contemplate

Lucky Guy

2011-09-30T14:14:00.000-05:00

I am so very happy to be married to my wife. Last night, we were relaxing on the couch, finishing up an episode of Parks and Rec, when she stops and said something profound. I'd like to repost the general sentiment here:

Maybe people are naturally legalistic. It seems like no matter how hard we try, we just exhibit this need for something that we can co-opt and use to define our lives. People can reject "religion" and embrace "spirituality" but then they just become religious about being spiritual.

Wow. What a smart woman! And all I was thinking about was how much fun it would be to work at 720 Entertainment.

On Discipleship

2011-09-15T12:07:00.000-05:00

Here's a recent email conversation I had with a friend of mine:

ME: Is discipleship really that important or is it just the next buzzword in Christian circles?

HIM: Oh I don't know. Following Jesus. Becoming like Jesus. Go and make disciples of all nations. Probably not.

ME: No, seriously. Defend it to me. It's all I hear these days (slight exaggeration). Why is "discipleship" THE word?

HIM: It is probably the next word in the line of: spiritual growth, adult education, spiritual formation, now discipleship. I like the latest iteration/trend because the focus is more holistic: relationship with God, Christian community, my own formation + the world, rather than truncated to individual development.

ME: That makes me feel better. "Latest iteration" makes me feel less skeptical than "the next new thing" because it's really just the old thing. Do I have your permission to substitute spiritual formation for discipleship?

HIM: Sure!

ME: Sweet. Spiritual formation it is. I'm vintage.

****

I'm experiencing a new Christian context in Memphis as a result of joining a church that does not have an established denominational tradition. It's a church plant for most intents and purposes, and, as such, is much more autonomous than the heritage in which I grew up. One of the interesting things about participating in this new Christian subculture is that I'm not as in tune with the various movements swirling through the collective consciousness of the church as I had been. Before, I was always keenly aware of what trends were shaping the direction of the church. In this new environment, I'm definitely more on the outside looking in. So when I started hearing a lot of talk about discipleship, I wasn't sure where exactly it was coming from or just how prevalent it was.

Now, it seems to me that discipleship is one of the prevailing winds of change driving the ship called American Christianity. In meteorological terms, early indications are that we may need to upgrade Tropical Storm Discipleship to a Hurricane. All across the country, I'm seeing tweets and posts and articles and journals and conferences and local churches espousing the value and benefit of discipleship rediscovered and reinvigorated. It's an exciting development and a fantastic direction for the church. I would even argue that it's a necessary direction for the church to move. It's necessary for survival - to thwart both the constant temptation of the world and the latent complacency from which the church has suffered in recent history. As always, in order to continue living, the church needs a revival and, to be sure, discipleship may very well be THE form through which new life will invigorate (really, re-invigorate) the church of God in America.

But, here is what concerns me with this latest iteration: discipleship is not and cannot bring revival.

It is a fundamental and simple (but not trite) truth that new life comes only from God. No iteration of Christian faith - from the earliest Christian communities in Jerusalem and Antioch, to the martyrs, to the desert fathers, to the reformers, the great fathers of modern missions, to the revivalists of the Great Awakening, to the contemporary discipleship movement - has ever been able to manufacture any kind of sustainable life within the church. Rather, in each case, it was the holy and active Spirit of God that brought new life, which in turn spawned the earliest Christian communities, the martyrs, the reformers and revivalists, the modern disciples.

Perhaps the simplicity of this idea about the Spirit bringing revival has made it too hard to maintain with any consistency. But, the truth is that discipleship does not bring revival; revival brings discipleship.

****

It is the natural order of life on earth that (A) effort produces (B) results. So even though it makes (human) sense to assume that any desirable result (B) requires human effort (A), we know through Jesus Christ that human effort can never produce any lasting desirable spiritual result. Paradoxically, though, God has chosen to use us to assist Him in accomplishing the purposes of His Kingdom on Earth. As such, it makes perfect sense that the story of God's relationship with His creation is littered with failed human attempts to produce spiritual results. God wants us to participate with Him in what He is doing. God wants us to do something! We are even supposed to be doing something, but whenever we do things (ie, exert human effort), it tends not to produce the spiritual results for which our effort was intended. Paradox indeed!

(Note: I don't even know if I can explain this coherently, or do this Gospel-idea any justice with the application of mere human thought expressed in mere human words. But I'm going to try! Be gracious. This is an idea in progress. Be warned. It's about to get deep, or at least confusing.)

It seems to me that the simplest way to explain it is to say that things work out best when God acts and we react. Humans are fantastic reactionary beings. One might even argue that we were created to react. Think about it this way: the Creator acts and creation reacts. One of the fundamental Christian beliefs is that humans were created for community and relationship as opposed to isolation and separation. What is a relationship if not a series of reactions? Given this, it seems that creation creates chaos when creation tries to act, as opposed to reacting to the Creator.

As a principle for human living, I think that sounds... promising. But what about as an actual practice for human living? As a test case, how might this principle apply to the very beginning of the spiritual life, broadly defined as salvation? Again, the principle is that chaos ensues when the created acts rather than reacts to the Creator.

The very idea of salvation is rooted in the idea that chaos (in salvific terms, sin) is rooted in the actions of humanity and that it would take, literally, an act of God to fix the problem. Ironically, ever since that act of God (read: Jesus Christ), Christian history shows that the church has repeatedly had to address human attempts to reclaim salvation as something attained through human action. That may be too complicated. More simply, ever since Christ, the church - from Paul to the present - has had to fight to ensure that salvation was defined solely in terms of God acting and humans reacting. That is, there is no action through which humanity can save itself from the mess it has created. Salvation is fundamentally about what God has done and our only proper response is to react to what he has done. So far, so good.

****

But what about discipleship? Moving beyond the beginning stage of spiritual life, return to discipleship. If salvation is rooted in the act of God and response of Christians, it can just as easily be argued that the next stage of spiritual life (sanctification, spiritual formation, discipleship, call it what you will) is equally rooted in the same pattern of divine act and human reaction. Discipleship is just as dependent on God's acting as is salvation. Equally, the human role in discipleship is just as dependent on God's action as is the human role in salvation. His is the call; our's is the response.

Thus, my concern with discipleship is the same as it would be for any other new paradigm or iteration for spiritual living in the church. I'm concerned that we are going to make it about us. I'm concerned that we are going to make it about what we know and about what we do.

In fact, I'm afraid because I'm seeing it already. I'm hearing people say that they are not ready to disciple someone else because they don't know enough. If that is the case, then what is the point at which someone does know enough? Who decides what body of knowledge is adequate before attempting to disciple another?

I'm hearing people say they don't feel like they are doing enough to be a discipler. If that is the case, then what is the point at which one's life produces enough fruit? Who decides what body of work is adequate before attempting to disciple another?

If discipleship is fundamentally about what you can do or what you know, then I want nothing to do with discipleship. In fact, I want nothing to do with anything - not discipleship or any other iteration - that isn't consistently and solely about seeking out what God is doing because it is never good when God's role as Actor is usurped by someone who is only supposed to re-Act.

If you go to Amazon and search for "leadership," you get 77,506 results. If you search for "followership," you get 174. I didn't search through all 174, but my guess is that none of those results is the Bible. That's the heart of the issue. No one wants to be a follower and everyone is concerned with how best to be a leader. Except, Jesus didn't invite us to take up our crosses and lead other people, he told us to take up our cross and follow him.

Is discipleship bad then? No, of course not. But anything that may provide us the opportunity replace reaction to God with human action carries with it the potential to cause great damage to His Kingdom.

For my current context, it seems highly important to remember that discipleship has the potential to change the world only insofar as much as the power of God is present to work through disciples. In the end as we are going - that is, as we follow Him - we just may find other disciples along the way.

Mastering Memphis, step 6

2011-09-15T12:06:00.000-05:00

I started this Mastering Memphis series shortly after graduating from seminary. I wanted to chronicle everything or everyone I had experienced since moving here in the fall of 2004 (War Eagle and Go Sox). Jesse told me it was kind of boring. I can't disagree with her. Other than tales regarding my former roommates, there wasn't a lot that seemed arresting and I'm not sure it was written very well. All in all, it was a fairly insignificant collection of memories.

Memories can be elusive. In his essay, "My Father's Brain," Jonathan Franzen notes how the brain functions as a memory keeper through the process of myelinization. Myelin is a fatty substance that strengthens certain neural connections in the brain, which allows certain neurological memory functions to solidify in developing brains. The least myelinized parts of the brain are those that have the most to do with the process of transitioning short-term memories into long-term ones. This might be most evident in the digression of mental capcities in Alzheimer's sufferers, but perhaps, in more mundane ways, might explain why your grandparents told you the same stories repeatedly. Those were the experiences they remembered best and longest after others had faded obscurity.

Jagger-ian Spirituality

2011-03-14T11:13:00.002-05:00

As much fun as it would be to write about the spiritual symbolism of painting everything black, I'd like to look instead at the more mainstream theory of pop-theologian, Mick Jagger. Specifically, the idea that I can't get no satisfaction.

This idea first came to me several years ago when I got to spend some time listening to Tony Campolo. Dr. Campolo is old (76, if wikipedia and my calculator are correct). When he spoke, he would stand resolutely on stage, rarely moving. He would lean against a bar chair brought on stage for him with his eyes closed and left hand raised to his temple, speaking profundities with simple words. Here was a man who had written more books than the numbers of years I had been alive and he was still pushing forward. He continued to walk, to grow, to seek, to learn, to mature. The power of his words was backed by his depth of experience. If spiritual years are like dog years, well, he was old.

Sitting there and watching this old guy with his eyes closed challenge everyone in the room, including himself, I began to wonder how he kept moving forward after all these years. It seems to me that age can have a settling effect on most things: house foundations, dirt, waistlines, humans. What is it that turns a pioneer into a settler? I don't know how to articulate an exact answer, but I think it has something to do with Mick Jagger.

A strong Christian is never completely content with their spiritual journey. They never stop and say, "Look at me! I've made it, there's no more room for growth!" They're always a little bit dissatisfied because they see where they are spiritually, but they also see the next step and they never stop pursuing something deeper, richer, more mature in their relationship with God. At the same time, that dissatisfaction (for lack of a better word, truly) does not leak over into the rest of their life. In life, they are completely content. They're not chasing money, prestige and power, significance and security or anything else the world pursues. In a sense, they are content with everything but their spiritual life.

A weak Christian is the opposite: discontent with life and always pursuing the things of the world. But when it comes to their faith/relationship with God, they are satisfied with where they are. They say, "I've come far enough. I don't see any room for growth. I am satisfied with where I am, and God should be too." Their satisfaction with the eternal allows more time and opportunity to pursue the temporary.

Is the sign of mature spiritual living a satisfaction or contentment with everything but spiritual living? Are the strongest Christians the ones who snarl along with Mick about their lack of satisfaction with the status quo?

Maybe.

Matthew 9:16-17

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

Colossians 3:1-15

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Maybe not.

Maybe stronger Christians are just better dressed.

Bold Prediction

2010-08-12T12:52:00.000-05:00

Fifteen years from now, on VH1's "I Love the First Decade of the 2000s (because we never agreed on what to call it)," there will be a 5 minute segment on p90x when they get to 2010. A bald Judah Friedlander will try and demonstrate various moves and Aziz Ansari will talk about how people gave ubiquitous p90x updates but no one else cared and Gilbert Godfried will talk about all the people you knew who started it and then stopped after 2 weeks.

