Square Peg

A Chistian and A Democrat

2008-03-03T10:01:00.004-05:00

Can someone legitimately call themselves a Christian and vote or campaign for Barak Obama? This question was mentioned yesterday in Sunday School, and, though no answer was given, it was asked in a sort of rhetorical manner that showed the underlying assumptions of the person asking the question.

I apologize if you read the title of this post and thought I was going to write some new joke about an unusual group of men walking into a bar or something.

By the way, don't assume anything just yet about my own opinions, just because I started this post of with a mention about Sunday School. These days, there are few other places where people openly discuss deep ideas of spirituality, culture, and (yes, even) political thought in a similar fashion. Perhaps many Sunday School classes are not very open (or deep), but this one happened to be both.

If we seriously ponder the question, and the man, shouldn't it seem strange to us that professing Christians would openly imply that other professing Christians can't conscientiously vote for Obama, himself a professing Christian?

I've also similar derogatory references to the Democratic Party as a whole. "I've never really known anyone," I once heard a friend say, "who was a Christian, and also considered themselves a Democrat."

The people who made those statements would both see themselves as conscientious political thinkers, I am sure. However, from the perspectives of many other listeners, it might be hard to see anything other than a couple of sheltered, upper-middle class, white American males voicing sheltered opinions that only really make sense in their little upper-middle class world.

What is it that makes the Republican Party so Christian, and the Democratic Party so apparently unchristian?

Since the central figure of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ, maybe we would do best to ask what he would do, or say, or in this case, support. A few verses to consider:

Matthew 25:35-36, 40
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Mark 12:28-31
he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: '...Love the Lord your God with all your heart...' 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

These two passages were just the first that came to mind; I'm sure I could find more to go along with what I'm about to say.

The least of these. The least of these is generally taken to mean children, or the poor, or someone with some sort of disadvantage in society. It's one of those distinctions that, taken in different ways, could be applied to almost anyone, based on the circumstances. In Matthew 25, Jesus is saying that works of eternal value are those that lift up "the least of these".

Loving your neighbor. The common question that follows is, "Who is my neighbor?" In a similar Bible passage, Jesus replied by telling the story of the Good Samaritan, a story of one man who acted as a neighbor to one unfortunate individual, who happened to also be a member of a rival ethnic group. The "Good Samaritan" man looked out for and supported his unfortunate friend, whom he had found on the side of the road, beaten badly and in need of care. The answer to the question, then, was that the follower of Christ ought to consider everyone as their neighbor, especially when thinking about how to love their neighbors.

Drawing on these principles then, how would we structure society so that these undeniably Christian principles are best upheld? If we would like to see a society that is more favorable toward Christian principles, or in some ways holds Christian principles high, then which policies should we stand for?

Which party line should we tow? Is there a party line that matches these principles?

How about this: Can someone be a Democrat and a Christian, based on these principles? Can someone vote for Barak? You tell me.

Why I Don't Post Here

2008-02-26T13:48:00.002-05:00

I know. It's been almost a year. At last, I've made the decision to break the silence, after realizing just how fulfilling my tech blog was, and yet how it did not fulfill my desires to write about non-tech related subjects. I wondered for some time about how to meld the two ventures, and finally I've come to just placing a simple index page at www.jonathantrousdale.com that can lead the user to both.

So, in case you want a more general explanation, I'll give you one. It's fairly technical, so be warned. Simply put, writing for this blog takes too long. There are elements of blogging that make this reason significant. They are:

Short posts are good. I'm talking about 200-400 words. This has a little to do with the attention span of the average Internet user, but it has much more to do with something called visibility.

To know what visibility is, think of a TV series. The series is visible if it runs for many years and there are a lot of episodes. The series visible if it is carried on several TV stations, or in several markets. It is more visible if commercials are run for it. It is visible if people like it, and talk about it or write about it.

Now think of a blog. Blogs are more visible if they have many posts. If all posts must be long, the writers are deterred from writing multiple posts. Blogs are more visible if they have lots of links pointing to them from other sites. Blogs are more visible if they have several people commenting and leaving feedback.

And who are blogs more visible to? Most of us want our blogs to be visible to Search Engines. Why? Because this is where average users go to find out about things. Search engines ask several different questions, including:
1. How many pages does a site (or blog) have?
2. How many links point to a site (or blog)?
3. What words appears most often on the site's pages?
4. Do the pages within the site link to each other?
5. What words to other sites use when linking to this site?
6. What other sites does this site link to?
7. How often is new information added to this site?
So, basically, it's easier to have more posts if the posts are short. In addition, search engines tend to see pages longer than 500 words as running too long. The main conclusion in all of this is that it's difficult to keep writing with the knowledge that few people are going to read a post.
Blunt Posts Are Good. It's hard to get to the point sometimes, when you also feel the need to define every term and debunk every counter-argument. In writing about philosophy, politics, or culture, ideas are often very big, and may or may not be immediately related to popular life. Here, you run up against the inevitable problem: provided that people do find your material, they will most likely leave within 10 seconds if they don't find something incredibly interesting.
Lots of links are good. It's hard to insert of links to other sites into your writing, especially if you're writing about something that's not particularly relevant to the latest news or technology out there.

And, now that I'm past my recommended length of 400 words, I will close. Keeping a philosophy blog current is hard work, in my opinion - much harder than keeping up a tech blog. And, admittedly, over the last year I have not been up to it. Here's hoping that the next year will be better.

