Final Fillibuster - Running Out of Breath

If I had more time, I'd probably devote a whole post to pacifism and the common practice of Christian politics, but I don't so I won't... (kind of)

I will say, though, that Christians have always had a difficult time figuring who it was they could murder and who deserved to live. If you believe that local law enforcement is okay, then going to war is okay because both involve murder. Buh? War is okay, as long as its just, so let's talk about what makes war just. Buh? I can understand that line of reasoning, except in my experience, most Christians are not educated in those academic arguments and prefer instead to pull a Toucan Sam (follow their nose, or gut). I also know that some of the most significant changes in recent history have come through non-violent resistance, and I think a lot of Christians are probably not as educated as they should be about that. Dr. King, Ghandi, Desmond Tutu - these are men we should all know more about. All this to say, we would do well to think more critically about the role of peace in God's Kingdom.

I started out by stating my idealistic practice of non-participation in politics. I have been challenged by the clarifying questions of a few, and probably ignored by others. This has been a good process for me, at the least, to be able to articulate my streams of thought and then to find out where they lead. I've gone through two major case studies for significant issues that Christians often associate with the importance of voting. So, following these streams of thought, where are we now?

To be honest, I'm not really sure. It's not like I am going to declare myself and my position a success. I wouldn't say it's been a failure either. I haven't reached a point where I feel like my stance is indefensible. And, I find I'm not alone although in the minority - which is fine.

So, here is the heart of my thoughts on this matter:

I am tired of Christians who feel so strongly about politics that hatred, discord, and acceptable ignorance have entered their hearts and public discourse with regularity. This should not be. No Christian should hate another person just because they think differently about a very complex, sometimes purely secular issue.

I spoke with a Christian yesterday who wants to move to Canada because "they've already figured out this whole socialism thing." You know what, that's ignorant. Obama is not "half a step from Communism," as this Christian told me. Why do people feel good about ignorance? If we discredit people who think differently from us, is it really security? What control do we really maintain if caricature the "other side" without listening to what their saying?

As an aside, because those comments made me mad, read your Bible people. Read your Old Testament. Read about the Year of Jubilee. And then shudder because your God is more socialist than you. And when you start to say, "But that was the Old Testament...," go read the New Testament. If you are a part of my movement, go read our "capstone chapter" (Acts 2) and then shudder because you realize that the church you are trying to replicate was more socialist than you.

And even then, I have this feeling like maybe Obama is not a communist. Probably not a socialist, either. All that to say, accepted ignorance is not okay. Either Christians should educate themselves, or be quiet. It's not okay to think un-critically about anything.

I am also tired of Christians who think that God wants them to change the world through politics. I don't believe that He does. I believe that God wants to change the world through His church. Here's something we can all agree on: not all politicians have the Spirit of God. So why would we argue that politics has fundamental role to play in carrying out God's agenda in the world? That doesn't make sense. I have witnessed many Christian Republicans who are scared about the next four years in America. Why? Because we have democratic legislative and executive branches in our government? Like, there's nothing for these Christians to do for the next four years? That's crazy! I believe the earlier case studies have shown that there is so much Christians can do in regards to abortion, regardless of what a democratic government legistlates, and the same is true for homosexual marriages. Our task as Christians on this earth has not been put on hold until 2012.

If then, a person can accept that regardless of politics, the Christian duty to be bearers of the Kingdom of God remains the same, of what importance is voting? I refuse to believe that God's agenda has been thwarted by the election of Barack Obama. Sadly, there are those in our churches that would disagree with that statement. None of them read my blog. So for the rest of us, can we all agree that we may need to rethink the importance of the vote? Please?

In case this is not clear enough, let me try again.

God gave the world His church, He did not give the world America.
God expects change to occur in the world as a result of the work of His church, not as a result of the voting majority in a specific country on His planet.

I'm afraid that too many Christians forget this. I'm afraid that more Christians intellectually promote these ideas, but practically ignore them.

So why vote? I say, only vote if you are committed to the idea that your purpose and goal in life as a Christian will not change regardless of who wins what election or regardless of what everbill gets passed. If you are voting as if the Kingdom depends on it, don't vote. Well, can voting be a branch of your faith? Sure it can. Absolutely. I'd even be comfortable with saying it's an extension of your faith. Maybe even an expression. But it is not THE expression or THE extension or THE stump from which all other things branch. Please don't let it be that. There are, quite simply, too many other agendas involved in the political process for me to endorse it as a primary way for God's change to take place. As a secondary way? Sure. But may we never say that God's people need American politics to change the world. We don't.

And with my last gasping breaths, let me say this (on a personal level): this experience has been very, very good for me. I have really appreciated the insights and clarifying questions and challenges I received from several close friends. I also appreciated the support of a certain Rogue. My convictions on these matters have not changed, nor do I anticipate that they will. I have decided, however, that my practice can change. I cannot defend the idea that voting itself is wrong. I can only defend that the motivations which drive Christians to vote are often/sometimes wrong. Which is why I will be reading more intentionally about why my favorite non-participator (David Lipscomb) and others chose not to participate in human governments of any kind. And, why upon finishing my research, I think it is likely that I'll be rocking it along with everyone else in 2012. But, if I do, I can guarantee it won't be in support of Sarah Palin. Ha!

(and with that final gasp of laughter, Mr. Faris finally shut up)

Filibuster? Hardly know her!

As an aside, no show called "My Own Worst Enemy" deserves to be taken seriously. Also, it stars Christian Slater. Really, no studio exec at NBC could figure this out? Really?

I feel like blogging, but not about political stuff. Things are a little saturated in the political department these days. I need some fresh air.

Except now I can't remember what else I wanted to blog about. Stink.

Well, let me just say this, voting against gay marriage doesn't really solve anything. If you don't want homosexuals to ger married, fine. Whatever. But what does that really do? Protect the sanctity of marriage? Carry out the the agenda of the Kingdom of God?

Well... in short, no. If Christians are really concerned about the sanctity of marriage, shouldn't they stop getting divorced at a rate equal to that of non-Christians? Aren't our own marriages a good place to start? It seems a little odd to me for Christians to have such strong feelings about not letting homosexual couples get married when concrete evidence shows that we do such a poor job of maintaining holiness in our own marriages. Any Christian who is going to spend a lot of time and effort worrying about and voting against homosexual marriage had better make sure that he or she is maintaining holiness in his or her own marriage. Isn't that more important?

Secondly, if voting against homosexual marriage is something that someone sees as carrying out a part of the Kingdom agenda, then it seems to me that we also ought to be spending a lot of time hanging out with and loving homosexual people. I'm pretty sure that is a part of God's Kingdom agenda as well.

Not making the separate-paragraph-of-its-own-cut: the idea that homosexual couples, since they choose to live as such, probably should have some of the same rights as straight couples and the idea that it hurts our ministry to homosexual people when we so openly oppose the issue so that it also appears that Christians oppose them.

All that to say, I don't understand why homosexual marriage has become such a critical part of the Christian political platform. I'm not sure it should be. Or if it has to be, can it at least come from a better perspective? Unless, of course, if we're scared of something....

Bookend asides: Today, there was a misspelling at church on the song powerpoint that was hilarious. The song is "Lord, Reign in Me." The normal chorus starts like this "Lord, reign in me, reign in your power." The actual phrase as it appeard on the screen, "Lord, reign in me, rein in your power."

I was singing on praise team and had to put down my mic so people couldn't hear me laughing. How funny. Rein in your power. I will not sermonize on Christians asking God to rein it in. I will just laugh. Because it's funny. Yeah.

Filibustering

As I write this, the new President of America, Barack Obama, is delivering his address to a raucous crowd in Chicago.

I've spent the last several minutes reading Facebook statuses. I'm ashamed, for the most part, by what I've read. I've read some things posted on several other blogs, and I've had one email conversation with a good friend with an open mind. I feel the need to clarify some things.

I am not saying that Christians should not vote.
I am saying that when or if they do, I wish it were from a different perspective than what I typically hear and read from Christians.

My goal here is to challenge these typical perspectives. As I told a friend via email today, I am taking this stance based upon a firmly held idealist conviction. To vote now, when so many seem to scoff and think my position to be ludicrous, ignorant, or even un-Christian, is something I will not do. I don't want people to assume that I think what they think about Christianity and the American government. So, I don't vote because I choose not to - BUT I do not think it wrong for Christians to vote.

So, now, we need to look at some particular issues. We'll start with the one that gets me going the most: Abortion.