That's my thought about the current phenomenon that is p90x. I'm not denegrating having it and doing it, or getting it and not doing it, I'm just amazed at how popular it has gotten in such a short amount of time. I think it's on the list for the 2010 episode. Then I googled "VH1 I love the" and saw that in 2008, the network ran a series called "I Love the New Millenium." So really, it'll be next year. And no, this is not a way for me to announce that I'm doing p90x.

Mastering Memphis, step five

2010-08-03T21:33:00.000-05:00

Meeting Jesse meant several fantastic and exciting changes for me. For one, I now had someone with which to share the joys of college football. At that time, she was my only friend with a TiVo or an iPod, so that was cool. The click wheel was so novel. I discovered a bunch of new music and I had the option of eating fresh, cooked food that did not have to be heated in a microwave. Also, I started turning left at the light at Park and Cherry. Before I met Jesse, a la Zoolander, I had only turned right (that was the direction of the Target). And, as if that wasn't enough, I now had a host of people who could barely contain their excitement and curiosity upon meeting me. For some reason, there were literally hundreds of people who became very interested in meeting me and finding out everything they could about me. Before, it was just me, Biff, and McFly, but now, it was odd people with names like Buster or Bubba or Gerald or Michael. If this eclectic group of people had one thing in common, it was that they all cared deeply for Jesse and wanted to make sure that she hadn't fallen in with the wrong type. If they had two things in common, it was that they all met at the same place to worship the Lord on Sundays.

Before I met Jesse, I had spent a couple of months at Sycamore View because I'd had some friends from undergrad who were there. In fact, when I first met Jesse, I stayed out there for awhile longer because I didn't want to leave one place and then show up a month later and have to explain my absence. It didn't take long for me to change my mind and head over to Highland for good. It took even less time for me to be welcomed without reservation into a very big family.

The first time I met Buster was at the old duplex on Ellsworth after a Wednesday night when I was still at SVCC. It was cold and I had a hoodie on. It was dark, but he introduced himself and we chatted shortly before he left (it was cold). Buster told Jesse and Brooke the next day that he thought I looked like Nathan Shank. I think he's changed his mind since then.

I also remember the first time I went to Intermission. I was in the lobby before we left on Saturday morning and some guy I had never seen before walked up to me and said, "Hey. You seen that new intern girl? (Kyla Kiser) She's pretty cute. You should go talk to her." I responded, "Yeah. I actually think that Jesse girl is cute. She's my girlfriend." Nice to meet you, Alan Moltz.

I'd met her once before, but that weekend was also the first time I'd see Leslie and Jonathan together. The first huddle I attended (with Jesse - apparently, it was bring your boyfriend to huddle day) was also the first time I met Sarah Bagley. I honestly don't remember the first time I met Gerald and Susie or Pam and Steve, but it wasn't long before the word got out that I was a keeper and I found myself spending Easter at the Guinn's or stopping by for a coke at the Jerkins. It should also be noted that on our honeymoon, Gerald (what's the most graceful word I can use)... Gerald gently hoisted Susie through the back window of our house so they could get in to feed Owens. That's what family does, I suppose.

I may not be able to come up with a more graceful word for "hoist," but certainly "family" fits and it's true to this day. Memphis wouldn't be home for us without family. And though it's expanding, I think it's safe to say that our Memphis family will always have strong Highland ties.

Mastering Memphis, steps four and following

2010-07-24T21:26:00.000-05:00

Keeping a blog is an interesting process. You choose to keep one and no one else really makes you. But, if you don't maintain it regularly, it can become a source of guilt, stress or frustration. Of course, if you do maintain it, the same can be true... all because of something you choose to do. Beyond that, you are choosing to publish words that other people read except, in most cases, you have no idea what they think about it.

Take my last post, for example. Not only did I use the antiquated phrase, "dear reader," I also thought it was clever to refer to Jesse as "said female" as if there were some kind of mystery about who she was. Sorry about that.

The truth is, it's difficult to fit Jesse into one moment or one step in the process of making Memphis home. That's because it wasn't just one step among others - it's been every step since the day I met her. Every step since that day has included her, in one way or another. From helping her walk Owens down Ellsworth on Sunday mornings to her helping me edit last minute bibliographies, I found a friend who quickly became God's richest blessing in my life. Jesse is technicolor to my black-and-white - my life would be so much less rich and full without her in it.

The first time I wrote nice things about Jesse on my blog, people thought I was proposing. This time, as then, I don't have a particular reason except that I'm in love and I want to express it publicly in words.

When I moved here, I didn't like it at all. The only people I saw every day were Biff and McFly and a perfect day included me being anywhere but Memphis. Now, the perfect day includes me being anywhere in Memphis with Jesse. I can't imagine life without her, and thankfully, I don't have to.

Mastering Memphis, step four

2010-07-20T20:22:00.001-05:00

Shortly after I arrived in Memphis, I (along with Biff, McFly and several others) was invited to a dinner at the apartment of HUGSR secretary/student, Amy Hagedorn. As the first person one saw when walking through the doors of the main building on campus, Amy was the hub of most HUGSR activities. She had taken it upon herself to host a dinner for the new and returning students who lived on campus. Since HUGSR is more masculine than The Situation's abs, it makes sense that she would invite at least one other female student. Said other female arrived late, in a t-shirt and jeans. She mistook Biff's name (the real one) as Bruce. I thought this was funny - he kinda looked like a Bruce. Said other female was funny and cute. Incredibly, she was in the minority of people in the apartment that night who actively watched and liked sports. Said female happened to be my teammate for the inevitable game of Trivial Pursuit and as far as anyone knows, we won (I'm pretty sure that the night ended before the game did). We won even though one of us knew that the start of every Kentucky Derby is heralded by "My Old Kentucky Home" but deferred to the other's insistent guess of the William Tell Overture. Said female was single.

Now, lest you, dear reader, decide that fate had provided but one choice, I should admit (to my shame) that said female was not the only female attracting my attention at that time. That may be too vague. It would have been much easier if said male was single. Clearer? Regardless, I wasn't, so this chance encounter began with the timeless and always ill-conceived manly attempt to be honorable during the overlapping end and beginning of relationships. It would be the first of many times where the present would seem much less shameful than time would show it to be. I bring this up for a reason: it gives me an opportunity to point out that said female has been gracious and forgiving to me from the beginning. Grace and forgiveness are things often required by me, being a man.

Too many details for this post took place over those early months. Auburn games, runs together, ironed t-shirts, Red Sox games, TiVo, rocking chairs, hoodies, city maps, who chased whom, Sunday morning dog walks... this is starting to look like a junior high yearbook, pages-long note. It didn't take long for said female to become the female. I like to say that said female was the first normal person I met in Memphis. In truth, that couldn't be farther from it. I'd never met (and still haven't) another human like her and I really liked her. So much so, that she's going to need at least two steps in this process of mastering Memphis... stay tuned.

Too Long for Twitter

2010-07-15T16:59:00.001-05:00

"Thou, O Lord, canst transform my thorn into a flower. And I want my thorn transformed into a flower. Job got the sunshine after the rain, but has the rain been all waste? Job wants to know, I want to know, if the shower had nothing to do with the shining. And thou canst tell me - Thy Cross can tell me. Thou hast crowned Thy sorrow. Be this my crown, O Lord. I only triumph in Thee when I have learned the radiance of the rain."

- George Matheson.

"The fruitful life seeks showers as well as sunshine."

Wow. That is some good old-fashioned theology. As Dr. Fortner would say, "How can you have faith and not know... [this]?"

Too Long for Twitter

2010-06-17T12:34:00.000-05:00

"A method of meditation or a form of contemplation that merely produces the illusion of having 'arrived somewhere,' of having achieved security and preserved one's familiar status by playing a part, will eventually have to be unlearned in dread [ie, an overwhelming sense of one's own unavoidable unholiness before a holy God] - or else we will be confirmed in the arrogance, in the unpenetrable self-assurance of the Pharisee. We will become impervious to the deepest truths. We will be closed to all who do not participate in our illusion. We will live 'good lives' that are basically inauthentic, 'good' only as long as they permit us to remain established in our respectable and impermeable identities. The 'goodness' of such lives depends on the security afforded by relative wealth, recreation, spiritual comfort, and a solid reputation for piety. Such 'goodness' is preserved by routine and the habitual avoidance of serious risk - indeed of serious challenge. In order to avoid apparent evil, this pseudo-goodness will ignore summons of genuine good. It will prefer routine duty to courage and creativity. In the end it will be content with established procedures and safe formulas, while turning a blind eye to the greatest enormities of injustice and uncharity."

-Thomas Merton, Contemplative Prayer

Mastering Memphis, step three

2010-05-28T10:27:00.011-05:00

Tomatoes and steak knives aside, I made/kept some really great friends during my time at HUGSR.

The farther removed I am from undergrad, the more I realize those years were a bit of a lost cause for me. I was a stupid college kid. The odds are I was much dumber in college than I was in high school. This makes sense to me. High school - trauma and all - is still a time of increasing competence. At least, it was for me.

I had been living in the same house since the first grade, same school friends since then, same church since forever, etc. That was my world, and by the time I was 18, it's fair to say I had figured out how to exist in a house on Creekside with my family, in a school called Berkner, on two soccer teams, in the school band, with the BRCC youth group, etc. That was my circle and I had explored it's outer limits and could move within it really well.

I think it might be fair to say that this is the case for most middle-class, suburban kids. I think it's probably also fair to say that these are the same kids who go to college and, like me, become complete idiots. I would argue that the average High School Senior is less of an idiot than the average college Freshman. Of course, it's the Senior's fault that the Freshman is such an idiot, the mistake being that the high school senior thinks he/she has THE world figured out, when in fact, he/she has only figured out THEIR world. Thus, when they move outside of "their world" and into a new one, they take with them this feeling of having it all figured it out, when they ought to be thinking that they are, once again, complete babes in the world.

At least, that's the mistake I made. I was a dumb freshman. I didn't know anything about the new world (tiny though it was) that enveloped in the mythical Harding bubble. Had I known better, I would have done a lot of things differently. I'll leave it at that. For the present, it's enough to say that I have lost or failed to maintain most of the relationships I made in college. A lot of this, I think, is natural. Distance and time have a lot to do with it - when you aren't eating with the same people every day, being made to stay in after 11pm with the same people every night, etc., you're naturally going to drift apart. I don't really regret this about my college years as much as I have tried to learn from it.

At one point or another, we all must learn that it takes a strong bond to overcome the separation of time and distance that comes with the increasing speed of life, regardless of where or during what period of life that friendship was made. This is what I learned from my time in Searcy and I've tried to apply it to my time in Memphis. Thankfully, I had some friends who transitioned with me.

To the big three: Bob, Bobby, and Greg - thank you. Brother Bob, you're welcome for the use of the shower on the days you biked to school. Thanks for being the best conversationalist I know and for volunteering to stick around in the library so we can have instant access to the next big idea or great book. Bobby, blessings in Africa. For the two Bobs, here's to good food. Greg, we took the most classes together and I always appreciated your critical perspectives. I wasn't often thinking ahead to where you were, but you were generous in helping me see that the road was there. I also really appreciate you laughing when I told Dr. Powell that Jesus was my favorite early church history figure on the first day of class of our first class ever at HUGSR.