My Sickness Unto Death

2007-05-08T22:06:00.000-05:00

I'm realizing more and more what a good choice Kierkegaard was for this essay, for it seems more and more that I learn something of myself the more I study Kierkegaard. His inner struggle seems to loosely match my own, as I'm sure he had intentioned for all of his readers. I'm also realizing, in judging whether Kierkegaard was successful in rising above the idioms and systems of his day to communicate something significant, that he might not have 'risen above' in his communication. But such was not his intent; therefore, in wallowing in the endless categories, the dialectic and the struggle, he was showing that the paradigm of his time was not worthy of him - or us, for that matter.

Kierkegaard, Hegel, Kant...

2007-05-08T21:47:00.000-05:00

...It's Tuesday, and I have a paper due on Saturday. Hmmm... since I'm in the mood to be revealing about what I'm doing, I'll paste the assignment right here...

Purpose of this essay: Christian thinking about the faith and the relationship between faith and life unavoidably reflects the intellectual climate of its time period. If only because thinking takes place in human language, concepts and idioms, even the most careful Christian writers have had to wrestle with uncritically adopting the world’s categories, assumptions and values at the very heart of their devotional lives. This essay will give the student the opportunity to join in this struggle as a concerned spectator, reading a renowned author focusing attention on the author’s success in dealing with the influence of their own intellectual climate.

Ok, I realize that's quite broad, so... Basically, it's an assignment to, in 10 pages or so, take a work of philosophy (Christian or secular), summarize the basic themes of the work, and then critique the success of the author in using their culture's themes, systems, paradigms, etc., to say something significant, without being used by their culture's themes, systems, paradigms, etc. Basically, a commentary on whether or not the author said anything truly original.

And, alas, I chose Soren Kierkegaard's work, The Sickness Unto Death.

How would Kierkegaard Respond to Camus?

2007-05-06T07:24:00.000-05:00

Our generation has often spoken with reverence of Sisyphus, and I felt moved to respond just now, after recalling it. Many of us have talked as if Camus has put forth something we’ve known our whole lives, but without realizing it. I have to say that I, too, have stood with them, admiring the mastery with which the human condition is considered within these few pages. If this seems like the truest account of humanity, perhaps it is because it may be.

I know I would be the typical one to be speaking like this, but then again, you probably know already that I must have more to say than that. And I do. But inasmuch as Camus focuses on the human condition, Ned, I believe he is right, and yet, if my life indicates anything I hope it shows that there is more to life than just absurdity.

But going back to Camus, he believed what he wrote. And I think his work is so believable because he wrote about himself, and then he also wrote about all of us. He knew himself better than the best of us do, perhaps, even on our most insightful days. He looked at the same world, the same life, that we do, but I think his bravery – his ability to not let himself be diverted from considering the chaos around him – is admirable. He saw the fatal flaw of our life – the meaninglessness, and the eternity. And yet with his fist raised, he turned back to himself, to his life, never reasoning that perhaps the intention of life is for us to see its meaninglessness and look beyond it for answers.

I did say ‘eternity’, even though Camus said he did not believe in such a thing. But it is my opinion that he did, and this was the thing that he believed without articulating, just as you and I read his writing and felt we had believed it all along without articulating it. For in ‘shaking his fist’, he was looking out at the eternity of lives lived over all of time, boiling them all down to one generality – that they are all meaningless, going off into eternity with no end, and no purpose. And so, where he saw that reason is unable to surmount the chaos of Life, and chose his life anyway, that is where I leave him. I found faith instead, and in finding it, realized that it found me.

I write this to share my experience, and faith is my experience. It is how I understand the purpose of this life. Ah, purpose – something from which Camus was so far, and yet so near at the same time. In your own journey through life, I pray that you too will continue to ask these hard questions of life.

On Nietzsche

2007-04-17T07:13:00.000-05:00

Few had as much influence on the twentieth century as did Friedrich Nietzsche; therefore it does not behoove our generation to be ignorant of his teachings. Ignorance will not help us learn from his missteps, or gain insight from his reflection. Nietzsche’s regarded Christianity, as a parasitic religion, denying of life and delighting in the submission of its (stronger) enemies. In his own words, “parasitism [is] the only practice of the church; with its ideal… of ‘holiness,’ draining… all hope for life.” He saw the Christian cross of Jesus Christ as “the mark… for the most subterranean conspiracy that ever existed… against life itself.” Closing out his work The Anti-Christ, he declares, “I condemn Christianity. It is to me the highest of all conceivable corruptions.”

What would give one impetus toward such hostility for Christianity, a creed that unites over 2 billion people worldwide? We can trace Nietzsche’s logic to his exaltation of instinct and natural strength – to Nietzsche, instinct was mankind’s way toward progress, and suppression of instinct was equivalent to suppression of progress, of survival, of all that is truly good. Christianity is the ultimate suppressor of instinct. But Christianity is also a system driven at its very core by contempt for those blessed with strength. Morality and “free will” were concepts created by theologians to make mankind responsible for his actions, and therefore in need of a priest’s guidance. Christianity is a scheme of the weak that subdues the strong. The natural end of saintly devotion, in Nietzsche’s mind, was a eunuch – one who had thrown off all natural passions of this world, all strength and instinct, for the virtue of his God above. “The saint in whom God delights is the ideal eunuch. Life has come to an end where the ‘kingdom of God’ begins.”