Abortion is the Christian issue. It seems to me that this is the one issue that decides Christian votes more than any other. My experience is that more Christians vote based on the abortion issue alone than any other. For one, on a purely intellectual level, to vote based on one issue is probably a little short-sighted. But so much more than that, Christians have a serious deficiency on the way that they have typically addressed this issue.

If Christians are going to vote pro-life, it doesn't end there. With the most profane definition, abortion is killing babies. I'm not in support of abortion. It's a sad and horrifying idea. But if you are opposed to killing babies, why would you support war? Do we have bombs that only taget adults that I don't know about? If killing babies means so much to us, we need to think very seriously and critically about what it means to go to war because that too involves the deaths of innocent people, including children, through warfare and refugee situations. If you are against abortion, I think you should at least seriously consider your stance on war and you will need to be able to give your reasons for why killing babies should be illegal in our country, but why it is okay to support the murder of children in other countries. And if I need to point out that there's not really a difference between murdering babies and murdering...

Translation: abortion is murder, war involves murder. We need to be aware of the connection between the two.

Even more so than the murder issue, if Christians are going to vote against abortion, it doesn't end there. You better be ready to adopt, or at least support adoption in whatever way you can. Keeping mothers of unwanted children from being able to have an abortion means we are going to have more and more unwanted children being born. Christians read their Bibles. James 1:27. I'm not an adoption expert. My sense is that adoption isn't for everyone and no one should feel guilty for not adopting if they know they shouldn't. But Christians are going to at least support it in whatever way they can.

Translation: To vote pro-life and not support adoption in some way is irresponsible.

If Christians are going to vote against abortion, it doesn't end there. Illegal abortion is not going to stop unwed women from getting pregnant. Let's be honest, voting to make abortion illegal doesn't mean people will stop trying and getting abortions. So what have you solved by voting? Preserving the sanctity of our Christian nation? Abortion isn't even the issue! It's the symptom of a disease(s) of great social magnitude. It has ties back to urban neglect and poverty. It has ties to the generational poor and weak public education. It has ties to middle and upper class teenagers having premarital sex at alarming rates. It has ties to pornography addictions and date rape. How is voting against abortion going to solve any of these complex social issues? What is really accomplished by voting for or against political candidates who are on one side or the other on the abortion issue? Not only that, what have we gained from voting Republican candidates into office?

Put simply, voting pro-life solves very little of what it seems Christians hope to accomplish by doing so. This is why, when it comes to this issue, it is incredibly dangerous to consider the act of voting as fully constitutional of one's act of faith. If you are a Christian, your "spiritual task" is not done in regards to the abortion issue if you vote pro-life. Hopefully no one will disagree with that.

For me, the question becomes, how can we, as Christians, begin to address this issue. Shall we do it through politics? Perhaps. But what if Christians disagree on whether or not abortion should be illegal? What happens then? What if, as no doubt many Christians are worrying even now (I'm not one of them), a democrat government is elected? How then will you deal with this issue?

It seems to me that it becomes very difficult pretty quickly to see the agenda of the Kingdom of God accomplished through the American government. If only God had instituted a body on Earth that could carry out His agenda! If only He had given that body His Spirit so that true change we can believe in might take place! If only...

The Filibuster Continues

Here are two major issues that make my position difficult. I'm not saying I think have an air-tight position here, but what follows is my current response to these issues. This post represents my public wrestling with some serious issues.

1. People fought and died so that I could have the right to vote or not vote.

2. The notion of civic duty.

In response to number one...

...

Okay, actually, I don't really know. Part of me feels very strongly about recognizing and honoring the sacrifices of those who have fought/fight in defense of our country. What those men and women have done is not something considered lightly or easily ignored. And I'm not ignoring it. At the same time, another part feels quite strongly that violence is never an acceptable solution (more on pacifism and politics later). I don't want to glorify violence, so it's very difficult to know exactly how to react to the sacrifices of previous generations. At the very least, they fought so that American people could have a choice as to how they respond. And, as I noted in the previous post, I am not apathetic. Apathy probably does neglect their sacrifice; I'm not willing to say that my choice not to vote because of my religious convictions does.

As an aside, the idea that I wouldn't be able to state my views if it weren't for those generations that worked and fought to make this happen is interesting. Yes, I suppose so. But if they had worked and fought and failed, and we were living in a country where we didn't enjoy certain "freedoms," wouldn't most people hold a view of governments and politics similar to mine (ie, the church moves regardless of governments and politics)? Yes, those people made it possible for me to hold these convictions publicly, but it's not like I wouldn't hold them otherwise.

In response to the second issue of civic duty, I say this. What exactly is civic duty? I'm going to need a clear definition before being able to respond in full. To work from generalities, though, I do not think that rend unto Caesar means Christians should vote. Let's not load our guns with only half the bullet, go ahead and shoot the whole verse!

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matt. 22:21)

I think you can go a couple of different directions with this one. First, it's not wrong to vote. I'm not saying Christians should not vote. I'm saying I don't vote because of certain convictions that I have. Voting is fine. My wife votes, my family votes, you probably vote. As I said in the previous post, I'm an idealist on this issue. I also like to challenge conventional thinking. So, for one, voting is not wrong.

At the same time, let's think about what Jesus truly intends to say in this passage. Once again, the Pharisees have come out to trap him with a tricky question. It seems that some things never change. The teachers of the Law knew that if they wanted a tricky question, they could pick from one of many in the political realm. I'll save the details for someone else, but Rome and Israel were not real tight in any way except geographically. So this is a question of significant political ramifications. Answer pro-Rome and the Jews will stop listening; answer pro-Jews and the Romans have a potential political revolutionary who they would be very interested in silencing.

So how does his answer get him off the hook. He basically goes pro-everyone. If it belongs to the government, give it to the government. That is follows its laws, pay its taxes, etc. Some would say vote. If it belongs to God, give it to Him.

And this why I don't see voting as a civic duty that must be done. I'm much more interested (and quite frankly, much more scared) of the second part of that classic civic duty Scripture. What should I be giving to God? The answer of course, is everything. Everything I do, everything I say, everything I have... it ALL goes to God.

So, if I were to vote, I guess I'm not really concerned with civic duty. Being a good citizen (see Romans 13) is just a part of being a good Christian (as well as avoiding getting kicked out of Rome again). Being a good citizen doesn't happen for its own sake or for the sake of "civic duty." No, in all things, I have one goal, one purpose, and one duty in this life: to glorify God in everything. (I have written before about the American farce of "certain unalienable rights," but let me just say that I believe that there are probably fewer rights in God's kingdom than there are in America. Right to bear arms? Uh.... Right to the pursuit of happiness? Uh....)

All that to say this, if I were to vote, it wouldn't be because of civic duty. It would only be because I felt that voting would somehow help me carry out my objective of "rendering unto God." And therein lies the real problem.


Up next: Destroying The Christian Platform

*Just a reminder: I'm not posting any comments. Comment wars are probably inevitable with what I am writing, and I don't want support wars of any kind. Ha. No really. If you want a response from me, put your email address in the comment that you post. I will see the comment and respond, but your comment will not appear here (I love talking about this, so please engage me in conversation). If you don't want a response, but just want to speak your mind, don't leave your email address or post something on your blog. Thanks.

The Problem with Politics

For the record, I considered doing this inductively.

I don't vote. I'm not lazy about it, though. It's a conscious decision. I had a government teacher in college that used to say, "America is not a democracy; it's an apathocracy!" Nice. But that's not me. I'm not apathetic. I am however an idealist about many things. When it comes to politics - I'm not an idealist. When it comes to my faith, I am.

So, I don't vote. I am not one of those Christian Americans you see covering their yards, their cars, and themselves with presidential paraphernalia. I am, in the homiletical turn of phrase, an American Christian. That is, I'm a Christian who happens to live in America. The America thing is just, well, the America thing.

Already, I can sense some people squirming.

"But America is God's gift to the world! Democracy is a blessing. People have died so that you can have the right to vote!"

It is important to start with these basic presuppositions. God bless America becomes America is God's blessing. Sure, but then again, so is France. Or Canada. Or any country where God's people are not persecuted. No persecution is a blessing, sure. Is America really that much better than any other country? Some people might think, well it's better than China! Is it? One could at least argue, and legitimately so, that persecution has always been good for the church. It's grown the most and the strongest through times of persecution. Maybe China has been better for the church than America? Maybe? Uncomfortable yet? Might America be the new Constantine? Quite simply, America could be a blessing but America can also be a curse. It's most accurate to say that America is America.

