read on book covers time and again, I grin like a boy at his own neighborhood birthday party on a sunny day in Spring. The flowers bloom in efflorescent joy!

But the party is not in my honor. I am no scholar. I came with one--yes, and he is my good friend. And we will offer the entire weekend to his thoughts at our Chicago hotel, as we listen, take notes, and ask questions. Our minds will vex and convulge; they will swim round a vortex of complexity, and finish bathed in amiable courses leading to a smooth, unfolding channel of clarity. These men are doctors of ancient languages, surgeons of philosophical conundrums, and practitioners of theological queries. I sell loans. I make dials. Nevertheless, a company of good, Christian men welcome the pistols into the armory of enormity.

After prayer, we sift and stir our luncheon spread with the ardour of hungry soldiers. Passersby--old aquaintances, introduce themselves to the round. My friend, the speaker, offers the same of me to our kind guests. Hellos are exchanged. I'm a child in a candy store. I don't want to emabarrass myself by making any funny bodily noises, cough up some food or spill anything--or the worst: say something stupid that's supposed to be funny but falls on a cricket's audience. Just smile, and keep your mouth shut and everything will be ok. These are men who travel the world! They write books--that sell. The know people in high places! I make cold calls. I sell mortgages that refinance with "cash-out." These men move thousands with their pens. Tens and hundreds of thousands--even millions. Me: do you want insurance with that? "No." Okay.

The man sitting across from me is a white-haired professor at a Canadian school. He has his PhD in the biblical languages. He can pontificate upon objective, subjective, appositional, or adjectival uses of the genitive in a key phrase in the letter to the Romans, which scholars adhere to which genitive, the strengths and weaknesses of each view, and which one is best, based upon the evidence. This man writes scholarly articles that get published in dictionaries, journals, and other reference tools. He wears a white shirt with a cardigan sweater. His head is tilted somewhat awkwardly, as if he has a kink in his neck. His face is pleasant: smooth skin and lips, a kind smile, and an unpretentious air. "Hi, I'm Don Garlington," he says to a man standing outside our order . A few others say hello.

Finally, my friend introduces me to him. I've been introduced to a few of these men prior to sitting down. I'm brimming with the excitement of a tossing tree on a slightly breezy Autumn day. The privilege I feel is one, booming excess! Today I am away from my cubicle. This day, I languish not at convincing a would-be to accept my usury. Now, at this moment, sitting at this table, I am in the course of the path upon which I envy to trod. Surrounded by such a great company of generals, I commandeer a breach for levity. My humble estate of something less than a loan officer precludes me in the presence of such keen intellectual prowess. I make a decision. I shall abase myself. None shall know my meaning, and my abasement will reside, in delegations regarding this strange fellow, their thoughts will abide.

After my introduction to Dr. Garlington, I quip, "Hello. My name's George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents."

"Seinfeld!" he says.

Matt Damon on Sarah Palin

Watching Jimmy Kimmel last night, I witnessed a clip of actor Matt Damon, who displayed a near rage at the idea of Sarah Palin holding a high position of power in our country. His disdain for her expresses itself, of all things, concerning giant lizards.

"I mean, I want to know if she believes dinosaurs existed 4,000 years ago. I mean, that's an important issue to me," said Damon with a villifying tone, revealing a seething anger at the prospect of someone like Palin holding the populace of our Republic in her "ignorant" hands. The implication here of course, is whether Palin, who openly affirms her Christian worldview, has the gall to believe that the book of Genesis has a trustworthy bearing on natural history. Of course, Christians who believe in the young earth no more than thousands of years old, which was created in six, twenty-four hour periods are in a minority among broader Christendom in the West. This makes them the ultimate object of scorn therefore, among academic elite, scientists, media pundits, and apparently, Hollywood actors who hold no interest in a Christian worldview other than to dismiss it as irrational and foolish.