To Robert Meyer, Dorn Muscar (ping pong champion and co-creator of HUGSR Home Run Derby), Heath Amos (#1 Star Wars fan), Jeremy Garman (snores louder than me), Mac Sandlin, Justin McCreary (dry wit connoiseur, Stella-watcher), Amy Hagedorn (matchmaker), and anyone else who ever dined with us at New Hong Kong - thanks for making life in the cave bearable. To the Maccabees, you know who you are.

I suppose there is a risk in naming names. There's a good chance I forgot someone, but there's a better chance that whoever I forgot doesn't read this blog. The point is, by the time I arrived in Memphis, I had made enough mistakes to know that the relationships I forged in Memphis or brought with me from Searcy ought to be pursued with intention and cherished. They would be a part of my spiritual community for as long as I was here. I'm still here and I haven't forgotten. So, to my HUGSR friends, may the bond of Christ supercede whatever distance or time may come between us. Thank you, and if you're ever interested, I think Yi Bao still remembers my order.

Mastering Memphis, step two

2010-05-27T14:02:00.001-05:00

The bubble did extend to Memphis. To be fair, though, not to all of Memphis, just part (the part I was in). And, to be honest, it was in me as well. Based on everything I have learned and experienced here in Memphis - and I hope based on who I am now - I can see that the person I was when I came suffered unknowingly from a few deficiencies. I've dealt with those and I'll cover them here, but first, I had/have to deal with the more pressing early obstacles (for lack of a better term) in my first few years in Memphis: Biff and McFly.

My first exposure to this oddest of odd couples was during the summer before my move to Memphis. I had been given a number whereby I could speak with Biff about our living arrangements, as Biff and McFly were already living in the apartment we would share. The conversation was short, but I remember distinctly asking Biff if there was room for a couch that I wanted to bring. Biff's reply was confusing.  "No," he said, "I have a weight bench."

When it was all over, I would have two years worth of stories and encounters like this. As they occured, I would literally have at least one per day. I've forgotten many of them, but there are a few that remain firmly lodged in my memory.

I remember my first few weeks in Memphis vividly. After moving my stuff to the second bedroom in our two-story town home apartment, my parents and I stuck around to meet my new roommates, the aforementioned Biff and McFly. I call them that because Biff actually looked a lot like Biff. McFly was shorter and more animated and the two of them shared a room and spent a lot of time together, so it just makes sense. We stayed for about an hour getting to know B&M before leaving for dinner. I remember my dad telling me later, "I don't think you should believe everything [Biff] tells you." In the weeks before school, I wouldn't. In fact, I didn't stick around long enough to hear a word. Every morning, I would wake up early, eat breakfast, and leave the house. I'd come home for dinner and retire to my room. In between, I drove around Memphis, trying to figure out where things were located. At least, that's what I told people. The truth is, B&M were spending their free time (read: ALL day) playing a Dungeons & Dragons-type video game on the living room (read: only place to sit besides bedroom) TV (read: only one in the apartment/mine) and I wasn't interested in watching someone else play for 12 hour blocks at a time. This went on for two weeks. Wake up, drive around aimlessly, avoid eye contact, repeat.

The night before classes began, there was a meet and greet for new students. I was sitting at a table with B&M when someone asked what they had done in the weeks off between summer classes and the fall semester. I answered for them, that their time had been spent primarily playing video games. Out of nowhere, McFly snapped in my direction, "Take it down, Nick. Take. It. Down." Sparing the details (there is a convoluted and totall ridiculous explanation), I quickly learned that avoidance would be my best tactic with B&M. As an aside, it was an almost daily routine for McFly to pull out a knife from the steak knife set he kept in the kitchen and loudly proclaim that if he ever got into a bar fight, he would come back to the apartment and get a knife then go back and stab someone.

One other story begs retelling. Later that fall, I returned to the apartment and walked quickly upstairs.  I passed the bathroom and noticed that five whole tomatoes were resting on the floor, each one crushed and slowly oozing juice out on the floor. The floor was their final resting place, but not the only place they had been. Five matching streaks of tomato juice stained the far wall of the bathroom, leaving an easy trail to follow. I turned 180 degrees and risked a glance into the room of Biff and McFly.

"Hey, Biff? There's tomatoes in the bathroom."
"Yeah, there are."
"Um, do you know why there are tomatoes in the bathroom?"
"Yes."
(waiting)
"Biff, would you care to explain?"
"Well, McFly was singing in the shower."
"And...?"
"I didn't like it."
"I don't follow."
"Well, I told him that if he didn't stop singing, I would throw tomatoes at him."
"Uh huh. And I take he didn't stop."
"That's right."
"Are you going to clean that up?"
"Maybe later."

There are those who suggested that I married Jesse just so I wouldn't have to live in that apartment anymore. There are those who told me when I arrived that they had specifically prayed for whoever would be sharing an apartment with B&M. I say that now I have some really great stories to tell.  It was rarely easy and frequently awkward, but it's a part of my story in Memphis. It wouldn't be right to just take it down.

new names

2010-05-21T10:50:00.000-05:00

I've decided to go with something simple. Nerd confession: I keep three blogs on blogger. One is a private journal, which I have renamed meditatio. Another is also a private blog for more literary endeavors, which I have renamed oratio. And, the third is this one, which is now titled contemplatio. I've named my blogs after latin phrases commonly used to represent fundamental principles of the contemplative life. This fits with a personal goal of mine to become a more contemplative person in an effort to simplify my life in this world and to deepen my life in the Spirit. Now that I've graduated, I'm trying to focus myself even more on growing my heart in God. I feel as though my mind has gotten a head start (oh, that's a pun - unintentional) and I'd like my heart to catch up and perhaps even take the lead from here on. So, there you go. I recently deleted all but two of the games on my iphone (I left the two I never really want to play but might if I were stuck in an airport) and I've renamed my blogs. Lame, but it's a start.

name change

2010-05-16T18:32:00.000-05:00

Now taking suggestions for a new title for the blog. Chad Billy-Steve Pknicholson doesn't even make sense to me anymore, even though I know what it means....

Until then, it's a shout out to Arrested Development.

Mastering Memphis, step one

2010-05-06T19:20:00.006-05:00

Not all people are wired the same way. Some people play video games because they love the challenge. They only play their games on the most difficult setting. They like having three lives to challenge 1 billion immortal zombies, or they like it when the QB throws a pick on their own 20 with 30 seconds left in the fourth when they're up by three.

I don't get those people. I prefer utter domination. I play the game on the easiest setting first and wait until I'm winning football games 250 - 0 to advance to the next level (250 because the game stops counting points at that number). I prefer mastery.

Knowing this about me, you would think that I'd be pretty excited to have graduated last Saturday with my masters. You'd be right. Officially, I have letters after my name. Unofficially, Masters of Divinity has to be in the running for most egregious misnomer in history. Still, I've got the paper and the library to show for it, so there's that.

Graduations are by nature both ultimate and penultimate experiences. They are pivotal moments, the last step of one journey and the start of another, one apex before the next. Since this one, right now, feels more like a last step than a first one, I thought I would take a few posts to look back at the steps that got me here...

Most college seniors spend their last spring break, well, reinforcing the stereotype of last spring breaks. I spent mine with my dad. We took the week to travel to Pasadena and Chicago to visit Fuller Theological and Trinity seminaries, respectively. The weather in California was fantastic. The cost of living? Not as much. It snowed in Chicago. I had a great time with Dad, but the trip didn't give me much clarity about what to do. My main goal was to get outside of the normal CofC stream and expose myself to new ideas and challenge the ones that had become my own. When I got back to Searcy, I decided to talk to a few professors to see what direction they could provide. Dr. Ken Neller helped me understand more about the language of seminary and how to make distinctions between what each school was telling me about what they taught. Dr. Fortner told me, quite simply, that if I wanted to read as many different ideas as possible I should go to HUGSR in Memphis. He told me that I wouldn't necessarily find a broader perspective at the schools where I was looking than what I would get in Memphis. Dr. Monte Cox, a Trinity alum, told me the same thing. I was skeptical but trusted their advice and experience over mine.

In a few weeks, I had applied, gotten accepted, and had received a very nice scholarship offer that included working as a graduate assistant for Dr. Allen Black. All those spring breaks spent at less than tropical climates had literally paid off. After a brief period of deliberation, I accepted the offer. I would join my friends, Bob, Bobby, and Greg (admit it, you were thinking Robert) in the fall at Harding University Graduate School of Religion. I would live on campus. I would work as a GA. And I would pray that Memphis proved to be well outside of the Harding bubble.

A 1000 Words or Less

2009-10-25T06:37:00.006-05:00

I would have done the same thing. Really. I get it. I mean, if you had the choice between eating a donut and holding a baby, you drop the baby, right?

So when Sophie dropped her "baby" on the floor at Gibson's, no one got mad. We all understood the hierarchy. Chocolate donut, then everything else. The only thing I can disagree with is that I would have gone with the glazed.

The tables are a tight fit at Gibson's. Maybe it's a subtle reminder not to overeat? Regardless, it was tough to reach the scorned baby lying hopelessly on the floor in a puddle of glaze and sprinkles. The best we could do was have Jesse pick it up with her feet and swing them in my direction so I could grab the baby.

Holding the baby, I glanced at Sophie. She looked at the last bit of chocolate donut in her hands, made a feeble attempt to lick off her still-shiny chocolate lip gloss and reached half-heartedly for the baby.

"How about if I hold the baby until you finish?" I offered.

"Mrmshmshrehad," she mumbled in reply and returned to the donut.

Momentary distraction aside, Josh and Brooke and Jesse and I returned to the conversation at hand. Until we all realized how funny it was that I was holding a baby.

And so, for your pleasure, the following picture was taken:

Last Day

2009-10-23T07:22:00.003-05:00

I started blogging about anger because I couldn't think of anything else to write about and it's my constant companion at work. It seemed prudent to write out my thoughts on this strange and powerful emotion. As I was attempting to map out my feelings about the feeling, I really wasn't looking much for feedback as much as finding my way to a conclusion on the matter.

Well, I should have known better if iii was involved. iii is a good friend and blog associate and impulsive commenter! He also turned out to be a good dia-blog-er on the matter. His perspective has given me a lot to think about and has changed my thoughts on anger. But not so fast my friend! Before iii starts claiming total victory, I still think anger never helps. I just think I need to tweak that thought.

Put simply, I think there is one important distinction that gives me a way out. That distinction is the one between feeling and expression. If we allow a distinction between the feeling of anger and the expression of it, then we can both be right.

The feeling of anger might sometimes help. Anger at acts of injustice or unrighteousness may provide the impulse needed to act justly or pursue righteousness. However, the expression of anger, I still maintain never helps. I'm going to hold to the ideal on that point. I can't see a reason, in terms of practicality, healthiness, or spirituality, that would render the expression of anger helpful. Thoughts? Anyone? iii?

All creatures great and small (poop)

2009-09-30T20:03:00.006-05:00

Today was the big in-home visit for our international adoption home study. Yay. It was kind of an anxiety-producing event. It's not everyday that you have someone coming into your home to approve or deny your home's suitability for a child. It's strange to think about child-proofing a house for a child that we know very, very little about. It seems like something most parents probably do at the end of the process. I know I would have. We'd have the crib, the colors, the blankies, the toys, the clothes, the bottles, be walking out the door to the hospital and then think, um, hope the little kid doesn't want to stick its fingers in a socket, because we don't have socket covers. Not so now! Right now, I hope the kid doesn't want any of that other stuff, but if the child wants to stick its finger in a socket, we've got those covered!