Well, what about government. Surely democracy is a blessing? I'd say that it's probably about the same as our nation. Democracy can be, but then, I imagine there are good things about living under a monarchy. I do think it is better than living in a communist country, or in a country ruled by a tyrant, etc. But I'd say anyone who has tried and even just wanted to see something happen through government know the frustrations of democracy. Democracy
can be a blessing, but I'm not willing to say that it is God's government. We'll just leave it at that.

These two major presuppositions are the foundation for much of the politics that I hear supported by those in Christian circles. Quite frankly, I'm not coming to the table with the same presuppositions. America is not God's country and democracy is not God's government.

How do I know this? I know this because there are Christians in China. I know this because there were Christians in Soviet Russia. Christianity has never needed or required the support of any country or any government. Christianity exists in spite of it. It is theologically myopic, not politically, to assume that other countries need democracy. It is theologically myopic to get so caught up in the issues that weigh down our country in such a way that we neglect or forget God's agenda for our own. It lacks a certain global perspective.

So, I don't vote. I don't vote because I don't think that God intended to give His creation a country or a government. I think God intended to give His creation a church. I don't think He cares about politics as much, or at least not in the same way as many of us.

More to come...

Mr Faris Avoids Washington Like The Plague...

but that doesn't mean that I won't engage in a rousing filibuster as the need arises. In plain English, that means that I am about to start blogging politics. 'Tis the season.... It's a filibuster because I am not going to publish any comments that are left on any political post. This is MY blog. If you have something to say about this, get your own blog and say whatever you want. I'll not be hosting any comment wars - I'm a pacifist, after all. That being said, go ahead and post a comment. I'd love to read what you think and then make fun of it behind your e-back. No seriously, if you have something about which you would like to speak your mind to me, put your email address in the comment and I will correspond with you that way if you feel so inclined to engage in an e-discussion with me. But expect a discussion, because it is highly unlikely that you will convince me to change my mind (so please don't try). Just don't expect to see your comment show up on the blog, because it's not a filibuster if someone else is talking...

No News

Yesterday, I got a little giggle from something we received in the mail and thought it was worth sharing. Jesse and I both received mailings from Harding in Searcy. Mine was addressed to Mr. Nick Faris, hers to Ms. Jesse Maddox. So, I learned two things yesterday. One, Harding thinks we're living in sin. Two, they hope to see us in Searcy for Homecoming.

In other news, the "I'm a PC" commercial is pretty good. It's also really late, like by about three years. And this is my problem with institutions. By the time they get a response together, even if it is good, it's too late. Give me grassroots, give me a quick response, give me a Mac.

In a related story, I also like the American Express commercial montage. Two good commercials there.

The Seven Again

Failing to keep my word to Brother Bob, I have decided to post my seven here, in shame. Said Brother called on Sunday, but didn't leave a message. I'm guessing he didn't feel it was appropriate to let me go with a voicemail. These things are better done in person. Without furth...


1. USC - more proof that you can recruit speed. I think this team is very good, but I also think they lose at least one. I don't think that one will be this week, but something more along the lines of the usual Pac-10 upset. UCLA maybe? Again?

2. Ohio State - more proof of what happens when you don't recruit speed. Okay, seriously. I LOVE this team's depth and maturity. They have a lot of upper classman talent. They would have been my #1 going into Week 2, but then they almost lost to Ohio. They'll gain credibility by hanging tough this week, but not tough enough to get the win when it counts. Again.

3. Florida - I think this team beats Georgia and probably ends up playing for a National Championship. Again.

4. Oklahoma - I saw a good stat the other day about the impact of an offensive line with over 100-something starts in their college career. Look it up. I think it was Ivan Maisel. They're coming out of the Big 12 and losing their BCS bowl. Again.

5. LSU - I think they come out of the west and finish the year looking better than they really are. Again. Les Miles questionable coaching finally catches up to him.

6. East Carolina - These two early wins were huge. They give ECU credibility, which they'll need at the end of the season when they are undefeated. Look for them to be the controversial team that screw up the BCS. Hmmmm, BCS screwed up? Again?

7. Missou - not sure if they're really as good as advertised again, the October game against UT should answer that question. Until then, who else belongs at seven?

The Fall

Go to yahoo fantasy sports, click on the college football pick 'em, and join my league (http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/college)

Group #: 22148
Password: heisman

The first 50 get a spot! Fall is upon us!

French Criticism

From Jean Vanier, in Becoming Human:

"But communities that start out as healthy places of belonging can become too closed, rich, and elitist. What is the hunger for power that groups so readily acquire? Members come together to confirm each other's value. Communities can become like clubs for self-congratulation and flattery, status symbols of mediocrity. Rather than opening up to others, such groups close in on themselves. They lead to the death of the spirit."

Sound familiar to anyone?

Praying the Absurd

The other day, at a busy intersection in town, I stopped at a red light beside a woman holding a sign asking for some kind of help. Truthfully, I prefer not to sit by and do nothing when I have something to offer.

Thankfully, I did have some cash with me. I don't usually carry cash, which I may use to my advantage when asked for favors by people such as this woman. As an aside, non-perishable food would have been best, I think. Keep a bad in your car for such an occasion as this. Or perhaps food stamps or coupons. I will say the restaurant coupons (e.g., McDonalds) are tricky because I'd rather not super-size America anymore than it is, but all the same, it's probably better than nothing.

I digress. The thing is, when I gave the lady my cash, she started crying. She said, "Thank you so much, I've had to prostitute myself to feed my children." And then she walked away. In hindsight, I'm not even sure this lady was wearing pants. It really could have been just a long shirt. Regardless, my window goes back up and I am back in my air-conditioned cocoon of comfort. Except I'm not comfortable. In a movement of the Spirit, my lips uttered these words, "Oh God, please let that not be true. I would much rather be taken advantage of than that poor woman be living the life she just described. Please, God, let that story be a lie."

I tend not to believe the stories I hear. I recall a friend and I hearing a story from a guy one day, and the following week, she heard the same guy tell the same story in a different part of town. Weird. Dishonest. Way to give panhandlers a bad name, right? Wrong. Part of being a follower of Christ has never included the right never to be taken advantage of. In fact, it may be the exact opposite.

Put simply, we need more absurd prayers. Call it The Sucker's Prayer. It might sound like this:

"Father, I just did something the world might consider stupid. I gave a drunk money. I talked to a panhandler. I opened the door when the Jehovahs Witnesses knocked. I talked to my crazy neighbor. I paid for the meal of the people who held the door for me when I entered the restaurant. I picked up a hitchhiker. I stopped to help someone push their car into the gas station parking lot. By all accounts, Lord, it was stupid. I could have been shot, stabbed, robbed, punched, kissed, bothered and annoyed, or even late. On the other hand, God, you could have not been glorified had I not done that ridiculous thing. And, to me, that's absurd. Why would I ever choose not to glorify you? So let me be a sucker. Let the world take what it will, only let me give it all away before it asks. Amen - let it be so - hallelujah!"

(For those who read the first version, I decided to take out the part about Jesus being a sucker. He wasn't really. So now, this prayer is not in his name. Get over it.)

In case anyone might miss the point of what I am writing, it's this: you probably need to be taken advantage of more than you are. Americans have more rights than Christians, but I'd still rather be a Christian.

Keeping it in the Family

Our family is growing, but not like that. Like all great romances, it was never just about a boy and a girl. Let's be honest, that one is a bit boring. It's been done before. No, the best romances have a supporting cast. The once and jealous boyfriend. The kooky family. The comic relief friend ensemble. The dog(s). And that's what it is for us. To start, it was never Nick and Jesse, but Jesse and Owens. Owens is the elder statesman. The wizened, grizzled veteran. The bum without enough teeth to keep his tongue in his month.

This one about sums it up for Owens. He's a heavy sleeper who has only about 5-10 minutes of true activity per day. For the rest of the day, he's on his bum doing nothing. I will say this, though. He loves Sundays because it means he gets to lay on the couch with me and watch some football.

Adding Moses has certainly brought more frenzied action to the house. But some things are still the same. For one, both are attentive to noise. Noise means potential for food or attention, either of which both dogs are happy to beg for.

This is the usual state of things. If the source of the noise turns out not to have food or attention, Moses looks elsewhere for the two. Owens looks for something else: peace and quiet.

This one turned out well. I finally got them both to look.

Moses being Moses. Owens being Owens.