One may argue that Damon indeed does hold a Christian worldview. However, if he does, he should treat Mrs. Palin with much more respect, for that is what Christians are called to do. His concern about her judgment concerning ultimate matters of origins should be handled in a more diplomatic manner, like a British butler kindly pontificating upon Mrs. Smithington's wart with the utmost respect--not saying too much, mind you--and not saying too little either. Mrs. Smithington is a fine disposition to behold regarding her gentleness, efficient prowess in handling her children and home, and very wise in advising her aristocratic husband. To wit, says the Butler, "Might'n we not regard small blemishes under the broader auspices of a grander scheme of inherent qualities of character, including love, decency, wisdom and self-control, such as we behold in her?" Well said, Jeeves. Don't upset the apple cart by joining in the laughter.

Nevertheless, Damon's vehemence castigates not merely the idea of someone ignorant enough to reject the scientific establishment's status quo concerning carbon dating, geological columns, and other data used to support an old universe. Rather, Damon is purporting the idea that such people are who hold to a "literal" hermeneutic of the Bible are indeed dangerous.

This danger which Damon wants us to comprehend is that people like Palin are apparently driven by blind, emotional apprehension to unwarranted presuppositions and because of this desparate clinging to irrational thought, such a person cannot be trusted to manage a country in a world facing issues that deal with evidence, evidence and more evidence.

Is the economy in trouble? We must examine the evidence, and the evidential solutions at our disposal. Is health care in dire straights? Let us discover solutions based upon numbers, reason and inquiry. All issues therefore, whether global warming, war & terrorism, education reform, agriculture, social welfare, mass media entertainment and "censorship" fall under the rubric of rational, intelligent thought based upon sound reason and evidence as the basis of beneficial solutions for the American public and the world abroad. And, it is reasoned, how can such a person who believes in a hermeneutic as silly as that which is the basis of young earth creationism be rational, reasonable, intelligent, and capable of waying opposing options in such lofty and truly thorny matters as those described above? After all, if someone like Palin holds office, it is argued, we may just end up with a Bible-quoting, theocratic president who offers only black and white scenarios regarding foreign policy, social issues, environmental action, and economic stragety, in a world where it is clear and obvious that not all matters are solved simply, and that answers are found not in either the black or the white, but in the gray.

At first glance, Damon's lividity against Palin's conservative Christian worldview seems extreme and silly. Dinosaurs? Dude. What is your deal? Nonetheless, if we pry a little and get at Damon's real concers, we see a grander picture concerning Palin and others who believe the things she does about the Bible and ultimate matters.

On the other hand, we should notice that Damon commits a logical fallacy of the most popular kind, an ad hominem argument (argument against the man). This argument presents irrelevant information about an opponent in order to dismiss the opponent and her position as unacceptable. Damon's rheticoral statement implies that Palin is unworthy of holding public office because of her cosmogeny--her beliefs about the origin of the universe. One wonders if Damon would have the same misgivings about a Hindu candidate who believed in millions of gods, and propounded the idea that evil is maya--mere illusion, and that there are no distinctions between good and evil?

Damon's implied logic may form a "sound argument":

1) those who hold irrational beliefs are untrustworthy and dangerous--especially regarding public office holding;
2) Palin holds irrational beliefs;
therefore
3) Palin is untrustworthy and dangerous--especially regarding public office holding.

However, just because an argument flows logically from its premises and is "sound," does not mean it is valid. Just because someone holds a belief that is irrational (Damon has to prove that Palin's alleged beliefs are actually irrational), does not mean that the person holding those beliefs are necessarily untrustworhty and dangerous--especially regarding public office holding. One may believe that it is rational to seek terrorists where they dwell and destroy them where they live. Let us grant that this view is indeed irrational. That has no bearing whatever on one's ability to produce a sound, economic policy. The former idea is entirely irrelevant to one's ability to understand complex economic issues, and implement new laws and tax reforms in order to boost the economy of a nation.

Lastly, his is an abusive ad hominem fallacy, which attacks the character of a person in order to offer evidence against her. Just because someone believes in a young earth (1o,ooo years old, let us say), does not mean that the person is entirely irrational, incapable of using reason, or undesirous of using reason, evidence, compassion, courage, or integrity in making important decisions.

And anyway, who is Matt Damon? Where was he educated? In Hollywood? He's just an actor. Therefore, his argument against Palin is irrelevant and Damon himself is unworthy of debate in the public forum. I mean, I want to know if Damon thinks that all of life came from one, single-celled organism. I mean, that's really important to me if I am going to accept Damon as a pundit regarding national elections.