So, obviously, we're busy last night double-checking every little detail. Fire extinguishers, check. Carbon Monoxide detector, check. Knives and fireworks, um...

Just kidding. I don't have any of those.

Anyway, one of the things we do have now is a new rug. Check out Mrs. Bailey's blog for pictures. It looks great; I like it. I like it more than the semicolon use in the previous sentence. It gives a nice fresh feel to our main living area, and out of all the things that needed thorough cleaning last night, it wasn't one of them. Which is good because we're double-checking and double-cleaning everything else.

And then, we wake up. Early for Mrs. Bailey, usual time for me. I take the dog running so he'll be super-tired and less jumpy when the case worker arrives. I clean up and begin the wonderful process that all morning people go through: waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. About that time, Owens gets a little anxious.

And by anxious, I mean throw up. On the brand new rug. That we hadn't had to worry about cleaning. Because it was brand new. And did I mention it was brand new. At the time, I didn't have the clarity of mind to see it for the sweet gesture it really was. At the time, I politely said, "Really? Are you kidding me?" and let him go outside. But now? Now I think it was such a sweet thing for him to do. Clearly, Owens understood the significance of this morning's visit and clearly he could sense our anxiety. That was clear. Like, 6 paper towels and 15 squirts of Febreeze clear.

Clearly, he just wanted to remind us that we have nothing to worry about. Adding a child to our family will just mean one more member of our house that needs help and makes noise when it wants to poop at 3 in the morning (that'll make 5 of us). It'll mean just one more member of our house that whines when it wants to be fed (that'll make 4 of us). And just one more member of our house that throws up at the worst possible times (just 3 this time). Thanks for the reminder, O. Next time, a card will do.

Day #3

2009-09-28T20:07:00.006-05:00

It seems natural that idealism be rejected with what we call "a healthy dose of reality." As if it isn't healthy to be an idealist.

On the other hand, is it really healthy to stop dreaming? Or what is the significance of a life pursued without a vision?

Yes, dreamers have been burned by moving to close to the sun. But they've also flown!

Perhaps then there is a way to dream responsibly. Or, to borrow from a competitor's ad slogan, maybe there is a life with just the right amount of dreamability. I believe there is.

So maybe the friction between the ideas that 1) anger never helps and 2) I can't just not be angry will produce a spark to light the way forward.

Regarding the first point, I've tried to make my point. Even Rob Bell thinks anger is only good if you let it produce something more redemptive (at which point the anger goes away). Ah, yes. But what if we can skip the stage where we get angry and then motivated to do something redemptive? What if we replace anger with something better, like love? Still too idealistic? Fair enough. I'm going to give it my best shot and see if I can't produce a coherent theology for anger never helping.

Tomorrow.

On a much more personal note, Jesse and I have officially begun a journey we started years ago. I order both of you who read this blog to check out the last two posts so that you can see what is going on with me.

Day #2

2009-09-24T06:33:00.007-05:00

What I find so fascinating about anger is that although people agree with the idea that anger never helps they still frequently get angry. Aside from some urban youths I was in a Bible study with once who said getting/staying angry at a girl will make her sleep with you, I've never heard anyone sing the praises of anger. Sad/true story, by the way. I'm going to allow for the exception (that's not really anger anyways, it's just pretending to be angry) and move on with the rule.

So most people would agree that anger never helps. But most of us still get angry. I'll be the first to say that I am (angry) Spartacus on this one. And what bothers me is that I rarely feel bad about getting angry. It's much more likely that I will feel justified when I get angry. How often do I get angry at what someone else did to me and then feel this overwhelming need to tell someone else about it? I can't let go until at least two or three other people have commiserated with me over whatever grave injustice was done to me.

I've been wronged. I've been offended. I don't deserve this. How dare they do this to me!

I often wonder what the source is of this (self) righteous indignation. I'd say it has a lot to do with the parenthetical word in that last sentence. Me.

Consider the Christian's classic defense of anger: Jesus in the temple. He too was indignant! He was RIGHTEOUSLY indignant! We emphasize righteous as if there is some secret to getting angry in a Christian way. And we believe the secret is that as long as we don't allow our anger to get out of control, we're justified in our anger. If you feel like it is under control, then you can do whatever you want - even make a whip out of cords and chase people around with it at church! You can go all hulk smash on the fellowship hall tables as long as you keep it under control.

Controlled rage is not the secret. The secret is us.

"But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ - the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead."
- Philippians 3:7-11

Who knew this inspiring passage could be practically applied to life in relevant ways?

There are far too many things that I consider gain at the expense of Christ. Those are the things that make me angry. MY time. MY money. MY rights. MY driving space on the road.

I'm too concerned with how these things might BE my profit that I am unwilling to consider them rubbish that I might gain Christ. Otherwise, I would be practicing HIS redeemed time, stewarding HIS money, denying MY rights for the sake of HIS kingdom, and who cares about all other insignificant things?!?!?!?

I believe the secret is that rather than dealing with anger and trying to justify its place in the kingdom, we should be trying to give away whatever might be the source of that anger. Or, in another sense, we should be denying any appearance of self-righteousness (and subsequent indignation and anger) and seeking the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

Day #1

2009-09-14T19:35:00.001-05:00

I'm not going to apologize for not blogging much in the last couple of days/weeks/months/seasons.... I've been busy, sure. But who isn't? More so, I haven't been interested in writing. To say the last year has been an adjustment from "full-time" school to full-time adult would be well-stated. I haven't always enjoyed it. One of the less enjoyable things has been the automatic reallocation of time and effort. As such, certain practices (i.e., blogging) have received less attention that I would have liked, while others (i.e., dealing with angry people) have demanded much more attention that anyone would prefer.

I suppose that "dealing with angry people" line deserves explanation. For reasons best given at another time (or never), I work at a property management company as... a property manager. I really like my office mates and I am very grateful to have a job (period) that allowed us to stay in Memphis as long as we wanted, me to finish school, etc.

My job requires dealing with a lot of disgruntled people. Frequently, they're angry about something, usually money. My job is to deal with those people in constructive ways, which often means letting them share their anger with me without letting it affect me or sharing it right back with them. I've developed some selectively thick skin (avoid cynicism!) and unfortunately gotten pretty good at dealing with said angry people. Over the last year, I've learned from my overexposure to anger. For one, anger never helps but always hurts. Also, I've become convinced that the most overlooked fruits of the Spirit are probably kindness and gentleness.

All that to say, since I'm having such a hard time finding inspiration to write, I've decided to find inspiration in what's there, and right now, what's usually there is someone else's anger, so I'm going to write about that. Should be fun.

My Own Ignorance

2009-07-31T13:07:00.001-05:00

Exposed.

Box Office Cred

2009-07-06T08:25:00.001-05:00

Exposed.

Indie Cred

2009-07-06T08:15:00.002-05:00

Exposed:

Gods, Not Gods, and the Future

2009-06-28T21:40:00.002-05:00

Well, that last one didn't even get a response from my wife, so it must have been really... awesome.

It was too long to make one post, and now I've lost the "inspiration" as it were, to finish the thought adequately.

In short, the direction I was going was the idea that it is within the realm of possibility that God cares more about us conforming to His character than he does about us conforming to some self-appointed concept of a Plan. Maybe God's will is that in all things we choose to do, we do it in such a way as to honor and glorify his NATURE. This as a distinction from God's will as figuring out exactly what God has "planned" regarding the course and events of your life, future, etc.

So, for example, (and this will be a tough one to admit considering the type of love glorified in our culture and considering the way we have "spiritualized" that concept) maybe what God's will for you in regards to a spouse is to find a person who will support and encourage you as a Christian. Maybe those searching for a spouse should spend less time searching for "The One" that God has prepared from them from the beginning of time and more time searching for someone to whom they are attracted spiritually, physically, etc. Sure, it sounds less romantic, and sure, Jesse and I tend to feel "The One"-ish about each other, but what about widowers who remarry? Did God's Plan including them being built specially to love more than one "The One"? Yes, it flies in the face of our lofty romanticism and every great romantic move you've ever seen, but what if God didn't pick a "The One" for you. What if He blesses the choice of a spouse that you make as long as the relationship you have with that one person conforms to God's nature and character and design for Godly marriage? That's pretty provocative, but not entirely insane. Just don't bring it up with your spouse...

Let's try a less disturbing, more comfortable, example: the place where you live. Is it God's will for you to live where you do, with the job that you have, with the church body of which you are a part? Or, is it just as likely that God honors wherever you choose to work (within reason [ie, not a strip club]), live, or worship, as long as it conforms to His nature and character? It's possible, right?

We don't like to think this way because it makes everything feel so much less comfortable and controlled. I'm going to stop typing special words in caps - you can decide which ones are the most important. If God doesn't have this Plan worked out then how do we know what to do next? We've created this idea of a Divine Plan to help us feel safer about the future. It's much more comforting to feel like there is a right thing to do in every situation but that we just have to figure it out. It's can be much more frightening to think that there may not be a "one right choice" in certain circumstances.

At the same time, it might be more liberating. You have a choice. And not in the radical individualist sense, but more in the sense relationship. You and God interact. He honors your choices; He works with them. He might try and convince you to make a different choice, or He might provide guidance to help you choose something that is better than another thing. And, ironically, it might make determining God's will easier. Plan-centric language goes out, but relational language takes its place.

See again the Israelites. Why did they "Exodite" Egypt only to fall so soon at the foot of God's mountain? I would say that it might be because they wanted a Plan, and only got a relationship. I would say that it might be because they cared more about knowing came next, rather knowing who would go forward with them. They were looking towards Canaan, when they should have been looking to the top of the mountain right in front of them. If God has a plan for us, it probably looks a lot different from what we normally expect. It probably doesn't have a picture of you and your spouse, your job, your house, you children, your paycheck, your cars, your church, etc. It probably just looks like Him.

1 Thessalonians 4:3 "It is God's will that you should be sanctified..."

God, Not Gods, and the Future

2009-06-14T08:36:00.001-05:00

I was recently part of a class discussion about the Exodus. After discussing the meaning of the plagues, interpretations of Pharaoh's hard heart, and the like, the idea was raised how Israel was reacting to the plagues and how quickly they would "forget" the power displayed in the plagues and the God behind that power. It's not a bad question. How and why did the Israelites cross the Red Sea only to forget God almost immediately at the foot of the mountain upon which the very presence of God had come to rest? What possessed them to create a Not God in the presence of God?

When humans create Not Gods for themselves, what form do they take and what function do they serve? For the Ancient Near Eastern cultures, some may be familiar with Ba'al, Marduk or Tiamat. Or more popularly, consider the Grecian deities: Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena. In each case, I would argue that these Not Gods are attempts by humanity to explain, in the broadest sense, human experiences. Why did floods destroy our fields? Tiamat is angry and must be appeased. Why is this other nation attacking us? The Gods have caused it. Why is (x) happening? The Gods! I would argue that humans have always struggled to understand why things happen and have always struggled with a gnawing sense that the explanation touches on something greater than ourselves.

Perhaps this penchant for uncovering a plan is a whisper of the eternity placed in our hearts. On the other hand, maybe it's a mirror of our existence as temporal beings.

I wrestle with whether or not we are even able to think beyond chronological parameters. Perhaps that is part of God's mystery which we are not meant to understand. Or we ought always to seek to understand how our relationship with God might affect our current reality. That is, maybe we should at least to try and understand how God, outside of time, relates to us, exceedingly temporal beings.