Another good example of Owens' seeming disinterest, and Moses' all-consuming curiosity. As you can see from the pictures, Owens doesn't move much. All in all, it's been fun adjusting to life with two dogs. They balance each other well. Owens has taught Moses how to be more of a lounger, which is conducive to life in the Faris house. And Moses has taught Owens to eat all of his food at once, because otherwise Moses will eat it. And we have learned that two dogs means you have to vacuum twice as often than when you only had one.

The Kitchen Sink

I am so ready for football. Saturdays are busy enough, but Sundays could use a little something, like four hours of refreshing three different fantasy league pages.

I wish Nick being Nick was an accepted phrase, at least in our house, if not everywhere. It just goes to show that if you set the bar low, you can get away with a lot more than the average citizen. Note to criminals: that does not apply to you. Here's my take on Manny, since you asked. It's a bittersweet parting. I know few Sox fans. Even fewer among them are still really upset about the Nomar trade or Johnny Demon's shark-jump to the Evil Empire. I'm not. Do I miss Pedro? Sure. Do I miss him pitching? Apparently not, poor guy's arm fell off. If Manny wants to put himself in league with those characters, let him.

The operable metaphor, for me, is the hot chick/idiot. She's an idiot. You know it won't last, and it costs waaaay too much to make it work. At the same time, SHE'S HOT. One of the hottest chicks you've ever seen, as a matter of fact. But now, she's 36, and the crazy is taking over hard core. The crazy outweighs the hottness, and even though you've enjoyed it, it's time to let her go swim in stupid seas. Did I take that metaphor too far? Yes. Yes I did, but it;s still coherent, and that's more than I can say for Woody Paige.

I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT THE PREVIOUS METAPHOR IS IN NO WAY RELATED TO ANY RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED. IT MOST ESPECIALLY IS NOT RELATABLE TO MY WIFE. AT ALL. SHE IS, BY ALL ACCOUNTS, HOT AND INTELLIGENT. THESE ARE JUST TWO OF THE MANY REASONS WHY I MARRIED HER.

Finally, we weren't winning anything with Manny. He decided that. So I wish him the best next year when he's making 20 mill a year with the Giants. Just a guess, but it makes sense in a Brian Sabean kind of way, right?

Interesting take on the USA Coaches Top 25 here.

Going to the Chapel...

I have little doubt that I will be motivated to discuss my thoughts more as political fervor continues to increase in our country over the coming months. So, allow me dear reader(s), to tease you with this marital image:

We've tried for too long to wed Church and State at the courthouse. It's time for the two to get married in the Church. The only problem is, the State is unwilling to get baptized and the Church isn't willing to force the issue.

The Tyrant of Life

What is life? I often wonder about the deep grammar behind our personification of life. "Well, that's life," we say. Yes, but what does that mean? Is life really some sort of existential, incorporeal card dealer? Should we be capitalizing it, like a personal noun: Life? (That reminds me: I could have a whole other post on how that board game is a social commentary on the American dream - but I'm not that cynical. It's just a board game, right?) Or maybe life is really just some universal Cousin Eddie, making your existence miserable until somehow, even though he has totally exhausted your ability to cope with, well, himself, it all works out in the end (but only for Christians, mind you).

Oh yeah, and then there's the God thing. If you listen closely to the way we talk about it, there must be ample evidence that God and Life are colluding against us. Of course, sometimes they are kind enough to work things out in our favor. That's a "God Thing." And don't even get me started on The Plan, starring God, Life, and You. It's an ensemble show that will make you laugh and cry all at once (so basically, it's MASH).

Or maybe Life is God's puppy. "Sorry about my dog doing his business on your leg," He shrugs, "He's just a puppy, after all." God sighs and puts His hands on His hips in mock disgust. You can't be mad at God about that, can you? I mean, who can control a puppy? And, who can control life? Life has got plans of his own, a mind of his own. Or maybe she does. After all, life is nothing if not capricious.

It's the control issue, I think, that brings clarity to the significance of the way we talk about life. If life exists apart from us, then it gives us a reason to accept when life doesn't "go our way," or "deals us a bad hand," or "isn't fair," or "doesn't work out." Life doesn't work out? What does that mean? You and Life sat down and had a talk and Life said, "It's not you; it's me. I'm just not ready for the commitment."

No, everything must be under control. We want the Force; we want balance in the universe. And, if we had our druthers, we'd be the ones calling the shots. That's why Jimmy Buffett and his cheeseburger are so ridiculous to most of us. Not too particular or precise? Who wants that? I know exactly what I want on my cheeseburger and I want it right now. As Christians, we have spiritualized this desire for control - we gave God a plan. That way, if things don't "go our way," we can just say that it wasn't part of God's plan and maintain some sort of intellectual control. At the very least, we ought to be able to understand why Life is the way it is. Here's a thought, what if God's plan isn't as detailed as yours?

No, that's ridiculous. Too ridiculous to admit that it scares us to death (life, death, irony, thank you very much). I'd rather personify Life, so then I can pursue it, possess it. The truly gifted among us even go so far as to master it; they have its secrets.

I believe that the reason we want control is because we fear anarchy. What if none of what we call Life means anything? Isn't that the greatest fear of Christians, and likewise the greatest comfort for Atheists? If we can only get enough control, then we can avoid the utter chaos of anarchy. Then Life will mean something.

And herein lies the problem: anarchy breeds tyranny. That's why anarchy, or even the fear of it, is rarely a valid motivation for any worthwhile endeavor. In our movement especially, we need to move past reactionary theology (the kind that rises from this very fear of anarchy, chaos, or even any semblance of a lack of control) because it can only lead to tyranny. (Many Christians would propose we set up a "democracy" (i.e., a board of trustees, I mean, elders) but I'm all for giving theocracy a shot). The point is, the only humans who have ever been in support of tyranny were tyrants. And that's not because they think it's best for everyone, but because it gives them the most power and therefore, control. In the same way, I fear that many Christians have become tyrants in their own right.

Some tyrannize faith; they have all the right answers. Some tyrannize church; they have all the right forms. Me? I'm afraid I may be the tyrant of life. Chaos is my fear. Control is my idol and balance is its accepted sacrifice. Now I'm not saying that balance is bad - it's not. But balance and self-control may not be synonymous, and I'm not so sure that God wouldn't welcome an imbalance in his favor. I wish I was as addicted to God as I may be to sports. I certainly think the world would be a much better place if we could get our churches to be as addicted to God as they are to money, status, pornography, drugs, or itself.

Jesus said that he came to give us abundant life. And maybe that's the problem - we never talk about life as it is. Life is a gift.

My Wife Thinks This Post is a Kitchen Sink

On the All-Star Game:

I do not like Joe Buck at all.
Tim McCarver is not bright.

The history of baseball is probably way cooler than its future.

I care more about the former players than Yankee Stadium. Good riddance.

The sight of a stealth bomber flying over NYC is not cool - it's scary.

The opening ceremonies of this year's All-Star Game are a good preparation for the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Waaaaaaay too long.

I'm glad I'm not a Hall of Fame baseball player; I couldn't stand for that long.



From my buddy Josh:

On preaching - "It's a lot easier not to worry about the "deep grammar" or far reaching implications of a thought... especially if you think it could sound rather profound in the immediate. A dangerous temptation indeed.


I have a job now. My title is property management professional. I work for Enterprise Property Management.


Cormac McCarthy is an intriguing author. I just finished The Road. It was... intriguing. A lot to think about on what constitutes the nature of humanity and hope. When there's nothing left to live for, what do you live for?

Wishing

I wish I had written this.

These days...

Just got back from a family reunion in Colorado for the fourth. Good times. I talked to a friend of mine this afternoon who is on a family vacation of sorts. We had the following conversation:

Him: "Do you remember Brett Saberhagen?"
Me: "Sure."
Him: "He's teeing off right in front of me. He's big. He's put on some weight."

I feel like my readers should know that Saberhagen has put on some weight. Next thing you know, someone's going to tell me Bert Blyleven shaved his beard. Or even worse, that Pete Incaviglia lost weight. I also loved Mark Lemke.

Contemplating the Contemplative

I'm starting a short series on Nouwen's In the Name of Jesus this morning in our Sunday School class. I'm excited about it, because I love Nouwen. I know that people have different expressions of spiritual practice and discipline, but I think (and hope for the sake of class) that all people can find something that resonates with their heart in the writing of Nouwen. We are all spiritual, regardless of the expression it takes.