Meaning

"Teach me, O Lord, the way of your statutes;
and I will keep it to the end.
Give me understanding, that I may keep your law
and observe it with my whole heart.
Lead me in the path of your commandments,
for I delight in it.
Incline my heart to your testimonies,
and not to selfish gain!
Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things;
and give me life in your ways.
Confirm to your servant your
promise
that you may be feared. Turn way the reproach that I dread,
for you rules are good.
Behold, I long for your precepts;
in your righteousness give me life!

~Psalm 119:33-40.

Normally, when we want to study what the Bible says about meaning, we find our fingers perusing the writ of Ecclesiastes. "Meaningless! Meaningless!" we read. Over and over, the author says life is vanity. Whether one has wisdom or none, riches or none, pleasure or none, righteousness or none--everything is in vain. We hope he changes his mind, and at times, it appears he does, especially at the end: "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." It is an abrupt conclusion to an otherwise scathing, repetitive rant of how awful life is, so it is difficult to understand how much power the conclusion has for the motif of the book. However, we are told to fear God in many places throughout: (3:14; 5:2, 6, 7; 7:14,18, 26; 8:12, 11:9;12:1-8). Most of these admonitions regard the final judgment after death. Perhaps this is why the author sees life as vanity....

Ecclesiastes is a mysterious book: is the author stating the lamented facts, or is he merely lamenting, and disclosing the thoughts and feelings of a depressed human being thinking in the wrong way? Is the book from his own point of view, or is this the way God himself wants us to think?

It seems difficult to square the idea of seeing life as ultimately meaningless with the rest of Scripture, especially since the rest of the canon discusses "joy in the Lord" over and over. Think of Jesus' urge to love one another that our joy may be full (John 15:11-12). Think also of Paul's famous statement, "For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Phil. 1:21), written in the "letter of joy," as it were, written from prison no less. Think of the Psalms. Even Ecclesiastes says, "And I commend joy, for man has no good thing under the sun but to eat and drink and be joyful, for this will go with him in his toil through the days of his life that God has given him under the sun," (8:15).

Nevertheless, just flipping my Bible open, I happened upon Psalm 119 before I got to Ecclesiastes. Here, the writer says he "delights" v.(35) in God's law, and that God's law is worth "keeping" (v.33). Moreover, he wants to "observe it with [his] whole heart," (v.34). He recognizes things of worth, and things "worthless," (v.37); the essence of these things are noted because of what God says about them in his law. Finally, he says, "I long for your precepts; in your righteousness give me life!"

That human longing exists is no secret. However, this longing comes to fruition when subsumed in and consumed by the law of God, his righteousness, and the life given through keeping covenant with God. In addition, human longing finding its telos in the life of God simply makes sense, due to the fact that we are made in the image of God, and in the gospel we are renewed by faith in the life of Jesus, having union and communion with him in the life of the Holy Spirit, being recreated after his image, which is a life of joy (1 Thes. 1:6).

Metallica and Existential Angst

When we are well fed, the philosophers say, and when we dwell in safety and have our basic human needs met (pizza, good shoes, decent wine, and ESPN), we ask grand, ultimate questions. Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? Is there anyone out there? And on and on....

On the other hand, some choose to numb the questions out of existence like people ignore that pea-sized wort on Mrs. Linskey's right cheek. Forgetting such notions, people existentialize their lives with stuff and habits, so they don't have to come face to face with them. A popular slogan of the 1980's was "He who dies with the most toys, wins." I think Tommy Lee coined it. It was easily countered with a subsequent T-shirt that read: "He who dies with the most toys--still dies." The latter may have been the original First Ever Christian T-Shirt. I dunno.

One of the foundations of such behavior is philosophical materialism. That is to say, only matter exists. There are no immaterial things. There is no god, no spirits, no soul in man. Even things like the laws of science and logic are said to be the result of chemical processes in the brain.