But isn't any attempt to understand or explain this relationship in chronological terms inherently flawed? If it isn't possible to understand fully, should we even try? Perhaps it is important at the beginning to note that no complete answer can be given. Humans cannot breathe without oxygen. Theologians cannot theologize without time (usually more than necessary). Unless otherwise noted, time will continue to be our great variant, obstacle, and oxygen.

We affirm then that we are time-bound and God is not. This is the buoy from which we dive into deep waters. We also affirm that understanding time is a decidedly human obsession. God is not obsessed with time as we are; he has a pretty good idea how it will end. Of course, We know also. BUT, we do not know how we will get there. And we WANT to know. We want to know how we get there almost as much as we want actually to get there!

Oppositional to God, humans are too obsessed with time. We want to know all about it. People are always wanting to know how we spend it. Time is money, right? With an insatiable hunger we seek to uncover every past secret, to be informed about every present event, and to discern every future possibility.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the same blind ignorance of which we accuse the Israelites seems to have much in common with the same stroke of stupidity with which we often paint the apostles. However, I would question if perhaps what we see in these chosen followers of God isn't also present in us. Maybe we're not dealing with situational foolishness so much as human foolishness. To name it specifically, perhaps it is the result of an eternal God engaging temporal beings.

I am beginning to wonder if perhaps God doesn't care about time as much as we do.

Consider again our lab rats, those "dumb" Israelites. They go from living in Egypt and asking Moses and Aaron not to make life so hard for them to watching each plague unfold to the shores of an Egyptian sea - now seeing with faith - the amazing God who is. The God who is rescuing them. He has come to take them into the land he promised would be theirs. Finally, they will be free! Stupid Israelites! What happened? Because, look, there they are now at the foot of the mountain of God, asking for a more tangible Not God to lead them.

How could they be so blind? How could they forget that the God who had been so mighty to save would continue to keep His promises?

How am I so blind? How do I forget that the God who has been so mighty to save might continue to keep His promises?

Read This!

2009-05-29T15:11:00.004-05:00

I'm officially addicted Google Reader. So much so, that multiple times a day I come across links to stories that I think others should read. My wife is fond of making you make things, so I've decided to make you read things. Read this! And this! Now!

Why Don't You Face It...

2009-04-20T21:58:00.011-05:00

you're addicted to God? Is it possible to be addicted to God? How do we define addiction? Are all addictions by nature unhealthy?

Those who read this blog know me, so it's redundant for me to point out that I like to think. I have no answers on this one, and quite frankly, it's way out there and not well written (unedited stream of consciousness never is), but I've thought about as much as I can about this idea of God addiction without getting any farther than what you read here. I welcome outside thoughts. Let's converse, dear readers.

I want to be addicted to God. It's an interesting idea, to be sure. Maybe even I am addicted to the idea of being addicted to God. Think about it. What is there was nothing you wouldn't sell to get a more God in your life? What if you had a constant "jonesing" for God? Would it not be awesome if any time you didn't have God, you wished you did?

Of course, I must be sensitive to those who have struggled, or are close to someone who has struggled, with addiction.

There does seem to be something, though, about the human nature, some flaw in us, that allows us to become so radically unbalanced in favor of one thing that it negatively affects all other aspects of our life. Wouldn't it be nice if we could find some way to manipulate our flaw for good?

There are physical, emotional, spiritual, relational consequences to addictive behavior.

I guess I just wish that we could find some way to re/un-twist our ability to become unbalanced in favor of The One good thing that can only affect every aspect our lives positively. That would be nice.

Vintage Music Dos

2009-04-17T19:37:00.004-05:00

Your indifference won't stop me from blogging more about this, so don't bother not bothering.

The transformation of music media has trended towards the song being the primary musical unit, over against the album/record. Consider this: you started with the first major music medium for the purpose of sales - the record. From the record, you move on to the 8-track, which is smaller and more portable, but like the record, you don't really have a choice which song you listen to or when. From the 8-track to the cassette tape, you really start to see how the medium influenced the way music was hawked. Not only do you have the choice (albeit now a somewhat ridiculous choice - why fast forward when you can skip... or shuffle?) to skip past songs, you also now have the ability to buy blank music media and record whatever song you want on the cassette. Ah yes, the mix tape. From the cassette tape to the CD, song preference becomes even easier, and the mix tape offers a light to the mix CD. From the CD, the MP3 was a New York subway train.

Concurrent with these developments was a significant change in the landscape of music. If we look specifically at the CD era of music, we can spot the pinnacle of this trend without tracing it through history. By the time the CD-form of music saturates the market, we have a thriving style of music widely embraced by the POPular masses. Pop music is not just a slice, it's the whipped cream on top of every slice. There's a pop form for just about every version and this pop music is driving the financial growth of the music industry, so much so that they start to figure out that if a band can put together two or three radio-worthy singles, then the record companies can sell whole albums based on just a couple of songs. Who cares if the rest of the music is horrible, bad, or passable? People will shell out $20 for the next big thing. Yeah, we used to pay $20 for CDs.

So, there are two movements, one towards pushing albums with only a few good songs and the other towards allowing listeners the freedom to have only the music they actually want to have. I find this fascinating, in an Emmett Brown kind of way. I think it's interesting to see how these two trends are now playing out. On one hand, pop music is going as strong as ever in the way it should - one song at a time. On the other hand, truly great music is carving out a niche of its own in this pop-crazy world - one album at a time.

Great Bands / Great Albums (in no particular order)

The Flaming Lips / Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
Fleet Foxes / Fleet Foxes
Bon Iver / For Emma, Forever Ago
Band of Horses / Cease to Begin
Brandi Carlile / The Story
Cloud Cult / The Meaning of 8
Miracle Fortress / Five Roses
Sigur Ros / Takk
Blind Pilot / Three Rounds and a Sound

And for kicks, I really can't get enough of the song "Holes," by Mercury Rev.

Almost Speechless

2009-04-16T06:42:00.001-05:00

I have to wait how long for this?

Vintage Music

2009-04-13T19:39:00.007-05:00

In an iTunes world, it's no longer an accomplishment to create one good song. "That's right," said Fred and Tommy Tutone agrees. For better or worse, there is now little significance in producing a song that forces someone to stop and listen for 3 minutes and 23 seconds. So what if you get to work and haven't finished a song? Just press pause on the bottom of the click wheel and catch it on the drive home.

Is this not the death of music? What ever happened to the good old days, right? I'm old enough to joke about 8-track but young enough to have no idea what an 8-track looks like. I can remember cassette tapes, though, and I grew up during the boom for CDs. Napster, Song Spy, and later Kazaa, transformed personal computers into personal schooners for techno-pirates riding open-sail over a sea of unmonitored bandwidth. Each successive development rendered the former obsolete and making music, and more specifically songs, incredibly accessible. The pirates have mostly all gone the way of their seafaring predecessors and we're left with a whole new enemy to music: the teenager.

This week, two of the top five songs on iTunes are songs by Miley Cyrus. The number one album on iTunes currently is an album by Miley Cyrus and Hannah Montana. I rest my case.

Yes, there will always be mainstream pop music, built upon the carcasses of yesterday's one hit wonders - a collection of increasingly made-up men and barely-clothed women. who knew Twisted Sister was the pinnacle of pop?

On the other hand, this is still a time of unprecedented (until it becomes a precedent) musical diversity. Much to John Mayer's Twitter chagrin, the old tunes aren't going away, and still the number of artists proliferates. Thus it is that true music snobbery remains alive and well. So it is with nose-upturned, that I salute the unique musicians. There are those who are balanced somewhere along the middle who attempt to create a unique sound, but at this point, few sounds are literally unique. Very few bands sound only like themselves. So then, what makes an artist unique, in my humble opinion, is the ability to create a unique sound consistently. This is judged not by the quality of a song but by the quality of the album. Ironically, then, in an iTunes world, the same as it was in the world of every other music medium, accomplishments are measured by the album.

Foodie Booty

2009-03-15T19:22:00.010-05:00

If it is in fact true that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, then I am hopelessly in love with Memphis. My belly will vouch for that statement.

Last summer, there was a large gathering of Faris people (I'm not a fan of the plural form, NT Christians start thinking they are more funny than they are) in Colorado for a reunion of sorts. The first thing my grandfather said when he saw me was, "You've gotten fatter."

Thanks, man. My brain almost exploded thinking of the possible responses I could give - covering the spectrum from petulant crying fit to over-the-top crass - but perhaps I would have done well just to say, "I live in Memphis, what do you expect?"

In pirate terms, Memphis is teeming with culinary booty. Jokes about Memphis topping the "America's Fattest City" list aside, I am going to get a lot of miles out of this pun, don't worry. In fact, Memphis has so much booty (see?), I'm inclined to keep a record of it.

My most recent inspiration for blogging about food comes from a few sources. The first is cable TV. Or, more specifically, two shows: Iron Chef America and Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations. If you've watched either, then I need not type anything else. If you haven't seen those shows, then I need not talk to you anymore.

The second source was a recent meal I shared with my wife of three years on our anniversary. We had several requirements for our special meal. We wanted to have some money after it was over (but not too much). So CiCi's was out, as was Pasta Italia (those are the outliers). We want a unique experience in a romantic setting - down goes Applebee's! That pretty much left Paulette's.

Now, I've never met Paulette. If I did, I think I'd shake her hand and say, "Thanks for the good food," but, we probably wouldn't be best friends. Paulette probably lives in Germantown, drives 35 on Poplar, and has three grandkids with multiple 3-syllable names each. On the other hand, she could invite me over for dinner anytime. Paulette's has the setting down pretty nice. Overton Square is the place, after all, for good food with a dash of local charm. Being Memphis, sometimes that charm has a little less... sophisticated luxury than other more established joints in cities that have older money than Memphis (I'm looking at you Nashville). In other words, if you're wearing black pants, they'll give you a black napkin at Paulette's, but it won't be silk, which is great by me. Like Memphis, this place might be somehwat pretentious, but in the end, it's not going to try that hard.

In fact, I'd say it's just pretentious enough to offer really good food without having to pronounce words you've never seen before. The Faris rule of thumb these days is "always split," which can put more pressure on the meal. Let's just say Paulette handled the pressure to the tune of a medium-cooked filet mignon topped with a gorgonzola cheese and red wine demi-glace. That meal sings. Add to that the roasted garlic whipped potatoes (because the French aren't the mashing type) and the popovers with strawberry butter that came before the meal, and you have yourself a symphony of flavors that does not dissappoint.

In short, a meal that good gives Paulette's a place in the discussion of local Memphis culinary treasure. For me, it's not where everyone knows your name and it probably shouldn't be, but for the occassional special event, Paulette's will not disappoint. In short, it's foodie booty.

So from now on, you can look forward to the occasional post about foodie booty. Also, I'm neither fat nor fatTER. But you, Gramps, look great.

The Napkin Loaf

2009-03-12T14:29:00.005-05:00

What do you call the package of napkins? Besides the package of napkins, because who wants to say that? Put me on the record as voting for the napkin loaf. It's important to keep it singular. No one says, "loaf of breads" and I don't think I need anything else besides that to support my argument. In fact, I think this is something even Obama and Rush can agree on.

When you think about it, the napkin loaf and the bread loaf have a lot in common. Both are packaged in such a way so that once you open the package, irreparable damage has been done. You can't reseal the bread the way it was when you bought it, and you basically have to tear the napkin package to get them out.