As I consider that last sentence, I think of the fear I have that some people will not enjoy Nouwen because it doesn't make sense to them. That fear, which may or may not be grounded in reality, makes me think that in our movement, we aren't good at encouraging and developing spiritual formation. Frankly, we suck at it. We educate; we don't grow or transform. I think that too often our failure is in assuming that information does something more than simply inform. It doesn't. It takes intentional effort to get more than information out of information. Put in agrarian terms, information is inorganic. It does not by nature produce growth.

Two questions apply these thoughts to something beneficial and rescue me from cynicism: why and how.

WHY?

That is, why do we rely on information for growth when it only informs? I blame the Sunday School model (and hence, unexamined Enlightenment thinking). We've made "doing church" primarily about educating. You come, you get a Lord's Supper sermonette (a Faris pet peeve no-no), you get a teaching sermon, you go to class and learn some more. I've heard criticism of small groups from this thinking. "When will they learn with all that 'fellowship?'" critics ask. Likewise, if you're not coming to class again on Wednesday night, your soul is in danger! AHHHHH!! Educate this young person before he falls away! Maybe young people are leaving because they want more than a "good, biblical education." We try and get people to come to church by poaching on their desire to teach morals to their children. Come to VBS, we'll educate your children and they will miraculously become moral people!

This is not to say that education is bad or wrong; my generation and those after are sometimes woefully ignorant. It is to say, however, that education is not enough. The most spiritual people are not the most educated. Indeed, sometimes, it is the opposite. This is likely because our desire for knowledge is not informed by our desire for knowing God, but by our enlightened worldview that sees knowledge/education/information as the solution to all the world's problems.

HOW?

How do we find balance? How do we grow if not through informing? Where shall we find spiritual transformation?

I have no solid answers. But, I can think of some movements that seem right to me.

We need a movement of the Spirit. It is the Spirit who transforms and causes growth. Similarly, we need a movement of Spirit-filled leaders who can live it for us. We need spiritual guides and mentors to lead our churches more so that we need smart businessmen and women who can please the majority and balance the budget. We need a movement toward community.

And, as we will discuss in class this morning, we need a movement toward irrelevance. We need people who are valued not for what they can do, but for how much they love God. May we all love God as much with our hearts as we do with our minds.

Confessions of a Hypocrite

I think people who only post on their blogs once a month should not have blogs. You have a blog for the purpose of writing something cathartic, sharing some funny anecdote, etc. You don't have a blog so that you can ignore it or feel guilty about how busy your life has become.

I haven't posted in over a month.

I don't really like it when Jesse puts her clothes in the chair in our bedroom.

The chair in The Man Room has a pile of clothes on it.

I love doing manual labor. It's fun to be outside and sweat. I enjoy doing physical activity and getting dirty.

I'm blogging now to avoid doing yard work.

I love to read.

I've read half of one book since school finished over a month ago. It was the second half of the Irresistible Revolution. I'm pretty I have the record for longest read of that book. It took me about a month.

My favorite cereal is Honey Nut Cheerios. It always has been.

Multiple times in the past few months, I have picked Corn Chex over Honey Nuts.

I hate messiness.

I'm a mess.

Recommended Reading

Here.

One Thing

I have a question which requires an answer. The question is:

What do you think the gift of faith is?

a) the common faith shared by every believer
b) the faith of a skeptic or one who struggles with doubt
c) the faith of one who searches deeply but does not struggle with doubt
d) other

This question requires nuance. I am speaking here of the gift referred to in Scripture (cf, 1 Cor. 12:9). It is not, by nature, the faith all believers have in common. That is my opinion. But, you are allowed to disagree. If you answer D., you must explain. The difference between B. and C. is not the level of spiritual maturity but the natural inclination of the person. One can struggle with doubt (or not struggle) and have a folk-type faith that is unexamined and unquestioned. Or, one can struggle with doubt (or not struggle with doubt) and have a deep and vibrant relationship with the Lord that includes intense study and searching.

My bias is coming out here, because the real question I am asking centers on the two middle choices. Is the gift of faith given to the one who searches and struggles with doubts or to the one who searches and does not doubt?

I'll tell you what I think once everyone has responded, so please respond. I'm not posting again until somebody does.

Kevin Costnerdamus was right

So I just paid $60 for a tank of gas for the Camry (Gordita), and it hit me, Kevin Costner was WAY ahead of his time. Remember Waterworld? The polar ice caps melt (sound inconvenient?) and gas is a precious commodity for nefarious seafaring peoples. Well, it's starting to look like Costner knew what he was talking about. We're well on our way. What's next, pregnant men?

Gospel e-Meeting (first night)

Well, this night can't last forever. I think that's a line in at least 50 songs. 75 if you include other languages. Este noche no burrito siempre. I can't remember the spanish word for last. Lo siento.

So where do we start with a gospel presentation if not condemnation and judgment?

If it's not clear already, I do not think that we should start with condemnation and judgment. Some of you are concerned if we will ever hear c/j at all. The answer to that is affirmative. Some of you are hoping it won't ever make it in. You will be disappointed. Actually, I made this whole paragraph up. No one is thinking that.

To answer the above question, let me give a few suggestions:

- We do have to start somewhere. If we're not intentional about where we start, though, the presentation suffers significantly.

- Considering my agreements with the thinking behind narrative theology, I think we can start our gospel story with the start of the story. Why not start with creation? Paul seems to think that creation implies a Creator, as do the Psalms. I have a hard time thinking that it would be negative to start with, "In the beginning..."

Of course, it doesn't take long for the story to deteriorate. If presenting the Gospel is in some way getting someone to buy into a different story other than the one they are creating for their own self (and I think it is), then we have to be able to explain the reason for buying into this different story. As such, I believe that a fundamental characteristic of the story of what God is doing and has done in the world (the Gospel) is making things right again. Thus our gospel presentation becomes a matter of convincing someone that something in the world is not right.

I am of the persuasion that convincing someone that everything in the world is not right is pretty easy.


So to recap, here is where I would probably start:

In the beginning, God created...

Shortly thereafter, something happened that caused things to go awry and now God is working to redeem creation.

This Memphis Mourning

Well, that game was wrenching. What a heart-breaker! My heart goes out to this Memphis team and its fans (I can only claim a bandwagon seat, at best) for a tough loss. Jess and I know several people who made the trek hoping for great things only to be disappointed in the haunting final minute of that game.

Yeah, the officiating affected the outcome of the game. It usually does. The real tragedy is in those final five free throws. And Coach Cal said he was willing to take the blame for the way they executed an attempted foul in the last 10 seconds.

What hurts the most is how much this city wanted/needed a win last night. Those players wanted to win for each other, but they also wanted to win for this city in a way that most college teams do not or cannot understand. In some way, this team was a microcosm of the city and it would have been great to see this city come out on top. It would have been great to see a united city, if only for a few weeks. As it is, this team played hard. They won more games than any other team in NCAA history. And, in spite of the loss, I think they earned a lot of respect for their city. For all of that, this city can be proud.

House Husband Help

Fold A Fitted Sheet With Perfectly Squared Corners

So I googled help with folding the fitted sheet this morning, and found this great gem of a video. Impress your wife or roommate or self with your amazing ability to turn a once difficult task into something more difficult (but also more rewarding)! I got it on the first try. My thanks to Ben Stein for the helpful explanation.

Gospel e-Meeting (first night)

Well, I didn't expect James to read anything longer than a few sentences that wasn't about Starbucks or Seattle, but he brings up a good point that is worth some attention. James is a lot like Lola.

I would like to state for the record that my last post was intentionally misleading. I meant to incorporate some of the old gospel vernacular to set up where I would probably start in my gospel presentation. As such, James' comment is to be expected (especially from our generation) and I would consider it appropriately provoked. His thoughts were not new or surprising to me.

And so, we begin with the "hellfire and brimstone" concept. What role, if any, do judgment and condemnation have in any presentation of the gospel? Is this in fact where we should start?

The answer, in short, is no. Unfortunately, I think that starting with condemnation is no longer culturally viable. I am totally comfortable with saying that starting with condemnation/judgment (henceforth c/j) is theologically viable, but theology is never performed or conceived in a vacuum. In the past, it seems that starting with c/j was an acceptable cultural practice. This, of course, had its own limits as such gospel presentations covered the spectrum from fear-mongering to honest concern for another person's "eternal destiny." We have a hard enough time now convincing people that they have an eternal destiny, let alone deciding for them what that destiny will be.