Materialism and other "isms" go hand in hand with each other: Naturalism, Darwinism, Nihilism, Existentialism. In fact, I would argue that Materialism is the foundational impetus of the aforementioned isms. If all there is, ever was, and ever shall be, is the material universe, as Carl Sagan so aptly put it, then we die and the world carries on until it dies too. Metallica's song On Through the Never from their 1991 "Black Album" discloses the angst and blank stare of the cosmos and all that occupy it:

All that is, was and will be

Universe much too big to see

Time and space never ending

Disturbing thoughts, questions pending

Limitations of human understanding

Too quick to criticize

Obligation to survive

We hunger to be alive

All that is, ever

Ever was

Will be ever

Twisting

Turning

Through the never

In the dark, see past our eyes

Pursuit of truth no matter where it lies

Gazing up to the breeze of the heavens

On a quest, meaning, reason

Came to be, how it begun

All alone in the family of the sun

Curiosity teasing everyone

On our home, third stone from the sun

All that is, ever

Ever was

Will be ever

Twisting

Turning

Through the never

On through the never

We must go

On through the never

Out to the Edge of forever

We must go

On through the never

Then never comes

All that is, ever

Ever was

Will be ever

Twisting

Turning

Who we are

Ask forever

Twisting

Turning

Through the never

Never

~~~~

The theme of the poem is clear: we are alone in the cosmos as a planet that twists and turns through the "never." "Never," as a negative term, connotes void, purposelessness, and meaninglessness. We search for meaning, we use reason, we search for our origins. But the only answer is that we are alone on this planet, moving through the endless, dark void of cosmos.

~~~~

As we gaze up at the heavens, we realize how infinitesimally small we are. Even our curiosity betrays us. We ask about what is there, but there is nothing. Then we look inward and see our faults (too quick to criticize), and yet we strive for life and like the good Darwinian animals that we are, we hunger and thirst after life--after survival, but nothing else. Because there is nothing else. And yet, "We must go" through the Never. We are determined by our cold, answerless universe. There is nothing beyond us, and when we expire, the grave consumes us to dust and from dust, death spreads our mist to the careless earth, of which we become a part.

~~~~

We are in "the pursuit of truth." And the truth is, we are alone. We are "third stone from the sun." We are as faceless as a white, desert stone baking in the hot, cruel sun. As desperate as we are for life--in ourselves and somewhere "out there," nothing comes. The "Never" comes. That is, the only thing that comes to us is the vast ocean of silent nothingness.

~~~~

Even the shape of the poem is in a spike, or spiral that goes continually down, down, into a deep abyss. There is no one there, at the bottom, even if there is a bottom of this personless chasm of spinning, chaotic, endlessness...

~~~~

By virtue of this existential emptiness that Materialism offers, it should be rejected. Materialism contradicts our human longing and desire for meaning, purpose, happiness, and everlastingness. There are other, logical reasons why Materialism should be rejected as well, and we will touch on this in the near future.

~~~~

Humans are "soulish." When we see something beautiful, like an Olympian athlete win an event after suffering a staggering setback, or when we see an automobile with the dual aesthetics of engineering and fine art, or when we enjoy a good meal with wine, friends, laughter and love, we prove to ourselves that we are indeed, more than matter. We are more than tissue, chemicals and electromagnetic impulses.

~~~~

When Jesus spoke to the woman at the well in John 4, he told her he had "living water." The context of this woman's life was that she had had many husbands, and was on her fifth. Jesus, in his conversation, tells her everything she ever did, and despite her adulterous life, he loved her and offered "living water," as a break from her existential struggle for meaning in life. The text of John's gospel does not inform us of the circumstances of why this woman had a fifth husband to her tally. Instead, we see Jesus offer this woman a break from her lifelessness and tell her that if she drinks his "living water," she will "never thirst forever."

~~~~

The living water that Jesus offers is his life. His life gives us an answer in the cold, meaningless void. Through Jesus, we can know about the universe, our origins, our meaning, and our destiny. He teaches us how to live (Love God, love neighbor). He offers forgiveness of sin. He answers why we feel guilt. Jesus is the living water in the sense that whatever ultimate question we have, he doesn't just have the answer, he is the answer.