Because Nietzsche saw Christian morality as anti-instinct, anti-strength, his conclusion was that Christianity was the death of the human race. But to the Christian in the crowd, I say that we should not simply dismiss such beliefs, thinking, “we must protect our children,” or, “we must protect our minds from such attacks.” I believe that few influential writers have had such insight into true human nature as Nietzsche. Without God, there is nothing else but us. Let us stop imagining that others should respect our morality, our judgment, our way of life. Our system is not one of our own strength, and it is not one of our own logic or merit – therefore it is against the system of logic and strength that we are given naturally.

However, to those who are not Christians, I say that Nietzsche was right – instinct and strength should be the way of the human – and yet he was wrong. For though the human’s way should be to pursue strength and instinct, I would suggest that that way does not go up or forward. Look around yourself and see the news of sorrow everywhere, the endless wars, deaths without reason. Look inside and search for a reason in all these things. Then, tell me, if you can, that man’s true instinct, once unfurled, will lead him toward unfettered progress, and eventually, perfection.

The Folly of Edwards

2007-03-17T18:01:00.000-05:00

Ok, so this post is not to claim that I have anything on Jonathan Edwards. In fact, I am far from the place where I can even begin to crtique Edwards' works, other than to say that he was highly influential, and one of the great communicators and evangelists of the American era. However, my beef comes from sitting in seminary class and hearing people exercise selective enthusiasm, contributing to the class when there is an obvious character of Christian interest being discussed (such as Edwards), and failing to contribute as much when a more obscure or obviously secular character is being discussed (such as Hegel, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, or Hume). I must say that all five of the characters that I just mentioned, though they were arguably the five most influencial philosophers of the past 400 years to the rest of the world, never ignited the twinkling eyes of those in the class near as much as one Jonathan Edwards upon the first mention of his name. What does this show of us Christians who hope to be teachers, if we cannot conjure up a similar genuine interest in influential figures of history, whether they enjoyed influence on the Christian world or the secular? People are people, and many millions have ordered their lives in the pattern of Hegel's beliefs. An entire country (*ahem*...take a guess which one) was founded as a playground for John Locke's political philosophy shortly after his death. Where is the cultural sensitivity?

The Sum of Human Wisdom

2007-03-17T17:53:00.000-05:00

Alas, the truth of human wisdom is laid forth by Kierkegaard in The Sickness Unto Death.

"The summa summarum [sum total] of all human wisdom is this "golden" (perhaps it is more correct to say "plated") mean: ne quid nimis [nothing too much]. Too little and too much spoil everything. This is bandied about among men as wisdom, is honored with admiration; its exchange rate never fluctuates, and all mankind guarantees its worth. Now and then there is a genius who goes a little way beyond this, and he is called crazy - by sensible people. But Christianity makes an enormous giant stride beyond this ne qui nimis into the absurd; that is where Christianity begins - and offense."

The Greater Hypocrisy

2007-03-13T06:49:00.000-05:00

I was writing in my journal Sunday about this topic, and it dawned on me that perhaps there is a greater hypocrisy among those faithful to the church than there is among those cultural Christians that identify themselves with the church but show only marginal conviction. It has become increasingly apparent to me that those truly in the grips of the gospel will want to share their faith - not as something that they do, but as the foremost thing that they do. This means that in raising their children, they are training them to share their faith; in loving their spouse, they are encouraging them to share their faith; in choosing a career, they are choosing the place in which Christ can best use them to expand His kingdom; in attending church, they are learning how to share their faith better; an so on.

But sadly, most people in church on a Sunday morning don't want to share their faith - not as the foremost thing. And so they are faithful to the church, hoping that the church will meet another need of theirs, be it community or importance or truth. They use the church to meet a need that it was not meant to meet. And so they misuse the church. See, when people say that the church is full of hypocrites, they are saying that the church is full of people who, on Sunday, say, "yes - I believe this," but then the rest of the weak say, "I'm not going to believe this stuff enough to change the way I live. It's important, but I just don't care enough." But then the hypocrites I'm talking about say, "I don't really believe this stuff, but I'm going to pretend that I do as long as I can so that I can use this church to get something that I want." I may be misguided, but all the sudden I am thinking that this is the greater hypocrisy, because it is on a much deeper level.

Of course, I'm convicting myself here as the greatest offender. And then there are those who don't do the things they want to do, but do the things they don't want to do, and so on and so forth. I am not sure that this state of agony exhonerates one from the above offense, but even so, it is probably the state of half of the Church today.

Truth we can't deny

2007-03-03T16:24:00.000-05:00

Lyrics from the forthcoming album...

We are bound for better truth than this,
which we have come to find,
which bids us hold inside
the truth we can't deny.
We know we can't arrive,
for it is ours to strive,
pushing all else aside
for a truth we can't deny.

Who would give the sun to watch the sky,
and make believe the reasons why,
and give their life unto the call
that so often eludes us all?

Who would give away their right to know
embracing all their strife to show
that certainty is not the goal
of those who stive to truly know?

We are bound for better truth than this,
which we have come to find,
which bids us hold inside
the truth we can't deny.
We know we can't arrive,
for it is ours to strive,
pushing all else aside
for a truth we can't deny.

To push aside the things we know today
and embrace the one true way
goes against uncertainty we claim
holds any truth behind a veil.

For who am I to say what's true for you,
and what are you to hold me to?
I know there must be more than this
to show the reaasons we exist.

We are bound for better truth than this,
which we have come to find,
which bids us hold inside
the truth we can't deny.
We know we can't arrive,
for it is ours to strive,
pushing all else aside
for a truth we can't deny.