Of course, that decision is not ours to make. That's for another "night," but the point here is simply that if we want to be heard, we can't start with c/j. If we do, quite simply, we'll only be scaring the choir. No one else will be around to listen. Our world does not want to hear any talk of hell, damnation, lakes of burning sulfur, an angry God, etc. John Lennon invited the world to imagine no heaven or hell and it has. As such, we must change our gospel beginnings.

Invoking the James Wood Rule, I have to stop. We'll continue with a few suggestions for where we can start soon.

Gospel e-Meeting (first night)

In the spirit of the Gospel meetings of yore, each post will represent a night of said meeting. I expect this meeting to run more than seven nights. You may also consider this gospel e-meeting, in part, satirical in form. The other part, I suppose, is a cultural re-adaptation. What's more culturally relevant than taking an old form of communication and putting an e in front of it, after all?

As with all first nights, I think we have to start off with the dirt, the fire and brimstone, the hellfire and Jonathan-Edwards-sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-God-type thoughts. I mean, where else can you start except with pointing out why one needs any gospel in the first place? This makes sense to me. It's the classic salesman technique: you can't sell a solution until the customer is aware of the problem. Ladies and gentleman, I give you technology. It solves all the problems you never knew you had.

It's a crude metaphor, but it works. The analogy breaks down, however, when you being to consider yourself a salesman and the Gospel your trade. We don't peddle; we live. But that's getting ahead of 0urselves. Let's talk about why people and the world they live in are "bad..."


in the next post. Sorry, but James Wood says these posts are too long so I'm going to have to break them up into smaller chunks.

Gospel e-Meeting (prolegomena)

I've been thinking a lot lately, which is really nothing new and probably not surprising to those who know me. These thoughts are torturing me and I feel the need to put these thoughts into some form lest I explode. At the broadest level, I am beginning to envision a gospel according to me. Not THE Gospel, mind you, but the interpretation that I proclaim with my life. To articulate this means several things.

First, it means that this undertaking will by its very nature be incomplete. I do not pretend to be something other than what I am (shout out to Dennis Green). Of course, what I am will be understood by the Gospel I proclaim.

Second, it means my presentation will likely be nuanced in different ways from yours. This is an important distinction that requires at least two things. For one, it requires, I think, that at the very least you respect my interpretation. For two, it requires that you wrestle very seriously about what gospel your life presents.

Third, let me say early on that there is a difference between The Gospel and my interpretation. This is my presentation. I can claim it to be mine in that sense. In another sense, obviously, I do not own the Gospel. In preacher-speak, we might even say that it owns me. The point is, and as a corollary to the second point above, please be nice with the semantics. This is not my gospel, but my interpretation/presentation. Clear as mud.

Fourth, any presentation of one's interpretation requires a significant amount of humility. Therefore, I wish to communicate clearly now, and not for the last time, that these are my thoughts at this time. I have little doubt that I may write something now that I will disagree with or be ashamed of at some time in the future. The goal of this presentation is NOT to present the reality of truth in its unchanging form. In the same way that I cannot grasp fully who God is, I seriously doubt whether I will ever be totally satisfied nor finished with my understanding of The Gospel of God and what He has done through His Son, Jesus, who is the Messiah.

Therefore, I begin this presentation with the concept of movement. The goal of my presentation of the gospel is to encourage movement toward God. I believe that this is the goal of The Gospel. So also is it the goal of mine. As we encounter the gospel, even in its various interpreted forms, we are to be encouraged to move toward God. I will elaborate on this more, but the Christian life, if nothing else should be defined by this movement toward God. So also, the gospel according to Nick.

Updates

As of this morning, I have finished my midterms for the semester. Only two this year, but both for Oster, so they were absolutely terrifying. It's crazy how fast three hours go by - I never thought I would wish for a longer time period for taking a test. I'm just glad they're over.

I saw a guy smoking while mowing his lawn yesterday.

We have recently discovered that I can cook. Who knew? I've done a lot of fish lately, and none of it has been inedible.

Changing Seasons

Spring must be near, because I see a pansy!

On Cynicism, pt. 4 (the dream)

I'm subverting the trilogy formula and adding a forth addition to my cynicism thread. Barring an epiphany, being taken up into the third heaven, etc., this will be my last post on cynicism. It's long as I type this, and I'm not done yet, but I need to finish it. So, I'm sorry or you're welcome - whichever applies.

I've blogged already in various posts about the nature of Christian hope and the taint of cynicism on said hope. Now is the time to address this taint explicitly. Let me cite my friend Mac (who undoubtedly is a fan of V for Vendetta) from his brilliant piece in the recent student publication of the HUGSR newsletter, Under the Bridge (props to current Editor Bob LaBlob - holla). Mac discussed the relevance of dreams, specifically that most famous of dreams imagined by the good Dr. King:

"It was Dr. King's ability to craft a vision of a new America and to communicate that vision to others that brought about change in our nation. It may surprise many people in this world that dreams are more powerful than laws, or armies, or even history, but it should not surprise Christians. As Christians, we serve a God who dreams."

Wow! I got goose bumps reading that, and I got them again typing those words. As a side note, if you don't get the picture to the left, I can't explain it to you. But I will say it again, wow! That is powerful rhetoric. Before we get to the implications of a God who dreams, we must look one last time at the negative.



Here's the deal with cynicism. It's a sin. The impetus for this thread began with some introspection, but was further spurred by a conversation with Randy Harris. I was sitting in a class of his at NCYM, and he said in passing that cynicism was a sin. "Uh oh," I thought. So I arranged a time with him and my buddy Josh to discuss these harsh words. After all, I thought he was a little cynical too! So Randy, Josh and I had a chat, and Randy shared with us how he felt cynicism opposed the divine imagination. Of course, he did allow that there is a place for satire, so there's the loophole.

Subverting the divine imagination. I like that - as a phrase, of course. As an act, it sucks. But I want to take it one more step. Subverting the divine imagination requires a certain kind of disposition or character. Specifically, subverting the divine imagination/cynicism is a sin because it reeks of arrogance. Cynicism stews in the dutch oven of empty rants from haughty lips that no one cares to hear.

How can this be? Cynics aren't heart broken at the current state of things; they're upset because they think they know the way things ought to look and they don't look that way. They don't want things to improve; they just hate the way things are. At the core of all this, I believe, is a proud heart. Out of arrogance, the cynic mocks others but offers no hope for change. The cynic says, "YOU are doing it wrong." By implication, we may assume that the cynic implies that he or she is doing it right. However, in truth, the cynic does nothing. The cynic only thinks he or she knows what is right. This is the grizzled old bum who gave up on life who we see in the movies (Finding Forrester comes to mind). As a result, the cynic gives up. But this hopelessness is only the effect. It is arrogance at the core that causes this loss of hope.

Of course, these old and lonely cynics are never the protagonist. It always takes the young, brash, naive hero to spur the cynic out of hiding and into action. And, the difference is not that the hero claims to be doing it right. Where the cynic says, "YOU are doing it wrong." The hero says, "It's not supposed to be LIKE THIS." He may not always be able to offer a clear picture of what it should look like. But the hero is willing to say, "THIS should not be."

So, we deny cynicism because it is arrogant, and because it subverts the divine imagination.

Maybe I don't know what a perfectly just world looks like, but THIS poverty should not be in my city. THIS lack of opportunity for the poor should not be. THIS lack of education for an abandoned generation of young African American children in Memphis should not be. THIS church that looks only like me should not be. THIS argument over insignificant issues like instrumental music should not be. THIS materialism among Christians should not be. THIS lack of concern for those who do not know Christ should not be. THIS lack of love from those who are called to emulate the God who is love? IT SHOULD NOT BE!

And THIS lack of a dream or vision within the church who serves the God who dreams? It should not be.

I have a dream that one day God's people will begin to dream again. And not only that they will dream, but that they will hope in the one in whom there is power to make those dreams come true.

Ladies and Gentlemen

your reigning World Series Champion Boston Red Sox!

Indulgence

Few, if any, will care about my opinion on inconsequential things such as the subjects of this post. That won't stop me from posting my thoughts, but at least I'm not deceiving myself.

No Country For Old Men deserved every award it got. My goodness that movie continues to provoke me. I have to say it is rapidly becoming one of the greatest movies I have ever seen. Yes, it is rather graphic in parts, but never gratuitously. That is, it's not Saw IV. As I understand it, the violence is true to the book, which I still want to read having seen the movie. Javier Bardem deserved that Oscar; he stole the show as the creepiest/scariest/most intriguing villain this side of Dr. Lecter. Combine that with solid performances by Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin, and this movie is simply an astounding piece of work. I know it won't be for everyone, but if you can understand the story for what it is, you will not be disappointed.