Subprime Lending and the American Ideal

Well, maybe the title is too pedantic. Nevertheless, what I mean by "Ideal" is the way of happiness. Most of the people I dealt with while selling loans at HFC/Beneficial were just like the rest of Americans: they were Consumers. Now, they were a different class of Americans, for the most part; they were working class, primarily of low educational background, particularly unhealthy and overweight, and just plain dirty a lot of the time. This is due to the fact that most of them were laborers and workers in factories and shops dedicated to the automotive industry.

In these people, there is no desire to read, and if they do read, it's dime store rubbish. Some of them go to church, but not many. But it's fair to say they all pretty much were of lower, working class background, highly steeped in ignorance, Marlboro Reds, huntin', fishin', and bike ridin'.

I'm an elitist, you say. Perhaps. But these people are simply following the pattern set for them by the automotive corporations who long ago influenced schools like the University of Chicago, Stanford and others to rewrite public school curriculum so that students followed one simple rule: memorize data, regurgitate data. This produces consumers, which the big corporations wanted. See and take. Observe and hold. Perceive and receive. Get stuff.

That's the customer base at HFC/Beneficial. Of course, they didn't buy all of our products (thank goodness). But I mention all of this to point out just one of the reasons why we are in this housing market fiasco: because too many Americans consume, consume consume. The spend, spend, spend, and they have no concept of saving money.

I have seen countless credit reports where a family makes anywhere from 50 to well-over 100k between husband and wife (or whatver combination manifests itself in our culture--"I've seen it all, man!").
And these people have:

1) mortgage payment
2) car payment
3) 2nd car payment
4) multiple personal loans
5) consumer loans (catch the title there: "consumer" loan. That's right, folks).
6) Multiple credit card bills.

7) and then there are just basic staples of insurances, taxes, food, utilities, phone, cable, internet, cell phone...

8) Sometimes they have a 2nd mortgage payment. And even a 3rd! If this is the case, you are a likely customer of HFC/Beneficial. :) Don't forget our consumer loans at 22.98% We can give you up to $20,000 at this glorious rate! Unsecured, too! And the Home and Auto Plan. Make sure that loan has plenty of credit insurance on it: unemployment, disability and life. Only an extra hundred bucks on average. Don't foget we can refinance your car payment. Average rate is 15%. Sign up.

Each of 1-6 listed above on a credit report is called a "trade line." You owe Citibank 5K on your credit card? That's a trade line. Now imagine these people with 17 different trade lines. Or 25, or more. I have seen this. I have seen this! Now, my job was to refinance their mortgage, pay off all their bills, and give them extra cash (for that dream vacation, or that new, desirable car). And at times, I offered people a great deal. I reduced their total monthly debt obligation by $500. How would you like to have no bills, except one and have $500 back in your pocket every month? And it worked.

Until the credit cards ran back up again. It happened quite frequently. These people refinance, I give them money, I save them money, and they run their credit cards back up again. Now they have one huge mortgage payment, and a bunch of credit cards, and they hand the keys of their house to us. Nice.

These are stupid people. They are bent on consumerism. They have to have things now. They fail to get their act together. They take no thought for the future, for saving money, for investing, for setting up retirement, for leaving a financial legacy for their children and their children's children. This is a terrible shame!

It boils down to covetousness, greed and idolatry. I worked for greedy people who wanted me to sell loans to ignorant people. These ignorant people were also greedy--for material. I was actually forbidden to take the role of financial counselor with these people. I was forbidden to recommend another place of business or counseling center. I could tell people, "Now won't your life be easier without all these bills?" But that was about it. I may recommend cutting up the credit cards, but I'm just a salesman. I sell.

D.A. Carson laments our culture's consumerism in his book, The Gagging of God:


In a former age, insatiable desire was understood to be a principal source of frustration, something to be opposed. Now it is to be cultivated as the engine that drives economic development. The endemic consumerism of the age feeds our greed, and even defines our humanity: we are not primarily worshipers, or thinkers, or God's image-bearers, or lovers, but consumers. "Consumerism itself has become a kind of addiction. The more toys we acquire the more frequent and expensive they need to be to produce the old high. the shift from finding identity in what we produce to what we possess, from a work ethic to a consumption ethic, at once exalts the pursuit of happiness and guarantees its ultimate futility."