Both are at the bedrock of a good meal. What is a meal without bread or napkin? How else can you eat the thin layer of chili left in the bowl except with bread? How else can you wipe up the thick layer of chili on your pants except with your napkin? I can't tell you how many times I've sat down to a meal and thought, "Man, we need some rolls" and then stuck some in the oven to complete a plated filet mignon sprinkled with Gorgonzola cheese and a red wine demi glaze with whipped garlic potatoes. I can't tell you because I don't keep track of these things, but it's happened a lot. I also can't tell you how many times I've sat down after putting some nice Sister Schubes on the plate with said filet and thought, "Man, where's my napkin slice?"

Likewise, both are unappreciated on the ends. Is there a more hated part of a piece of good food than the heels on a loaf of bread? I'd rather eat the bottom half of a muffin than the butt of the bread loaf. I'd rather eat a half sandwich or a piece of toast for lunch than make a whole sandwich with one of the slices be the heel. If bread heels were money and I worked in or at a trash dump, I'd be rich because I'm pretty sure the proper etiquette for throwing away the packaging after finishing a loaf of bread is to make sure the heels are still in the bag and then putting the bag in the trash can.

At the same time, what's going on with the heel of the napkin loaf? Who decided that in order to wrap the napkin loaf properly it is necessary to glue the napkins on either end of the loaf to the packaging? And who are we to decide that those napkins are a lost cause? "No," we decide" this napkin, whose very purpose is to clean up my mess, is not even worth wiping the dirty chili stain from my mouth." That doesn't make sense to me. Somehow, this napkin is too wrinkled for me to get it dirty... wiping up this dog vomit from the floor (note to self: do not start by taking the dog on a one-mile run in 80-degree weather - we build up to that).

I wish I could say the connection is that I wrote this blog post on the back of the heel of a napkin loaf, but I can't - mostly because how do you determine which is the front and which is the back when both sides look the same? No, instead, I think the connection is that lately, I've used this blog kind of like how most of us use the heel of a loaf of napkin/bread. That is, not at all. Sorry about that. On the bright side, you get this post rather than me writing about how I took Moses for a run lately and he threw up on the floor twice after that and then posting pictures of it. (read: I'm back. You're welcome.)

Wow

2009-02-21T07:09:00.002-06:00

I have not posted in a long time. Inspiration runs short these days, I suppose. I hate to be a tease, but that's all I've got for now. Oh, I finished my taxes yesterday so yay for me.

Final Fillibuster - Running Out of Breath

2008-11-15T08:37:00.002-06:00

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!

2008-11-09T21:27:00.003-06:00

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

2008-11-04T22:59:00.005-06:00

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

2008-11-01T16:45:00.005-05:00

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

2008-10-26T22:40:00.011-05:00

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...

2008-10-26T08:21:00.004-05:00

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

2008-09-24T13:17:00.004-05:00

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

2008-09-09T21:13:00.004-05:00

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

2008-08-25T20:37:00.002-05:00

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

2008-08-18T13:24:00.003-05:00

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

2008-08-13T14:38:00.007-05:00

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

2008-08-07T07:05:00.007-05:00

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

2008-08-02T08:32:00.004-05:00

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...

2008-07-29T20:08:00.003-05:00

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

2008-07-19T09:12:00.008-05:00

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

2008-07-15T19:40:00.004-05:00

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

2008-07-12T08:44:00.002-05:00

I wish I had written this.

These days...

2008-07-08T23:12:00.002-05:00

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

2008-06-22T08:32:00.005-05:00

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

2008-06-21T09:57:00.003-05:00

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.

One Thing

2008-04-29T12:47:00.003-05:00

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

2008-04-24T12:41:00.002-05:00

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)

2008-04-10T19:10:00.003-05:00

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

2008-04-08T10:05:00.002-05:00

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

2008-04-07T13:22:00.004-05:00

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)

2008-04-03T20:53:00.004-05:00

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)

2008-04-02T13:39:00.003-05:00

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)

2008-03-27T11:23:00.008-05:00

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

2008-03-26T16:15:00.002-05:00

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

2008-03-05T13:14:00.002-06:00

Spring must be near, because I see a pansy!

On Cynicism, pt. 4 (the dream)

2008-02-26T11:08:00.014-06:00

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

2008-02-26T08:50:00.002-06:00

your reigning World Series Champion Boston Red Sox!

Indulgence

2008-02-25T11:23:00.002-06:00

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)

2008-02-12T09:30:00.000-06:00

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

2008-02-08T09:15:00.000-06:00

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

2008-02-05T09:03:00.000-06:00

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

2008-02-01T13:50:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-31T15:00:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-29T13:19:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-28T10:40:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-25T14:58:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-23T14:08:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-22T08:29:00.000-06:00

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

2008-01-21T13:49:00.000-06:00

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...

On Compromise

2008-01-14T11:00:00.000-06:00

I just hated going private because it would inevitably keep the general public from reading my extremely profound thoughts. Or really just because random people I know who might be interested from time to time would be shut out, so why punish everyone on account of one? I did some snooping, and saw that I can moderate comments while keeping the blog public. That should solve the current problem without drastic changes. Still, "going private" did allow me to discover a few lurkers, those rogues, so I guess it was not all for naught. Just to be clear, until further notice, my blog will remain public.

On Patrick

2008-01-07T08:10:00.001-06:00

My blog is going private, so if you want to read it, send me an email at nicholas.faris@gmail.com.

On Cynicism, pt. 1

2007-12-24T17:21:00.000-06:00

I'd like to start a running thread on cynicism. I suppose I don't need a reason, but I have been thinking about it a lot lately, so that's my reason. Plus, who doesn't want to think about cynicism this time of year? 'Tis the season, I say. As it is the night before Christmas, I won't delve into it much. I can promise, however, that it will be longer than Bob's two-part "series."

For now, I'll just say that sometimes, it really is easy to be cynical. Today, for instance, I went to the mall, and in spite of all the supposed holiday cheer in the air, I found that most people were more concerned with getting a better parking spot than me than with tidings of comfort and joy, peace on earth, goodwill to men, etc. Baby Jesus would not be happy with this, I think. Yet, baby Jesus does not seem to be able to prevent selfishness as the most selfless of times. Maybe it's because too many people like to think of Jesus - in the words of Cal Naughton, Jr. - "as a mischievous badger." You'd be wrong, but there you are. Merry Christmas everybody!

The Old Walkabout

2007-12-15T09:22:00.000-06:00

Everyone I know, and those I do not, should go to this website: walkscore.com. Maybe I am the last to know about it, but I think that I am not. I read about this on James K. A. Smith's blog. That's a name drop - read anything by that guy. Anyway, this website is a wonderful tool for those who are energy conscious or healthy. We scored an 82, which I think is pretty high. I defy you to beat our score! That only confirms our feelings that we live in a great part of town. Of course, the real importance of this website is not what score you make, but how you use the knowledge gained from this site to your advantage. From the website:

Why Walking Matters

Walkable neighborhoods offer surprising benefits to our health, the environment, and our communities.

Better health: A study in Washington State found that the average resident of a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood weighs 7 pounds less than someone who lives in a sprawling neighborhood¹. Residents of walkable neighborhoods drive less and suffer fewer car accidents, a leading cause of death between the ages of 15 - 45.

Reduction in greenhouse gas: Cars are a leading cause of global warming. Your feet are zero pollution transportation machines.

More transportation options: Compact neighborhoods tend to have higher population density, which leads to more public transportation options and bicycle infrastructure. Not only is taking the bus cheaper than driving, but riding a bus is ten times safer than driving a car!

Increased social capital: Walking increases social capital by promoting face-to-face interaction with your neighbors. Studies have shown that for each 10 minutes a person spends in a daily car commute, time spent in community activities falls by 10 percent.

Stronger local businesses: Dense, walkable neighborhoods provide local businesses with the foot traffic they need to thrive. It's easier for pedestrians to shop at many stores on one trip, since they don't need to drive between destinations.

Favorite Things

2007-12-15T08:47:00.000-06:00

is not really a Christmas song, but this time of year, one of my favorite things to do is take the books for the semester off of the top shelf of my desk, and put them in their place on my bookshelves. There is a feeling of completeness that comes with this act that is quite rewarding. I got to do that yesterday; color me rewarded. I have officially finished a 12 hour semester, on time. Take that, Greg McKenzie.

Just For Fun

2007-12-11T22:41:00.000-06:00

This is an essay I wrote for class earlier this week. I should warn you, it is long and you don't care. Basically, the point of the essay was to exegete, theologize, and apply any text I wanted in about 1000 words.

The text in question is I Corinthians 10:1-13.

To begin to understand these verses, one must first consider the context. Beginning in chapter eight, Paul is answering a question posed to him by the Corinthian church concerning “food sacrificed to idols” (I Cor. 8:1). The church in Corinth seems to have differing opinions over whether or not a Christian can eat meat that has been sacrificed to an idol. That is, some Christians were eating meat bought from a pagan temple and eating, while others felt that doing so was engaging in the worship of other, pagan deities. Paul’s argument concerning this issue is long and complex, such that it is hard to understand what exactly is the point for which he argues. He begins in chapter eight by showing how idols represent literally nothing, so it is acceptable to eat this meat because it has in reality been sacrificed to nothing. Yet, Paul’s answer is not a simple “yes;” it is the dreaded “yes, but….” The “but” concludes chapter eight: “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall” (8:13). Paul then argues in all of chapter nine for a Christian understanding of “rights.” That is, how a Christian should understand his or her rights in relation to others. Ultimately, the only right that Paul will claim is that he might “become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (9:22). Following this declaration is Paul’s sport analogy where he argues that the Christian life should be driven by Kingdom purposes. This leads directly into the content of 10:1-13.

Paul’s single-minded devotion to God’s purposes motivates him to forsake his right to eat meat sacrificed to idols for the sake of his brother. This idea leads Paul to argue from the example of Israel. He begins by paralleling Israel with the Corinthian church. Israel, like them, received a water and spirit baptism (10:2). So also Israel was nourished spiritually in Christ (10:3-4). Yet, in spite of this calling to be God’s chosen people, they repeatedly fell short of God’s call and suffered the consequences (10:5-10). Paul says that these events transpired (presumably, in part) as an example and warning to those who would follow those desert wanderers. Israel, who had just experienced the pinnacle of their history in the Exodus and receiving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, was still susceptible to failure. In the same way, the Christians in Corinth, who had received the very pinnacle of God’s revelation of his redemptive history, are still susceptible (10:12). Yet, being susceptible is not the same as being hopeless, for hope is found in the help of God (10:13). Thus, from Israel’s history, Paul teaches the Corinthian church how they are to think about themselves in relation to the way they treat those brothers and sisters who do not share their opinion about eating meat sacrificed to idols.

From the meager exegetical work above, the primary principle that one should draw from the passage in question concerns the claiming of perceived rights. That is, Christians ought to give up their rights for the sake of their fellow Christians. This practical principle is driven by another, more theoretical principle. This principle is addressed more in chapter nine. The reason Christians give up their rights for the sake of others is because of their whole-hearted devotion to the gospel of Christ (9:12). Paul embodies this principle: “But I have not used nay of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast” (9:15). Thus, the normative principle for Paul is single-minded devotion to the cause of Christ. Paul applies this in principle generally as the forsaking of one’s rights. In his context, this plays out as a Christian abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols for the conscience of his brother.