Kierkegaard, conquerer of problems past, creator of problems new

2007-03-01T08:34:00.000-05:00

From Spark Notes...
The most common explanation of what Kierkegaard is up to is that, unlike the scientists and scholars he criticizes, Kierkegaard is not trying to communicate straightforward facts, but rather to provoke a new state of awareness in his readers. He therefore writes in an circuitous manner that is meant more to provoke reflection than to communicate clear ideas.

So, the thing I sort of knew in the back of my head has been brought to my attention more than once now. Kierkegaard may have been trying to save the world from Hegel and rationalistic philosophy, but in doing so he opened wide the door to post-modernism, and the shots that it takes at his blessed Christian faith. It is obvious that Kierkegaard held the Christian faith close to his heart, but his thinking is obviously in line with the current line, which is increasingly post-modern, and says that truth is only found in our experience. Part of me wants to simply say that, if that's what it takes to produce Christians that follow their Lord with reckless abandon, then so be it. Another part of me desperately wants Christians to be well-taught and theologically certain, but in the end, does the theological certainty actually win any souls?

From Kierkegaard to Philippians

2007-02-25T10:18:00.000-05:00

"...as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the word of life - in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing."

These are the words of Paul to the Philippian Christians, at least 1,900 years ago. In these words there is the striving of infinite passion, which Kierkegaard wove into his exposition of subjective truth. Yes, there are plenty of other places where Paul appears to proclaim the objectivity of the truth that God was man, risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. He says that Jesus was indeed the perfect representation of the fullness of the God-head, and his witnesses saw him walking and talking on this earth, and after that saw him raised from the dead, and all of that. But I don't think that Paul is trying to aid us in planting our beliefs on something that is objectively verifiable. After all, Paul is the one that first referred to the gospel as an "offense." And after all, just further in Philippians, Paul mentions that he hopes for something "in the Lord." What else does "hope in the Lord" mean, if it does not relate somehow to the idea of the "God-relation?"

The thing that I'm trying to get at is that, if God is real, he is completely sovereign, and he does not need our help in explaining his existence through objective reasoning. The immensely more powerful mode of explaination is that which is seen subjectively, as his disciples work out their salvation with "fear and trembling," as if it really were God who works in them to "will and to act according to his good purpose." I really can't hope to justify the resurrection to anyone on the grounds of reason - it is a matter of faith, and if it were not, then I don't believe that the Bible would have been written. What good would it have been to show man something he could already figure out using reason, his beloved creation? But if all of history was actually orchestrated by some divine power to show mankind something that defies all logic, but nevertheless is truer than anything that ever was true - this is something that needs the Bible. This is the stumbling block, the truth that will offend them all, a stone to make men stumble and a rock to make them fall.

Notes from Kierkegaard

2007-02-25T00:10:00.000-05:00

Thoughts on Kierkegaard's idea of high truth.

God exists. Do you know this as objective truth or as subjective truth? I would have always thought that I was supposed to say that it is objectively true that God exists. After all, that's the good answer - that truth is absolute, is objective, and that subjective, relative, or changing truth is really not truth at all. It is becoming; it is striving; but it is not truth. But in Kierkegaard, there is an argument - the first of its kind that I have heard - that posits the knowledge of God is first of all subjectively true, if it is even true at all. This is the first time I've ever heard an argument for the subjectivity of truth which still holds that God is absolutely real.

Look at Kierkegaard's definition of the highest form of truth:

"Here is ... a definition of truth: An objective uncertainty, held fast through appropriation with the most passionate inwardness, is the truth, the highest truth there is for an existing person. ... [At this point,] objective knowledge is suspended."

Kierkegaard is trying to tell us that we can go ahead with all of our evidential and presuppositional apologetics, trying to tell the world that the incarnation, the resurrection, and therefore our salvation are all as believable as 2+2=4, but if we do so, we are sacrificing a higher truth that is available to us. For 2+2=4 does not light a fire underneath anyone - objective truth does not produce the infinite striving that Kierkegaard defines as part of the "God-relation" - that is, the right way of relating to the truth, which treats any delay in pursuing truth as an evil which must be thrown off.

"...truth is precisely the daring venture of choosing the objective uncertainty with the passion of the infinite. I observe nature in order to find God, and I do indeed seeomnipotence and wisdom, but I also see much that troubles and disturbs. The summa summarum (sum total) of this is an objective uncertainty, but the inwardness is so very great, precisely because it grasps this objective uncertainty with all the passion of the infinite. In a mathematical proposition, for example, the objectivity is given, but therefore its truth is also an indifferent truth."

We can't do it. We can't seriously claim that the incarnation - God's coming to earth as a man and sacrificing his life for us - as an objectively true thing, because, in all rationality, it is an absurdity. It is an absurdity which requires that we have faith in order to hold it as true. If it were objectively verifiable, there would be no need for faith, and there would be no scriptures, for why would God tell man that which he could already figure out through the tools given to him through his creation? But God doesn't have a need to be explained - that would not make him better. That would not add to him. And in fact, attempting to do so fills pews with unexcited Christians who follow Christianity as if it costs them nothing but what they would very easily give.

"But the definition of truth stated above is a paraphrasing of faith. Without risk, no faith. Faith is the contradiction between the infinite passion of inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am able to apprefend God objectively, I do not have faith; but because I cannot do this, I must have faith. If I want to keep myself in faith, I must continually see to it that I hold fast the objective uncertainty, see to it that in the objective uncertainty I am 'out on 70,000 fathoms of water' and still have faith."