Carson quotes John Ortberg, "Happy Meal Spirituality," Christianity Today 37/6 (May 17,1993): 40.

The Assault on my Mind

I'm being assaulted. I checked the mail today--a fine, husbandish duty--and guess what I find? Victoria's Secret catalogue. Last night I saw the commercial. It stopped me like an ant in honey. I go on facebook to write to friends. Underwear ads. I check my email. "Do I look hot in this swimsuit?" I go to the checkout at the grocer: fifty magazines with bikini clad voluptuous women, smiling, talking about what pleases them most. Thank goodness I no longer live in a beach town!

I'm pretty sure our culture is obsessed with sex. And I think I'm in a battle for the purity of my mind. Solution: I could become Amish. I'd be guaranteed to never see a beautiful, naked woman again. But even the Amish have their scandals, so that won't work (stories of abuse, rape, 'sowing the wild oats'). The ancient Greeks were obsessed with the beauty of youth. Olympic athletes competed in the nude. Young boys served the older men as prostitutes. Ours is society similar to the Greeks. Mostly, young, beautiful women are worshipped as goddesses: football cheerleaders, actresses, models, porn stars. Looking at the facial expressions on the models in Victoria's Secret one sees a monolithic approach to sex: the woman is the temptress, and her eyes are glazed with a drunken, drugged vulnerability mixed with want. One after the other after the other, page after page, their is one notice: the faces are all expressionless. There are no smiles. No whimsical muses. No happiness. Just lusty-eyed dolls, saying, "Do what you please."

C.S. Lewis told this story. Imagine a theatre where a butler hold a silver platter full of delicate, delicious foods. The platter, covered with a drape, is slowly revealed by the butler as the audience coos and whistles and moans with each, tiny bit of removed cloth and revealed dessert underneath. Finally, as the cloth is totally removed, the audience moved toward loud, climactic applause. It's ecstasy.

Would you say the audience has an unhealthy fetish for food?

The assault on my mind continues every day. One slip of a mouse and I could be sucked in like a vaccuum to something that could kill my marriage and my vocation, and my life with Jesus Christ. What should I do? Well, I can do a few things. I can watch less tv. I can throw things from the mail in the trash. I can chose to not look. I can exercise mind control and think of different things. I can have more sex with my wife. I can use the internet less. Still, the grocer doesn't care about the assault on my mind. Neither do the billboard people. And even going around town in the summer can be harsh.

Nevertheless, the Scripture has this to say...

"Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those whom he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son [or daughter]" (Hebrews 12:3-5).

The beginning of the chapter tells me to keep my eyes fixed on Jesus. Jesus was tempted in every way I was yet was without sin. I need to "consider" Jesus. This is the starting point: being mindful of Christ throughout the day: when I get up, when I eat, when I work, when I play. Does that sound too simple? It does, somehow. But if we picture this modus operandi as a foundational approach to life, we can build other good principles upon it: like watching less tv, using the internet less, and averting my eyes at the grocer's aisle.

Not to be missed.

I sold my Fender Stratocaster. Relax--it was made in Mexico. Sold my amp: a little, tiny Crate Z-14 (0r something--standard issue) with a Vox wa pedal. The latter item was worth quite the deal of casholio. My "Strat" I will not miss. I'd had it since 1994 when I cashed out my mutual fund to pay $328.00 plus another $90 or so for the amp. I learned lots of cool songs and also a little to play by ear, and mastered a few solos: Stairway (of course), Achille's Last Stand, and others. I learned as many Metallica riffs as possible, but only a few really stuck with me. After all, how much heavy metal can one play on a chincy, made-in-Mexico Strat that is lighter in weight than balsa wood (not a good sign of quality, as others had let me know) with a tiny, not-tube, little Crate amp? Not much. And, it gets old.

I'd rather play like Stevie Ray Vaughan. I learned one of his riffs once, but soon forgot the technical details. I fell in love with tabulature and trying to learn the 1000's of cool rock n' roll songs out there, but the magazines kept piling up, and I didn't feel like investing the time to learn, note-for-note, someone else's creativity. I wanted my own. Alas, not much ever came. (I think I remember even praying for creativity a few times). Should've kept taking lessons.