Paul can argue for and apply these principles based on the history of God’s redemptive acts in the world. That is, Paul does not argue in or from a vacuum. The foundation of his argument is the very cause of Christ for which he forsakes his rights. At the heart of the story in which Paul places all others, including his and the Corinthian church, is the one, true Redeemer. It is God who seeks always redemption for His creation. Yet this redemption does not occur through victory and oppression, but through death and resurrection. It would be through the death and resurrection of His chosen people that God redeemed his covenant with Abraham. It would be through the death and resurrection of His Son that God would fulfill his redemptive plan. In the Incarnation and subsequent death and resurrection of Jesus, God forsook his divine rights. In fact, at the end of his address on eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul appeals to this divine example (11:1). It is this act of God through Christ - the very culmination of His redemptive history - that necessitates singular devotion to the Gospel of Jesus.

This devotion is fundamentally characteristic of the Christian life. Because of what God has done, the Christian no longer lives a self-centered life. Rather, imitating Paul imitating Christ, the Christian lives a life of sacrifice for the cause of the Gospel. This story of what God has done, that shapes the life of the believer, also has relevance for others. As such, he is not wiling to let himself be arrogant concerning his call. No one is worthy of the call of Christ. Thus, he is concerned that when Christians start claiming their rights at the expense of others, especially other Christians, it will detract from the story of what God has done. Paul sees the Gospel as suffering most when Christians are self-centered

Application begins with the two principles that gird Paul’s argument in this text: devotion to the Gospel and the forsaking of personal rights. Many in our contemporary context view personal rights and freedoms as the core of a new gospel. Freedom to speak or believe whatever one wants has become the fundamental “right” of humanity. The elevation of the individual is the result. And, as such, the oppression and coercion of others for the sake of the individual is rampant. In this setting, Paul’s theology is distinctly counter-cultural. The Christian faith has never been about claiming one’s rights. The consequences of human fallenness are what belong rightfully to humanity. No one seems to be claiming these, however. Christians who stridently claim their rights and freedoms need to consider then their perspective. It seems that too often their perspective is more American than Christian. Thus, in a passage of Scripture that often seems confusing and out of place, the example of Israel remains relevant. The calling to Christ is not an elevation to higher status. The joy of a life in Christ is living the life of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11). The glory of a Christian is the glory of the cross. This selfless forsaking of human rights is possible only when one’s story is found in the story of the one, true God. The story of what God has done places all things in clear perspective. And, as Christian center their lives around this Gospel, they find that they would rather not claim their right, but only their cross. They trust not in themselves, but only in God, who is faithful.

Question

2007-11-28T19:50:00.001-06:00

Today at the graduate school, we had a visiting professor named Michael Landon. I thought this was hilarious. When I told Jesse, she didn't think it was funny because she didn't know who Michael Landon was - and I'm not talking about the visiting professor. She thinks it is ridiculous that I know who Michael Landon is. So, am I ridiculous or do you know who Michael Landon is?

Rare Form

2007-11-20T20:01:00.000-06:00

Nick Saban made a stupid mistake. He could use a healthy dose of perspective, as well. Earlier this week, he compared Alabama's loss in their homecoming game - to a hyphenated team (University of Louisiana-Monroe) - to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor in terms of pivotal catastrophes. Great, Nicky. You're team lost a game that they really, really, really, really should have won, and rather than just admitting that you and your team blew it and played horribly, you take the high road and decide that your loss ranks on the level of two of the most tragic events to ever take place on American soil. God will smite you for this travesty, Nick Saban! The real catastrophe will be Bama's sixth loss in six years to Auburn! War Eagle!

Campbell's - Mmmm Mmmm Weird

2007-11-19T14:49:00.000-06:00

Few people read this blog. Even fewer probably care about the content of this post. But even fewer people (read, nobody) can stop me from posting this garbage anyway. I'm doing more research for my Restoration History class, and here's some random notes from our pope, Alexander Campbell (Campbell hated catholics).

In an article titled, "Bad Books," Campbell warns his readers to stay away from books "of mere fiction and fancy" and especially those "of the foul and exciting Romance." Yep, Campbell warns against reading for pleasure because "a habit of reading for amusement simply, becomes so fixed, that science loses all its charms...." With reading romance novels, he predicts "mental delirium" for those who develop this despicable habit. I for one, am committed to maintaining scientific reading for its charms. All of them. So there you have it everybody. Stop reading my blog. It's bad for you. And burn your Harry Potter books.

Ode to Our Owens

2007-11-08T10:00:00.000-06:00

Not too long ago, Brooke said that one of the great things that happened in the joining of Nick and Jesse was the inclusion of Owens. I couldn't agree more. So, I decided to do something only slightly lame and blog about my love for Owens. The first thing that comes to my mind is how bad it stinks when Owens farts. That's most because he just farted and my eyes are watering. To be inappropriately honest, when he drops a bomb, I often have to leave the room. When I am close enough to him and I "feel a breeze," I will return the favor. That's right, I fart at my dog. Why do I love this? I don't know. I'm just a kid, I suppose. The best part of it is that whenever I do, he ALWAYS gets me back. I'm not kidding either. He'll get up when I'm on the couch and stretch. He often lets 'em rip when he does, and it's always right at me. Ruthless. I love it. Something else that I love about Owens is how much he sleeps. He sleeps a lot. I envy him, but he deserves it. Something Jess and I recently discovered is that Owens is actually THE pick of the litter. None of his brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. won more races than he did. Not that we condone the inbreeding of greyhounds or their use for profit, but my boy can run. D's Echo was his racing name, and you can check out his stats here. So now I am super-proud of him for being a successful racer. You can even see his individual races. In the last race, he led early but pulled up late. That probably explains his ridiculous limp that looks more like a bunny hop. He's 8 now, which is kind of old, and he does act like an old man most of the time. But, when we play, he's wild at heart. I trained him to be that way. Jesse is a wonderful caretaker, but he's much more manly now that he has me to show him how. He's vicious when we wrestle for his blanket, chew toys, stuffed animals, etc. He barks like a man more than yelps like a woman now, too. On Sundays, he is SUPER excited when we come home from church. As soon as he has smelled where we've been, he runs back to the Man Room and jumps up on the Man Couch, because he knows it is time for the men to watch football. So, all this to say that I love our dog. He's the best.

Owen's famous first picture

Owens has lain down outside maybe twice. It's funny because I don't think he knows what to do once he does.

When he sleeps, Owens gets possessed. We joke about spoofing The Omen with a movie about our dog, The Owens. Sometimes he runs in his sleep while laying down. So, his legs are stretched out beside his body, and his little feet just go spastic. Also, he barks in his sleep.

The happy family at Halloween. What a great smile!

That's no ghost in the window, that's Owens' eyes. He watched us leave out that window until he can't see us anymore.

We recently took Owens to the beach.

He liked it.

Post #100 and the KKK

2007-11-05T17:03:00.000-06:00

So I just saw this is my 100th post. I'm currently doing research on pacifists in the Restoration Movement at the time of the Civil War, and discovered something interesting. There's this story many writers tell of David Lipscomb. He was preaching against the war in Tennessee, when a Southern commander was sent to listen to the sermon and determine whether it was treasonous. This commander would say later,

"I have not reached a conclusion as to whether or not the doctrine of the sermon is loyal to the Southern Confederacy, but I am profoundly convinced that he [Lipscomb] is loyal to the Christian religion."

That's the story I've heard several different times. The detail I just read for the first time? The commander was one Nathan Bedford Forrest. I thought that was interesting, and you should know.

Yep

2007-10-31T15:05:00.001-05:00

Helloooooooo, Jerry

2007-10-25T19:52:00.001-05:00

Am I actually starting to feel like Newman? Every time I turn on the television, there is Jerry, shamelessly promoting his new animated movie about a non-human entity. Really, Jerry? I'm actually starting to lose a little respect here. I know, I know... it's Jerry Seinfeld. Yadda, yadda, yadda. I could expect this from George, or even Kramer, but you, Jerry? For shame. For shame. This bee movie may be as bad a choice as the pirate shirt.

On a related note, someone needs to find a new take for these animated movies. They're aren't a novelty anymore, and I'm tired of the whole, "Hey! What if ________ could talk? That would be hiLARious!" angle.

Bring on the Rockies

2007-10-21T23:12:00.000-05:00

I want to be gracious, especially towards my buddy Bob from Cleveland, so here's to the Red Sox, 2007 ALCS Champions. The Indians are a good, young (except for Kenny Lofton - he's old) team with a bright future. They played very well. They just didn't have J.D. Drew. The Victor Martinez slow trot didn't bother me.

Important things to know about me:

I am in love with Dustin Pedroia.
Manny is Manny.
I have not washed my Papelbon jersey since the playoffs started.
The first night I told Jesse I loved her was the night the Sox won the WS in 2004.
I am going to bed happy.

GO SOX!!!!!!

Memphis News

2007-10-15T18:45:00.000-05:00

Jesse and I just saw ABC Eyewitness News 24 show these two news promos:

- Man burns down house trying to get rid of wasps

- Woman steals car to pay for husband's sex change

I love Memphis.

Random Stuff

2007-10-11T19:01:00.001-05:00

We are at the beach this week, the best place to spend your study break. I still like K-Ville and Life. Bionic Woman not so much. Journeyman is good for a rainy day. Auburn football is actually not bad for watching, as long as you are watching them play Vandy. We'll see what happens in Fayetteville this weekend.

I'm loving playoff baseball. The Sox look good. We have a good chance to win it all. I also like the Indians beating the Yanks. That was nice. The NLCS is very exciting with two surprise teams. Both play well and young - but the Rockies are streaking at the right time. For AAAA baseball, that's what you need right? Rockies (after 7) and Sox (after 6). Sox in 5.

The Cowboys should have lost on Monday, but man what a win. They'll lose this Sunday to a really good team.

I just finished a book called "Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?" by James K. A. Smith. It is really, really good. Pro-postmodernism, pro-Christian. Very challenging, very insightful.

And for anyone who cares, my football team is still better than KC's. In fact, all four of my teams are doing well at this point. I'm losing bad to Bob-O in the college pick 'em, though. check his page next week for the return of the Seven.