That's all I have time for right now, but I know there will be more to follow. Good night.

Revival in Atlanta

2007-02-11T23:34:00.000-05:00

From a journal entry on 11 February, 2007

Revival in Atlanta - it's never happened - not in a city-wide scope. Why is this? Why, in the capital of the New South, one of the centers of the Old South, and the island of capitalism in the heart of the Bible Belt, has the majority of the population never been moved to faith by the Spirit of God at one time? Maybe this is something that the Spirit has simply not intended to happen - and that would be a fine enough answer, suggicient to answer the question. However, I would also have no problem believing that people have largely not prayed for it, and, worse yet, have not truly seen revival as a possibility in this post-modern time. We have passed the days when a message of repentance would really gain traction with people. We have left behind us the days when people would respond to one, absolute message, no matter what its contect. Are we?

An Illusion of Peace

2007-02-05T22:24:00.000-05:00

Indeed, the Cold War was the worst war that any American generation lived through. It may have had relatively few casualties, but its potential destruction surpassed anything imaginable. Perhaps the worst thing about this war was that it seemed to be successful in lulling the American people to sleep. For the first time, our country realized that it could conduct a war, while carrying on a somewhat normal life. No real sacrifice was required of the people, and therefore, the war was not felt, not fought, not understood by the vast majority of Americans.

Perhaps one who understood better than most Americans was the British songwriter, Sting, when he said that the greatest hope for Americans was "if the Russians love their children too." These words may have new life today, as roadside bombs have become our new nukes. What happens when nukes fall into the wrong hands? There will be no protection for us then - us who could not sacrifice our normalcy, with tomorrow's tragedy around the corner.

What should I gain?

2007-02-04T23:51:00.000-05:00

From a journal entry for 4 February, 2007

What should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer.
But this I know with all my heart-
His wounds have paid my ransom.

What do I deserve? I, who can't even lift myself up out of the paradigms I am locked into as a member of this age. I, who insist on relating to God on my terms, instead of on His. I know that I have trouble believing in revival, just like the next faithless person who adopts the useless gospel of comfort over passion. Why do I find it hard to believe it in the least? Surely, if the calling from the Lord is a reality, then the obvious outworking of that calling would eventually be a revival, both inside God's people, and in the lost community around them. If this is a great God, then why would I not believe in and pray for revival in my city?

Further thoughts on doing great things

2007-01-31T18:02:00.000-05:00

After further consideration, I think that I need to revise my statement in my last post concerning the rarity of great things. I think that, if everyone did something great with their lives, we'd still consider those lives greatly lived. If truth is not relative, and 'great' is tied in some way to truth, then 'great' can't just be relative to everyone else.

On Doing Great Things

2007-01-27T22:34:00.000-05:00

I have thought lately that the vast majority of people never undertake great things not because they can't, but because they actually don't want to. There is a basic principle of human interaction - people always do that which they perceive will give them the greatest return. In other words, actions reveal real desires, regardless of what people claim they desire. Regarding the object of desires, in our society, people want comfort over truth. Most desire pleasure over passion. And how do we know this? Because people spend money that they don't have in an attempt to appear better off than the person in the car next to them.

Part of the thing that makes great things great is the fact that they are undertaken by so few. If everyone did something truly great with their lives, before long we'd raise our standards by which we distinguish the great from the mundane. We know that everyone doesn't do something great - in fact, many settle for the truly mundane. We know this because of the great lengths that people go to in order to "find themselves" - and with little success. Many simply assume that life is meant to be lived purusing the hopelessly mundane.

Is this a phenomenon of the post-modern era? Or has this crisis always been part of the human condition? As we escape from eras defined by oppression, perhaps now we are arriving in an era defined by a new type of oppression - the oppression of passion by the material. That is to say that today, lives are increasingly devoid of passion, and instead filled with a shallow quest to maintain the acumulation of material. It has often been said that most things in our society are done because of an obligation to a mortgage.

New Year's Day

2007-01-01T11:39:00.000-05:00

Another year. Again, it's been a while since I've posted here - or anywhere, for that matter. I had a fleeting fling with another blog, mightywren.vox.com, which I thought I would use to capapult my music career. I might still have a music career, but I just don't think I have ever been able to channel my enthusiasm for music into my web design endeavors.

And so, with that, I wish all readers a happy and prosperious new year. As they say, "prospero ano i felicidad." Hopefully I didn't just butcher the Spanish language. I would have put the little tilde over the 'n', but I guess I'm a bit lazy this morning. After all, it was a bit of a late night last night.

Thoughts on the new year...
I hope that I find more time to pray, read, and journal. My journaling has fallen off over the past eight months considerably, though I do seem to keep trying. My entries have just become much less frequent.
I also would like to start a small Bible study in my apartment. I feel like we've thrown this idea around for several months now, and it seems to just lay there without any decisions being made. So I want to put legs to this idea and watch a small group grow in my home, next door to our church.
Again, it's been a very important year. I got married this year, and with that I learned many lessons which I'm sure will follow me for many years to come. I think the biggest lesson that I've kept learning is what things are really important and worth giving a life for, and what things are merely temporal, not worth the time and effort I sometimes grant. The real underlying truth is that this world is not my home, and if I want to live as if it is, then I'm not living in reality. In the scope of eternity, the day will come relatively soon when this world will pass away, with all of its jobs, trains, planes, houses, and cars, and then I'll be looking back, hopefully on all the times I was able to point someone else toward God while I was still on this earth.
Another thing that has impacted me recently is the idea that raising godly children is one of the best ways to help influence this world for good. My influences may extend past my knowledge, but the influences of my children, and their children, will extend much farther than I could ever imagine.
And so, a new year begins. Thank God for all the lessons learned.