Once was a great movie. I love the soundtrack, the song was deserving, and I'm really glad Marketa got to come back out and say thanks.

Ellen Page may not have been acting very much. Juno was still very good.

Personally, I don't know how naming your daughter after the devil wouldn't at least increase the odds of her becoming an exotic dancer. Diablo? Really?

John Stewart: C-. Although I am still laughing about the Harrison Ford joke.

The Kidd trade didn't seem to solve anything, but after the last two games, color me mildly interested.

The Memphis game was a heart breaker. I probably agree with what everyone else is thinking about that game, most importantly, that fans of that Knoxville team are annoying. The ugly orange are now odds on favorites to get busted in the 1st round next month.

More on cynicism later today.

On Cynicism, pt. 3 (subverting the -isms)

You cynics out there thought there was no hope for me blogging about cynicism again, didn't you? You were wrong; there's always hope.

Today, I want to discuss the other -isms. Along with cynicism, one often finds the discussion drifting into accusations regarding one's pessimism or optimism. That is, cynics are most often derided for being hopeless pessimists, and those who are not cynical as ignorant optimists. So which is it? Either you are a pessimist or an optimist, right?

The best way to avoid any such polemic is subversion.

We take our cue from Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount, it happens typically as, "You have heard it said, 'Do not _____,' but I say _______." Or again, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents...?" Of course, Jesus' answer is neither. It's always neither, isn't it? Jesus is so subversive. So in thinking through cynicism, to respond properly to the debate on pessimism vs. optimism requires subversion.

This time, we take our cue from Leslie Newbigin:
"I'm neither an optimist nor a pessimist. Jesus Christ is risen from the dead."

I believe this quote effectively destroys cynicism. We do not proclaim an opinion. We do not proclaim fiction or a feeling. We do not proclaim a private, individualistic, spiritual dream. We proclaim the reality of a risen Savior. What reason do we have to give up hope? What cause is there for pessimism?

At the same time, what cause is there for optimism? It is revealed as incomplete, ignorant, and immature. Let me explain. True and pure optimism believes that all things will return a positive outcome. The minister within me yearns to reference Webster here; the self-respecting man resists, but you can check it if you want. The point is that the reality of life, indeed, the reality even of Scripture, is that optimism has been thwarted. Read Job. Read the prophets. If all things had in fact turned out for good, what need was there for Jesus Christ to die. That we proclaim a risen Savior by its very nature means that something has gone and remains drastically wrong with our present reality. We deny optimism because it fails to account for reality.

And so we subvert the legitimacy of both the hopeless pessimist and the ignorant optimist. We do not deny the dark reality of our world, but neither do we ignore the light that has come and continues to penetrate the darkness. I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist. Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

Advance Copy

I've decided to post something I wrote for the HUGSR student newsletter. This is an advance copy so sorry for the repeat, HUGSR nerds. Basically, this is an abbreviated version of my convictions regarding my calling and my education. May we all pursue love.

YM + GE = X

For most, the answer to the above equation is X = 0. After all, what relevance do youth ministry and a graduate education have to one another? For most, youth ministry and graduate education are this generation's Tango and Cash. X does not equal zero, however. For one, the stereotype may be true that YM – GE often leads to disastrous results. Perhaps this is true because of a lack of learning, maturity, or discipline that can be gained with the addition of GE. Still, a less negative view returns a better solution. The goal of all things, including YM and GE, ought to be the spiritual (trans)formation of an individual into the community of God’s people. The answer then is an infinite range. Some may do well without GE, some may do poorly with it. Regardless, the goal is not a smarter youth minister, but one who loves more. For, “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1).

BR: Renovation of the Heart

I finished Renovation of the Heart yesterday. In undergrad, I got to read Willard's Spirit of the Disciplines and really loved it. It was deep and well-thought out. A little deeper than Foster's popular disciplines book, Celebration of Discipline, but still really good. This book, however, was not as good. To be honest, this book was one of the more tedious books I have read. I read a lot of things for grad school that most people would immediately label tedious. This book made me want to read my grad school readings. I usually am reading five or six books at a time for school, and for the last month (another sign of tediousness) I have dreaded reading this one the most, even more than Ferguson's The Church of Christ. At one point, my goal was down to reading at least 5-10 pages a day in Renovation. Essentially, Willard presents his theological anthropology in the first 100 pages. It's deep; it's confusing. While I think understanding the correlation between mind, spirit, will, heart, body, and soul is important, his presentation is less than lucid. When I was checking out this book on Amazon, I saw that another guy has written a book simply to explain this one. That's how tedious it is. I think the level of tedium has been grasped here, so I'll move on. Basically, for a book in the realm of spiritual formation, I think this book is far from relevant; his thoughts are good, his applications are severely lacking. I would say that it is probably even borderline self-indulgent for Willard, an author for whom I have great respect. My problem with this book was admittedly exacerbated with a concurrent reading of Nouwen. Simple, profound, applicable. Willard? Not so much. Still in all things, seek the good. Here are some of the highlights:

- Willard is attempting to push a theological anthropology that will help Christians actually undergo significant spiritual transformation. A noble goal; indeed, THE noble goal.

- Perhaps the idea I will remember most from this book is that transformation of the will is end of transformation and not the beginning. I do not will myself to change and then change. I seek transformation through mind and heart, and thus my will is transformed. That is, by seeking transformation in my thought life, my heart will be transformed. As my heart is transformed, so I will begin to desire to do good. Thus, I train my body to act accordingly. Through habit, then, my will is transformed so that I begin naturally to desire the things of God. I cannot just will my will to desire holiness without first being transformed in mind and heart.

That's about the best I can come up with. One final note: this book drove me crazy with numerous split infinitives.

Random Thoughts

I'm no cynic, but I'm thinking there has got to be, somewhere, a church or at least a family that was against children watching Chip N' Dale's Rescue Rangers because of the name.


LOST was good last night. I'm going to enjoy this six episode season...

Naming Names

From Richard Hays' commentary on 1 Corinthians:

"... we must wonder whether our proclamation of the gospel can have any credibility unless, like Paul, we respond to the call of God by living a visibly alternative lifestyle that bears prophetic witness against a culture of self-satisfaction." (79)

I will be very excited to receive a copy of Peace is Every Step by Thich Nhat Hanh soon (with foreword by the Dalai Lama!).

And here's my nerdy question for the day:

When reading the Bible out loud, how do you prefer to read "the LORD"? For those who may not know (e.g., counseling majors!), there is a difference between "the Lord" and "the LORD." The Lord = title given to God in the OT; The LORD = chosen translation for the divine name (YHWH - I Am). Sometimes, I feel like I should read the distinction with "YHWH," but then I feel almost sacrilegious, so then I think maybe I could go Jewish and read "Jehovah," but then I think that most people wouldn't make that connection and be totally confused, so I just read "the LORD." I won't ask whether or not this is a huge deal, because I know the answer to that. I was just curious. Anyone?

Butt Bliss

I had refrained so far this year from posting about the new office chair that my in-laws (holla) gave me for Christmas. I've been working out of a wood chair for the last couple of years, and it has been less than comfortable. I've written many papers and read many books in that old red chair, but the time had come for me to avoid hemorrhoids. The catch was that since we did presents in Atlanta over the New Year, we didn't have room to bring it back with us then. I had to wait for Craig, my father-in-law, to bring it with him. As he was scheduled to be here at the end of January, the wait was not that long. However, as a display of my gratitude and excitement, I made a point to tell Jesse every day up to last Sunday how excited I was for the chair to arrive. I couldn't wait. And so now it's here, and I am happy. I just thought you should know. I have included some pictures to show you how much more "work" I am getting done now...

On Cynicism, pt. 2

I have not forgotten about the series I started a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the Christmas vacation stole my fervor for blogging about cynicism. Having begun anew with another year/semester, and a few recent events that have heightened my cynical senses, I find that the time is ripe to continue.

Today, I want to discuss the distinction between being cynical and being critical. Sometimes, criticism can be only a thin veil for cynicism. How then does one distinguish between the two? Is cynicism merely overzealous criticism? I think not. Thus, it becomes necessary to introduce at least an introductory definition of cynicism is, in order to differentiate between it and criticism. Cynicism, I believe, is at its core a perspective on reality that completely lacks hope. That is, the cynic sees what is wrong with something, but believes that there is absolutely no way in which that thing/situation can improve. Cynicism and hopelessness go hand in hand.