TiVo Rocks

2007-09-20T17:42:00.000-05:00

One of the benefits of TiVo is the fall guru guide. Basically, I can set my TiVo to record any new show this fall. So I decided to let people know my thoughts, as if it makes a difference, on the new line-up for the new season. Another cool thing about TiVo is that we got to download the new NBC shows before next week, so up first are the four new NBC shows, plus a couple Fox shows. In order from liked most to liked least:

1. K-Ville: I forgot that the guru guide was set to record this one, but I'm glad it did. I don't expect much from Fox (see Back To You), so maybe that played to this show's advantage, but I liked this show a lot. I think. It's about New Orleans - present day, post-Katrina - and a couple cops who stick around for the city they love. Now, the action scenes are not great. They're really choppy, probably to cover up for a low-budget and time constraints. But this show isn't about the action scenes so it's okay. It's really more about the people trying to cope even years later with Katrina, and in that sense, the characters really resonate. They're realistic (the pop word here is "gritty"), they're human, they're normal. I think they a good job incorporating the deep South culture without overplaying it, too. I'm not willing to say that it's great, but I thought the first episode was pretty good/really good. It'll stay on the list for the Fall. As a side note, the cameo by multiple Lost characters was unexpected. When "Ethan" shows up, you know he's going to be a bad guy - he's approaching Steve Buschemi creepy, without the Steve Buschemi. (Two TiVo thumbs up)

2A. Chuck: I'll start by saying that none of the NBC shows really appealed to me, but I was willing to give them a shot. Of the four new ones (Chuck, Life, Journeyman, Bionic Woman), I was most excited about Life - mostly because Damian Lewis was amazing in Band of Brothers. We'll get to Life, but first Chuck. This show is alright. The best thing this show does is not try too hard to be totally realistic. The premise of the show isn't realistic, so why try and make it something it is not? The action isn't special, but it's not too bad. The premise is a little iffy, but there's a good mix of light-hearted fun and seriousness. Fortunately, the fun heavily outweighs the seriousness, because this show would suck if it took itself seriously. The best thing they have done with this show is embrace the ridiculous, and that is what makes it work. Chuck is charming for a dork - something I aspire to, so I guess that's part of why I like this show. The supporting cast is pretty good too. (One TiVo thumb up)

2B. Life: Like I said, I'm pretty excited about Life. So far, so good. It's the good old cop drama, except with a twist. Lewis does a good job with his quirky zen-influenced character, bringing a good mix of sensitivity and ruthlessness to a complicated character. If you haven't seen the commercials, he was wrongly convicted for murder then released 12 years later with a hefty ransom and a job as detective back on the force. Oh yeah, his wife left him, his personal financial manager is an Enron-type corporate guy he met in jail. All the other cops hate him because he's still a con in their eyes, and he's pretty close with his female lawyer - guess what she's attractive. As you can see, there's a lot to work with. Since it's a little late on the scene with the whole quirky cop thing (see Colombo, Monk, Cracker), it may be hard to keep it unpredictable. The jury is still out, but I'm intrigued. (One TiVo thumb up)

3. Journeyman: I had no interest in this show, but I watched it during lunch over the last couple of days, and I have to say, it wasn't bad. By the end, I was impressed and maybe hooked. A promising storyline helps. I know the whole "I liked this show when it was called Quantum Leap" joke is an easy one, but there's more to the show than ripping off an old show. The lead guy is intriguing. The running story is tempting. With the exception of time travel, I thought the plot was realistic. Plus, the guy has an iPhone - at the very least, I'm waiting to see how long it works for him. (no thumbs)

4. Bionic Woman: Um, so this show... it's about a bionic woman. A secret government procedure administered by the boyfriend with secrets after a pretty rough wreck gives a woman a bunch of bionic special powers. I don't know about this one. It's not bad, but I wasn't really hooked. A show like this is going to have to rely on some pretty good action sequences and a sequence of events that don't leave you thinking, "Wait a minute... that can't be right...." I'm just not sure that can be done with this show. (no thumbs)

5. Back to You: It just plain sucks. From the ten-years-too-late Chris Farley overexcited, sweaty fat guy bit, to the AWFUL laugh-track, to the predictable and stupid punch lines, I did not like this show at all. The plot stinks, too. I thought it was a comedy, until the last five minutes got strangely serious. I can't figure out why Kelsey Grammar and Patricia Heaton signed up for this. I can figure out why Fred Willard signed up. Christopher Lloyd writes and produces. No, not that one. Apparently this guy won a lot of awards with Frasier (he also worked on Wings and Golden Girls). (Three TiVo thumbs down)

Superlative

2007-09-13T11:42:00.000-05:00

Jesse and I were blessed this past weekend to take a trip to New York City for a little sightseeing. Among the various New York things we experienced, the highlight was a Sunday night concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring the great Tony Bennett.

Master artist. Consummate professional. Aged wonder. Gracious host. American classic. Pick your superlative, they all fit. This concert was one of the most amazing things I have ever experienced. First, you have the venue. Radio City Music Hall is a beautiful, historic concert hall (Tony told us it was designed by Liza Minelli's dad, who knew?). Just sitting in our nosebleed seats before the concert started, we knew that we were in for something special.

Then, the lights go down, and Regis walks out. Yep, that's right. Regis Philbin. "Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm so excited to be here. Aren't you, Gelman?" Actually, Gelman wasn't there. But anyway, here's Regis talking, introducing Tony and mentioning that there will be some special guests. Hmmmmm. That's interesting. So Tony comes out, and starts to do his thing, belting out classic after classic. Did I mention that he is now 80 years old?!?! Well, he starts to sing this song, and then stops and says he needs some help with the next one and would we please welcome his good friend, John Legend. So they sing their duet from his recent album, "Sing You, Sinner." John leaves to the delight of the young folk and confusion of the old (the concert was presented by the AARP). A little later, "Ladies and Gentlemen, my good friend, James Taylor!" I actually said "What?" out loud I was so surprised. So they sing their duet, "Put On A Happy Face." Finally, a little later, he is joined by k.d. lang and trumpeter Chris Botti. During the trumpet solo, he danced with lang. During "The Good Life," he dedicated the song to Paris Hilton (see lyrics: " Well, just wake up, kiss the good life goodbye"). She'll admit this, but Jesse cried when he sang "The Way You Look Tonight." She said she's never swooned for an 80 year old before, but this time at least, it was understandable. His voice remains strong, and he delivers each word with appropriate grace and emotion. He sang for two hours without a break. He told some great stories. He was very kind and gracious, and thanked everyone for coming out repeatedly. Quite simply, it was amazing, and as Jesse says, "The coolest thing we did in New York."

Here's one of Tony with the band.

Confessions

2007-08-22T13:53:00.000-05:00

Sacrament - a Christian rite that mediates divine grace.

What little I know about confessing, I learned from Usher. Just kidding. But lately, I have been thinking a lot about confession, especially confession as sacrament. That's a big leap from the kind of confession that typically takes place in our churches - that is, not at all. Maybe confession as a sacrament seems Catholic. Well, it is. But what's so bad about that? I'm willing to say that confession is a necessary spiritual discipline, and one that we do not practice in our heritage. With the obsession for dogmatic absolutism giving way to a highly relational theology (for better and worse), why are we leaving out the practice of confession? If ever there was a place for "high church" practices to enter our fellowship, I would think it would be in the realm of confession. That being said, let's not all go tell the preacher. Better yet, let's not all wait and go down to the front - or worse yet, the back - of the auditorium on Sunday morning to confess. Why wait? What about your spiritual vitality is worth waiting even one more day?

I don't like the idea of hiding our confessions, whether in a booth or in the back of the auditorium. It speaks to the idea that we are afraid to be real with one another. It may even be indicative of the lack of faith we have in the grace of God, or more likely, in the ability of God's family to properly handle the grace-full situations that follow confession. Do I really trust you to know what is really going on with me? Typically, the answer is a resounding no. We foster a culture of distrust in our churches by our practice of confession and it leads to spiritual stunting. We fail to grow when we cannot confess.

That being said, are some things between the believer and God? Can you confess to Him alone and still experience forgiveness, healing, and growth? I grudgingly concede that the answer to both questions can be affirmative. But I still believe that God created the church to be a place where sins are confessed and healing is not only received, but also given. Confession is the only path to healing, forgiveness, grace. We're very good with talking about the need for repentance, but what is that without confession. True confession leads to true repentance. And true repentance is not about a matter of doctrine or judgment; true repentance is a matter of healing and grace.

Thus, in order for us to become a confessing people, we must first learn humbly to receive God's grace. Then, confession truly becomes a sacramental practice. Like our most common sacraments - baptism and the Lord's Supper - it is both intimately personal and amazingly communal. And, it is a practice that we desperately need in our churches today.

Memphis Sport Fantasy Challenge

2007-08-18T17:27:00.000-05:00

I had a draft today for the Memphis Sport Fantasy Football Challenge, in which 50+ people compete for the crown. How can this be, you ask? Well, without too much detail, it's divided into smaller divisions (8 teams each), with the top one or two teams advancing to the playoffs. I got the second pick in my division, and I am super pumped about my team. It is better than Kevin Conway's All-Infirmary All-Stars.

Steven Jackson
Steve Smith
Marvin Harrison
Maurice Jones-Drew
T.J. Housh
Cedric Benson
Andre Johnson
Matt Hasselbeck
Jay Cutler
Lav Coles
Jason Whitten
Green Bay Defense
Ladell Betts
Jeff Wilkins
Brandon Jackson

I think this team will go far - make the playoffs for sure. Then again, I could be very, very wrong.

The Greatest Half Day Ever

2007-08-15T18:23:00.000-05:00

When Jesse grew up, it was a somewhat common practice to celebrate her half-birthday, since the actual birthday falls in the Summer. We all know how bad we felt for the Summer birthday kids when we were younger. No one's around to celebrate! No cupcakes at school! I never had this problem (February). So when I saw my half-birthday listed on the family calender, I figured it was just a shout out to an old and cherished Maddox tradition. I was wrong.

Jesse came home early yesterday and surprised me with a wonderful half-birthday, half-day celebration. She took me to Davis-Kidd to peruse the fantasy football mags and pick out my favorite (K & A be warned). Then we went and watched The Bourne Supremacy on DLP (shout out to Pops). Then, we went home and she showed me the best part, a month subscription to MLB TV. Through the end of the season, I get to watch any Sox game I want on the new iMac, which by the way, is more than capable of handling a full screen Sox game, or the uber-cool MLB Mosaic, which shows up to six games at once in a (go figure) mosaic pattern. So last night, along with a wonderful shrimp dinner, we got to watch a great Sox game in which they came back in the bottom of the ninth to win the game.

My wife is awesome.

Here's the new computer:

contemplate

Lucky Guy

On Discipleship

Mastering Memphis, step 6

Jagger-ian Spirituality

Bold Prediction

Mastering Memphis, step five

Mastering Memphis, steps four and following

Mastering Memphis, step four

Too Long for Twitter

Too Long for Twitter

Mastering Memphis, step three

Mastering Memphis, step two

new names

name change

Mastering Memphis, step one

A 1000 Words or Less

Last Day

All creatures great and small (poop)

Day #3

Day #2

Day #1

My Own Ignorance

Box Office Cred

Indie Cred

Gods, Not Gods, and the Future

God, Not Gods, and the Future

Read This!

Why Don't You Face It...

Vintage Music Dos

Almost Speechless

Vintage Music

Foodie Booty

The Napkin Loaf

Wow

Final Fillibuster - Running Out of Breath

Filibuster? Hardly know her!

Filibustering

The Filibuster Continues

The Problem with Politics

Mr Faris Avoids Washington Like The Plague...

No News

The Seven Again

The Fall

French Criticism

Praying the Absurd

Keeping it in the Family

The Kitchen Sink

Going to the Chapel...

The Tyrant of Life

My Wife Thinks This Post is a Kitchen Sink

Wishing

These days...

Contemplating the Contemplative

Confessions of a Hypocrite

Recommended Reading

One Thing

Kevin Costnerdamus was right

Gospel e-Meeting (first night)

This Memphis Mourning

House Husband Help

Gospel e-Meeting (first night)

Gospel e-Meeting (first night)

Gospel e-Meeting (prolegomena)

Updates

Changing Seasons

On Cynicism, pt. 4 (the dream)

Ladies and Gentlemen

Indulgence

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

Advance Copy

BR: Renovation of the Heart

Random Thoughts

Naming Names

Butt Bliss

On Cynicism, pt. 2

There's no stopping you

Life Update

Things No One Cares About, Life Edition

Things No One Cares About, Sports Edition