2006-06-17T10:21:00.000-05:00

Haven't posted anything in a while, so here's something. Me and my beautiful fiance.

Stupid Georgians!

2006-05-03T09:56:00.000-05:00

This is in Helen, Georgia. If you are driving to North Carolina or somewhere else up that way, don't go through this town. (Shhhh! - they think it looks like Switzerland... but it really looks like a poor man's Disneyworld!)

North GA

2006-05-03T09:42:00.000-05:00

The shiny spot in the middle of the mountains is a lake.

North GA

2006-05-03T09:41:00.000-05:00

North GA

2006-05-03T09:39:00.000-05:00

North GA

2006-05-03T09:35:00.000-05:00

Pictures from North Georgia, when I drove up to Brasstown Bald a few weeks ago. Brasstown Bald is the state's highest point, and has a museum and observation deck at the very top.

Yes There is Hope

2006-04-23T21:29:00.000-05:00

Yes, There is Hope – Even for Sarajevo

Recently I had the privilege of returning to the city of Sarajevo, Bosnia, where I lived for two years as a missionary before coming to ChristChurch in August of last year.  While I was quite happy to go – visiting Sarajevo meant seeing my old home, my old friends, and my fiancé, who is due to come home in a few days – I couldn’t help feeling anxious as well.  How would I be received?  Or, more to the point, how would I receive this place that had been my home so recently, where I had experienced so many ups and downs?

Soon after I arrived, I easily fell back into my old routines.  In almost no time, I was walking down the city’s famed walking street, an old friend on either side of me, and the tinkering sounds of little teacups and saucers at outdoor cafes all around me.  I went to eat with students again, enjoying the Bosnian cuisine that I once ate so often.  For me, the mere routines of life here were in many ways a welcomed change.

Then I began to once again talk to students about spiritual things, and I received a much more significant reminder of what my life and work had been like in Sarajevo.  As our team assisted and encouraged the long-term team there, which I had been a part of until I came to ChristChurch, I once again was reminded of the outlook on life that many Bosnians share.  Theirs has been a very difficult life over the past ten years.  A devastating war for independence left the country depleted, and even ten years later, students are still hopelessly pessimistic about the future.  Ethnic quarrels have buried the city and the country in strife and averted hopes for progress.  Unemployment still hovers at 40 percent, and war criminals still roam the countryside, mysteriously unable to be found.

Most students think that the vast religious differences that exist in their country were the cause of the wars, and therefore attempt to keep any real discussion of God or religion at a good arm’s length  They claim that it’s just not relevant to life here.  Missionaries know different, but communicating truth is seldom easy in such a setting.  Those in Sarajevo who truly know Christ know that the gospel is the only thing that will ever bring an end to the ethnic struggles that have plagued their land.  Only the love of Christ and the forgiveness that He enables will bring lasting peace and progress.  And that is the vision for sharing the gospel in this, the last reach country in all of Europe.  Indeed, in Bosnia, a country of over 4 million, less than a thousand know Christ personally.  In Sarajevo, a city of half a million, less than 300 have ever met Him.

Still, there is the undeniable truth that God is working.  He is not less powerful, just because there are mosques and minarets on the hillsides instead of churches and steeples.  In one conversation that I had with a student that I had met only a few days earlier, the student told me that, because of all the hard things that had happened to Bosnians over the past ten years, it made perfect sense to him to come to Bosnia and talk about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  He said that if more people would live according to a relationship with Jesus, things in this country would start to change.  This student was not a believer, and yet he could see the goodness of Jesus within a personal relationship.

On my journey back to Atlanta, I was deeply impressed with the fact that God’s church is universal, and that His work here in Atlanta is inseparable from his work around the world.  We are bound together with Christians all around the world, of all different denominations, races, and languages, by the same God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.  And He is always working.  He gives us the privilege of coming along for the ride, but it is He that sets the course, and He that gets the victory.  What a vision to have, that we will one day witness Christ, as He brings His kingdom to earth, even here – even among the mosques and minarets of Sarajevo.

Various Ranting and Raving

2006-04-20T08:24:00.000-05:00

It seems that this has been my week to rant about things as they come to mind. Perhaps the relative "slowness" of my business and ministry endeavors over the past week has given my mind time to think abou thtings with which I am not well pleased. One such thing that has come to mind more often recently has been the ever present attitude within my church that we are, as it were, God's gift to Christianity. This attitude has eaten at me increasingly over the past two or three years, ever since I realized, through extensive travel and missionary work, the utter vastness of the world and the church outside of America. It was only by traveling to the edges of the world and experiencing how countless others see and worship God, that I was able to realize how much I failed to see before from my perch on the end of a Presbyterian pew in America. While my personal persuasions and beliefs might have changed little, my experiences with other people around the world gave me great insight into the beliefs of others. And, while i could have found plenty to disagree on with just about every person that I met, I found myself many times rather affirming a person's Christianity, based solely upon their belief in the saving work of Jesus Christ, and also affirming their impact for Christ in their community. I realized that the impact that they made for Christ had little to do with whether or not they believed in "the perseverance of the saints", or whether or not they affirmed the Westminster Confession. I realized just how much of a fringe idea Covanental Theology is, and that taking the initiative to share Christ with a complete stranger is much more of a virtue than insisting that only men with a certain sequence of letters behind their name be able to stand in the space behind a pulpit. Now, my ideas and my persuasions didn't change at all, but I certainly stopped judging other Christians by which of my opinions they did and didn't affirm. I discovered that I can fully accept the faiths of truly believing Catholics, Methodists, Armenians, Anglicans, Orthodox Christians, Pentacostals, and so forth, and not only that, but if I accept that they too are Christians, then I must affirm that they are on the same "level" as myself, and that most of the time, I am the one that can learn from them - not the other way around. What a thought, that I - and the rest of the Presbyterian church with me - am but a youngling among a world of Christians that have lived through the ages, and have been subjected to trials that I have only read about while sitting safely in my ivory tower in the United States.