Plus, after I got married and had 2 children (well, Monica can take the credit for that), I realized that I needed a basement to "jam" in, which I didn't have. Furthermore, if I did indeed have a basement, so what? I'd rather spend time with my girls than pretend to be a guitar legend in my dank, lonely basement where my only fan base comprises of various insects, peeling paint, and mildew. No thanks. I think it's past my time to see myself playing solo even at a coffee shop or local bar for cash. Not gonna happen. Got my acoustic if I want a creative outlet.

As the kids these day say, "It's all good." So--the 64 thousand dollar question: How much did I get? Well, I went to the guitar shop and brought home a whopping $250 cash. Much more than I expected! "That'll buy you some books for your library," the owner told me. And, it did. I picked up John Murray's Commentary on Romans, his Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, Louis Berkhof's History of Christian Doctrines, and William Wilston's biography on John Calvin. I got all of those for less than $60 at the non-profit bookstore at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary on Leonard St. in Grand Rapids. All new books, except Murray's Redemption, and that was hardly a notice of scratch or use on it.

I never named my guitar, and never really was satisfied with it. Perhaps I'll buy a real Strat some day, with a nice tube amp, but I doubt it. I'm thinking piano. And more books. Oh, and I gave the rest of the money to the head of the house.

Stranger

I grab the latest edition of Christianity Today, and First Things and am on my way to the posh, green chairs. They're the kind you can sink into, and leaning back, start to peruse various articles and slowly drift away as the words jumble and jarble around like marbles, but with increased sloth as if they slowed in molasses; with falling eyes, soon the cushions envelope and surround with hugging arms, and with an exhaling, deep beath, sigh, you are baptized into a slumberous nap. This day, however, I stop in the philosophy section. Am I eager to gaze at the massive volumes of which I know I'll never scratch the surface, or is it the stranger standing there, holding a comic book series on postmodernism? The latter, of course--I'd traced my eager fingers over these volumes before, but this time I must know this man standing here.

I wait of course. I look at him askance. Don't want to turn anything into an overzealous event so soon; so soon to make an aquaintance and not really listen. So eager to steer the direction of the conversation with plan of defending or sharing the gospel. I've done that before, but this time I will wait. I will peruse, too (or pretend to do so). Really, I am waiting for the right moment to ask this man the right question--at the right time. I've not seen a man like this in here before. He looks very different. Almost odd--or foreign. He's shorter, and slightly older. On his head rests a strange cross between a baseball cap and a winter hat. Not sure, but is it on backwards? I don't look too intently. No need to look nosey--or suspicious. His coat is long and appropriate for winter, but his face, somewhat haggard, is bent with intensity. It's diamond shaped, with odd contours, a thin, pointed nose, deep, small eyes, a grand forehead and rough cheeks. His facial hair is either in process of beard growth, or simply has not been properly kept.

I take out Oxford's Illustrated History of Western Philosophy. Yes, this is the kind of book to read. I'll not think so highly of myself to esteem tackling the original writings of Heidegger, Hegel, Kant and so forth and pretend to understand. Look at Plato--he has a whole half a shelf! Perhaps a companion with which to embark.

A discarded thought beams through my mind like a vector, screaming across the sky: here and gone in a flash like a falling star. "An inner city man, here, interested in such intellectual endeavors?" With dismissal I recall the Benefit of the Doubt, a Withholding of Judgment, a glint of Humility. Dismal thoughts require the combat of this higher calling.

Still, mostly anglos of European descent patronize this store--this aisle of profundity draped by men in goatees, wild hair and nervous tension. Nevertheless. I study him more. "What are you interested in?" "Ah," he says. "I am interested in reading on postmodernism." His eyes are keen, his mouth, kind. In my ears is tainted French in the bonds of open African with articulate, yet not easy-to-follow English. "Where are you from?" I ask. "Sierra Leone," he replies. I hum with pursed lips and look at him. After a pause, I admit, "I know about that country. I know about the hard times there. I've seen the movie, Blood Diamond. Have you seen the film? Is it true?"

"Yes, yes." He has seen the movie. It's true. "My sistah leeve deh. She go to school and serve deh in meditzine." Much was the bloodshed in that place. Much was the horror. Many are the orphans. The love of money, power and beauty. Death in disguise.