However, in considering the difference between cynicism and criticism, the difference is not a lack of hope. That is, criticism is not cynicism with a dash of hope. While it may be simplistic, I prefer to think of criticism as a component of one's view of reality. Being critical may or may not be negative. I may think critically about Jesus as God's Son, but that does not mean that I have no hope for the reality of Jesus as God's Son nor that I reject that idea. Criticism therefore may merely be an absence of intellectual apathy, then. It is intentional, responsible thinking about one's perception of reality. Someone with a critical mind goes to a baseball game and sees much more than the casual fan. Or he or she reads Dickens with a greater appreciation and understanding than the typical high school jock. That is, assuming said jock reads at all.

Thus, there is no inherent problem with being a critical person. However, when that criticism, that self-aware perception of reality begins to merge in a larger perspective of negativity or hopelessness, a cynic forms. So, it is possible to be critical without being cynical. I do think that the two are ontologically different. Of course, being critical can be annoying when abused or over-pursued. There is such a thing as balance. But there certainly is no harm with thinking critically about anything. As to whether or not it is possible to be cynical without being critical, I consider it highly unlikely. A cynic who is not also critical is merely a lazy puppet - eager to repeat the latest postmodern counter-trend, but not willing to think for himself.

So, criticism = good or bad. Cynicism = bad.

There's no stopping you

Allow me a couple deconstructionist thoughts, and I promise I will end with something constructive.

I was reminded today of two of my greatest frustrations in the driving world. The first is part frustration, part plain stupid. It is freezing cold today in Memphis, literally. And yet, I always see at least one person this time of year, who is willing to bear the bitter cold for a smoke. What is the deal with this? You would rather drive 40+ miles an hour with freezing air blowing in your face in order to slowly suck the life out of your lungs than be warm and live longer? Plus, I've always wondered, not being a smoker myself, if the wind does cause a problem blowing the smoke back in your face, putting out your light, etc. I don't know, but especially on a day like today, I have to think it is not worth it to smoke in your car. So I give these people the word of the week: "ridiculous."

The other annoying thing, and this happens even more frequently, is the bipolar driver. You know, the one that pulls out in front of you because they are in such a huge hurry that they absolutely must risk their life to be in front of you, only once there, they don't even drive the speed limit. This one happens often at fresh green lights. You're in the right lane, you get the green, and as you start driving, someone decides not to stop at their red, but rolls right through without stopping, almost hits the car in the middle lane (think Poplar) and then drives below the speed limit now that they have their spot. A corollary to this problem is the driver on the highway who would rather speed up and cause you (and whomever may be driving behind you) to slow down while merging onto the highway. For what? So they can be one car length ahead? Is it worth it? So now, I try hard to slow down to let a merging car in front of me, assuming I can't just get over. I find I get to wherever I am going on time in spite of this. The bipolar drivers who do this, whether on the highway or residential streets, are worthy of last week's word: "stupid."

I was thinking about this as both things happened to me this afternoon, and I've decided the real problem is that we cannot stop. What is the first (or, granting the legitimate but sexist thoughts some of you may have, second) thing we assume about drivers who drive like this? They're on the cell phones. Yes, of course. Or, it used to be they were changing they're cd. These days it's the ipod, the GPS, the movie.... Regardless of the cause, it's ultimately about time and the fact that we have lost the ability to stop. The person who pulls out just ahead of traffic would rather put everyone in danger than stop. This is only exacerbated by their subsequent slow driving! It's not even that they are in a hurry, they just don't want to stop!

See, stopping means silence. It means pausing and maybe even becoming conscious of one's immediate context. If you are alone, it means solitude. I think that most people would rather just call someone or listen to music or watch a movie. Anything but silence. No stopping.

Which brings me to my constructive thought. Be a counter-cultural driver? Well, yes. But more than that, be a counter-cultural person. In a culture that cannot stop or even slow down, learn to stop. Learn to be silent. Learn to be alone. On my sidebar, you'll notice (or more likely you didn't) that The Way of the Heart, by Henri Nouwen is no longer on my reading list; that's because I finished it. One of my greatest regrets in school thus far is that I haven't been required to read more of Nouwen. I absolutely recommend anything by him, and The Way of the Heart is at the top of that list. It's a short book, quite simple in presentation, and yet deeply profound. On recommendation from Randy Harris, I got this book last month and had to keep myself from reading it in one day, which is certainly possible. The best thing, though, is to read it as slowly as possible. Let the ideas soak in deep. And then, when you are finished with it, read it again. Once I finish my "masters in reading," I anticipate being free to read what I want, but Nouwen will make the annual rotation, if not more often than that. I won't ruin the material for you by recounting it here, but it has certainly affected the way I live and I imagine it will do the same for you.

So there you have it - a constructive thought. Go and drive likewise.

Life Update

I did find out today the answer to the house-sitting mystery - it was work-related. What's worse though, is I now realize that I have opened the door for taunts concerning my status as a "band geek and/or dork." Guess I should have kept that one to myself.

I should also note that most of the material on NRNet is not mine. I am only responsible for the philosophy of youth ministry article, and the book review of Kingdom Come.

Things No One Cares About, Life Edition

Because everyone cares so much about my life....

First, the major thing that has influenced the last week or so is the great house-sitting mystery of 2008. Jesse received a strange call on Monday of last week asking if we wanted to house-sit for a couple we know at church. The short end is that we agreed to stay at that house, take care of their two dogs, while leaving ours at home and checking on him at least twice a day. Not the most convenient deal, but it was worth it, if you know what I mean. So last Thursday, we moved out there for what we thought would be a two-week period. Then, Sunday morning, we received a call that the couple would be coming back that afternoon (roughly two weeks early). We don't know why the plans changed so drastically, but the general idea was, they wanted to catch us before church so that when they got home that afternoon, only the keys would be in the house. That was 6:30 AM Sunday morning. Obviously, we had a very busy Sunday morning. The good news is, we're back at our house now and Owens is happy. We're still not sure what happened, though. Strange.

Second, Steve Guinn (holla) finally got his way. I am now a member of the Bartlett Community Concert Band. The Guinn's have been after me for awhile, and with the persuasive influence of my wife, the three of them made all the arrangements. So there you go, after eight years of silence, the old sax is getting some use. The first rehearsal was kind of shaky for me, but I know that I can do it, so I think I'll be back. Yesterday's post attests to that - I will master the Bartlett Community Concert Band.

Finally, I encourage any interested reader to head over to NRNet (see the link at the top of this blog). You can find several things of interest at the fledgling site, in particular, my philosophy of youth ministry (in abbreviated form) under the (wiki) topic of mission.

Things No One Cares About, Sports Edition

First, sports. I have two confessions regarding recent events in the NFL. I should begin by declaring my fandom for the Cowboys, my home team. Thus, my first confession is strange: I support the Patriots. And, it's not just a carry over from my illegitimate baseball affiliation. I empathize with the Patriots in the following sense: when I do something, my goal is absolute mastery. The obvious parallel with the Pats is when I play any video game. I don't enjoy it unless I win. I don't enjoy playing with others unless I absolutely dominate my opponents. Just ask Bob, or my brothers. But I'm this way with anything, my marriage (no, I don't want to master Jesse, I want to master being a husband), school, music, fantasy sports, etc. So when I see the Pats doing that in real life, I love watching it. I applaud it. Forget the stupid cheating asterisk. The Jets were horrible anyway, I have a hard time believing only the Pats were doing this, and it seems that it wasn't needed anyway. Isn't the point to win every game? Why are people so mad about this? I, for one, think it's great to watch.

My second confession regards one of the Cowboys' hated division rivals, the New York Giants. I'm not a big fan of Eli, or his southern "drawl." But even more, I can't stand Tiki Barber and that stupid smug look on his face. I refuse to watch anything he does on the Today show (my wife watches Today some mornings) and balk at the stuff he has said about his former team on the Sunday Night Football recap show on NBC. I only watch him there because that show is as close to SportsCenter as I get these days. Tiki is a little too shameless, self-promoting, and arrogant for my tastes. Plus, he's a sell out. He gave up football to be on the fourth hour of Today doing puff pieces with three women? He left the NFL for the NBC cross of Today and The View? Really? All that to say, even after the tragic loss of two weeks ago, I am glad to see the Giants do so well without Tiki. I really am. Now excuse me while I head to Mexico with my favorite Jess...