Continuing on Ephesians 5

2006-04-17T09:04:00.000-05:00

Continuing on Ephesians 5…

Interesting, I think, that Paul mentions love so prominently in connection with greed. Love is obviously connected with sex, but not so much with money. But it would seem that Paul’s aim for us is that we would spend our resources in a way that shows the love of Christ. How about that – showing Christ’s love with the way that I spend my money. And not just money, but time, talents, and gifts. The Christ-centered life is not merely refraining from wrong-doing in every area; certainly, that approach would fail to incite enthusiasm in anyone for any length of time. No, the Christ-centered life is built upon doing right in every area of life – for the Christian life is a positive endeavor, not only a negative one.

Reflections on Ephesians

2006-04-14T10:34:00.000-05:00

Reflections on Ephesians

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children, and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.  But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

Ephesians 5:1-3

The above is a rather short passage to base an entire address upon.  But, as is the case with most of Paul’s writings, the subject matter is so intentionally deep that one often misses the point, unless considerable amounts of reflection are devoted thereunto.  In the above verses, Paul addresses two areas of sin – sex and greed – and one area of positive instruction – be ye holy, as Christ is holy.  The area of sexual sin is important, to be sure, as choosing not to observe God’s admonitions will surely “disrupt shalom,” as one thinker has put it.  But, as I was pressed with this issue last night, I am beginning to wrap my mind around the notion that the use of money is an even more important indicator of our spiritual health than the use of sex.  Yes, I have known  for some time that Christ addresses in the Bible the topic of money even more than sex, and even more than any other topic.  But I always thought that the sheer symbolic nature of sex would place our sexual activity in a more important place.  I am beginning to think that I have been misguided.

While our sexual behavior is indeed an important indicator of our spiritual health – Paul indeed called for “not even a hint” of sexual immorality – for sure, the pitfalls of greed can be worse, if not even more widespread than those of the sexual nature.

More to come soon.  An appointment awaits…

Saul and the Savior

2006-03-08T13:19:00.000-05:00

Fifteen minutes before a meeting

I have a few minutes free, and so I wanted to blog a bit about what struck me recently when I was reading about the old Hebrew people in the ancient land of Israel.  These stories often strike me as somewhat fantastical, other-worldly tales, the sort that one would expect to get from a novel by Lewis or Tolkien, where mythical kings with very small armies somehow triumph gloriously over the extremely powerful and evil kings of some dark evil world.  But assuming that the reader believes in a literal God-being that governs the events of the world, the stories of the old Jews make it easy to see how He used the events of the world to show future generations something about Himself.

Take, for example, the particular part that I was reading, found in I Samuel 15-16.  It is mainly about the king, Saul, at the end of his reign, and how he is basically experiencing his demise.  Several chapters earlier the author introduced us to Saul and Samuel, our other-worldly “Gandolf”-like character, who announces God’s anointing of Saul as king, and years later is constantly distraught because of Saul’s missteps.  Samuel is, I think, the most interesting of characters, as he literally brings God’s words to the people of Israel after spending time in God’s presence.  Visions dance in my mind of an wise, white-bearded man in a flowing robe, his face shining radiant as he comes down from a mountain-top meeting with the Spirit of God.  He knew God as well as anyone could, and he loved God – so much that chapter 15 says he literally sat up and cried all night when he learned of the things that Saul did which were displeasing to God.

The character of Samuel is contrasted throughout the first half of the book with that of Saul, as Saul just doesn’t understand the things he should be dealing with as king.  He relates to God – and to Samuel – as if he were a confused, embarrassed housedog, tail between his legs, running around and doing things that he thinks will make his masters smile.  He treats God and Samuel like machines more than people, trying to find the right “formula” to feed into them so that they will stop being so displeased with him.

For Samuel, watching Saul bumble around as king must have been like an American trying to watch a modern President who does only what he thinks others will like.  This isn’t a man relating to a person – it’s a man who is just doing what he thinks will not offend.  There is conviction in relationships; there is passion in knowing another.  But in Saul, there was neither conviction nor passion – only fear.  Perhaps I too am sometimes just like this ancient king who didn’t understand what God was trying to show him.  I pray that I won’t be so.

Sitting in Panera

2006-02-05T10:23:00.000-05:00

The purpose of this post is actually to amend my last post, "A Heavenly Father", posted a few days ago while sitting in a session of my recent training conference. After reviewing it, it seems that I didn't finish the concept that I was expounding, and it could seem from what I wrote that I would advocate some kind of "happy-go-lucky" gospel, were I to just leave the post alone. In other words, I'm afraid some would mistakely think that I believe that God is simply our ticket to happiness, and that belief in Him will solve all our problems so that our lives will no longer be hard.