Our conversation turns and swims through diverse caverns and bywaters. We touch it all. Raised by his Muslim mother and his Catholic father, he is brother of Methodist sisters. He's read the Koran and the Bible. After much contemplation, he is a Muslim. He used to teach history at the local university here in West Michigan, but now works for a French company training new employees at the hospital. Blood-born pathogens and food services, and other responsibilities. "The pay is much bettah. Almost ten thousand more!" He's been here since 1984.

Sadly, he says, many of his employees are uneducated, and use drugs and have babies from multiple men. "Are you going to church?" he asks them. "Yes," they say. "But," he adds, "Deh nevah return. Deh don' value education. I try to help dem, to change der lives. I try to listen and not judge. But it is so hard," he says. I add that I too wish I could do something, "but I feel so helpless," I add, with my arms held out to hold a basket, I look up to the sky and bend my knees.
He worked in Detroit, but did not like it. "Very dangerous," he says. He likes west Michigan for its conservatism. He really likes the people of Holland. "The Christian work ethic is very good. I like deh no work on Sundays." As do I, except when the plumbing breaks. We speak more on racism, the church, the existence of God. I point out some additional books in his search for postmodernism. "It's hard to pinpoint, I add. There's no author that comes right out and says, 'Aha. I'm a postmodernist. Read what I have to say. It seems to me that it came along after World War II. Do you know the painter, Jackson Pollack?" Yes, he does. I turn to motion throwing pain on a canvas and a young girl eyes our convcersation with glad envy. She wishes she could join, or listen. But her mother calls her to other ends.

"I've studied much of philosophy," he adds, "and sometimes I have doubted, but I jus' know God exists. Sometimes when I am feeling good, I jus' say 'Thank-you, Lord.'"

"My name is Farli." He spells his name. "Good to meet you, Farli." "Yes. Perhaps we'll meet again." I must return to my cubile to sell high interest loans with exhorbitant fees. Or attempt to do so, with what conscience is available. Our meeting has expired, and my lunch break is over.

Young, Hip and Totally Clueless

"Because it's not really happening unless it's on videotape - any kid will tell you that. "Cloverfield" captures the chronic self-absorption of the Facebook generation with breathless, cleverly recycled media savvy, and then it stomps that self-absorption to death. These days, that's entertainment." So says Ty Burr, a film critic and staff member at the Boston Globe.

I was reading critics' reviews of the aforementioned film, hoping to enjoy a good monster flick. (After reading reviews, I think I'll pass). But what Burr says here about the "Facebook generation" struck me with great force. Burr mentions the "chronic, self-absorption" of this crowd, and he is thinking also of the main characters in the film: young, successful, good-looking, savvy, upper, west-side apartment dwellers getting job promotions to Japan, leaving hapless, love affairs on the mainland, sleeping with each other's friends. It's all good.

A friend of mine wrote an essay titled, "The ipod Killed Poetry." In it he described Burr's epithet of self-absorption: people (the kids these days) are too wrapped up in their own little worlds as these worlds become the only world at all. Too much technology to steal attention from introspective matters that actually give appeal to a certain level of self-absorption, that can cause a breaking out of self interest and develop a keen awareness of life's grander, more important issues of helping others. Things like Facebook, myspace, Youtube, ipods, Xbox and other techno-goodies, rob the individual of the art of meditation, quiet, reflective reading, and the type of self-absorption that is good: introspection with a view to character development, vision, goals and the like.

Now, I think both Burr and my friend have hit the mark. However, as a member of Generation X, I am aware of social epithets. Mine was also a "hapless, self-absorbed generation." We didn't care about spirituality, or ethics, or human rights across the globe (we may have trifled with environmental issues, but only from a safe distance). Mostly, we wanted to go to college, have a good time, and then make lots of money. Perhaps the Facebook generation, in its own demise of self-aggrandizement, will capture the essence of life's call to a broader, corporate view of humanity and its needs (i.e. aiding the poor, defending the oppressed) as the electronic medium of social relationspheres proves itself less than authentic and drives a passion and value for quiet reflection, and an extroverted call to benefit others before self.