The remedy to this - what I didn't explain to start with - is that, for most of the past several years, I would have simply described the Christian life as "hard". "Real". "Tough". These were the words that I would have chosen to describe the Christian life that God has *ahem* blessed us with. Though the Christian life was hard, I said, it was real, as no other kind of life is, and this is what ultimately makes it good. Think of that - when I tried to boil down the entirety of our life with Christ, the word I would have chosen, above all other possibilities, would have been 'hard' or 'real'.

This was, of course, due to my own personal experience. In following a perceived short-term calling to missionary work overseas, I first had to face the possibility of not going at all, and possibly renigging on the committment that I had made, because I had not been able to raise the necessary funds. Then, after they did come in and I had gone, I nearly died in a tragic skiing accident four months into my first year in Bosnia. The nine weeks of recovery that followed were difficult, to say the least - I had never in my life been "unhealthy", and now I suddenly had a titanium plate in my head and was dealing with terrible headaches and a severely weakened back, as well as the possibility of not being able to see again without any lingering double vision. Life in Bosnia was always filled with inconvenience, bad attitudes, and simple busy-ness that seemed to always tax whatever joy I expereinced from doing ministry.

This was what I was drawing upon, which brought me to first and foremost decribe my life with the wonderful God of the universe as "hard". But I failed to realize how incomplete that vision was. Falling in love with Ashley has made me realize that God doesn't just want us to be mature, bold, and ready for battle - He also has a deep desire for us to be fulfilled, happy, and joyful. In all of this, we must remember that there are two sides to the whole thing. God wants us to experience joy, but I don't believe we can really experience joy without being tested first. We can't realize the fulfillment that God has allowed us until He has taken us through the 'fire' and we are rendered 'mature'. The example that I point to is just the simple fact that I could never be as thankful as I am for Ashley, had God not taken me through the previous two years of life. He knows each and every one of us, so much better than the closest of friends. And He desires meet our deepest longings, and to fulfill desires that we didn't even know we had.

2006-02-01T20:41:00.000-05:00

Going to Sarajevo again! I just got confirmation that I'll be going to Sarajevo with a team to help the ministry that I was a part of for two years. Needless to say, I'm excited. I'll get a chance to see some friends again, and also to see my fiance. Yay!

A Heavenly Father

2006-02-01T09:43:00.000-05:00

If anything should go on this blog, it should be one of the greatest realizations I have had about life since coming back to America in August - that God longs to give His people good things - great things - so that they can be joyful as they go through life. Since I've been back, for whatever reason, I've become impressed with how our earthly relationships can teach us about our "heavenly" relationship. And I think the whole point of that was for me to see just what my God wants - for me to take joy in the life that He makes possible and to be completely satisfied in Him.

This brings me back to a journal entry from last November, written after reading a chapter of a book about addiction:
-----------------------------------
November 17

"Willingham was right - God does want to give us great things. He said that many men are caught up in what they think Christianity is all about - this self-loathing idea that we must endure so many struggles for God. He's given us salvation, and after that He gives us the struggle of glorifying Him with our actions. But just as a father wants to give affection, love, and good material things to his children, so Jesus longs to give me good gifts of love, affection, and certain desires of my heart.

It was always my desire to love someone during my lifetime. But I had begun to buy into the world's idea that, since everyone (almost) gets married, it's just something you do, and you just hope for the best. Bobody's needs are fully met in their spouse, and yet everyone marrys someone. You just try to compensate and don't "rock the boat". But now there's Ashley, and I love her and she loves me. And God saw fit to give me something that makes me that happy. He wanted to give that to me becasue He is gracious, and He knew how happy I would be as a result."
--------------------------------------

In the past few months, I've begun to follow this analogy through, and I've become just amazed with how much our relationship with God could be just like a relationship that a child shares with a loving earthly father. From His perspective, He looks at us and longs to see us smile as we go through life. He longs to touch our hearts, to meet those deepest needs and desires that we have. Somehow we act as if God wants to provide for our survival, and then the rest is a struggle called "the Christian life". How far that is from the truth! God wants to provide not just for our survival, but also for our abundant joy. What kind of father would want his children to sleep on the hard floor, if he knew that providing a bed would be better for them? What kind of father would never give his children toys to play with? Or an occasional treat after dinner? These might seem trivial, but if we try to translate these things into more "grown-up" things, the picture might get more vivid for us. Regardless of what the specific need or desire is, a loving father longs to see his children face life with joy.

2006-02-01T09:02:00.000-05:00

My friend Drew got married in Lewes, DE. (January 7, 2006)

Deleware is beautiful!

A Man in Love with God

2006-01-09T21:13:00.000-05:00

The other night I had the privilege of watching a man truly in love with his Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. His name was Bill Bright, and through his vision to start the internation organization known today as Campus Crusade for Christ, many millions have come to know this same saving relationship with Jesus Christ today. As we began the video, our moderator prefaced it by telling us that we wouldn't be privy to anything necessarily groundbreaking, though the points he listed for Christian leadership were indeed inspiring. But though the 10 points he listed may have been well thought out, they could not touch the obvious truth that before us sat a man deeply in love with Jesus Christ. I think that this is the legacy that Bill Bright leaves behind - this is the point that in all of his talking throughout his life, he without a doubt made clearly, for all to see. It might even have been left unsaid - surely Bright never boasted about being in love with the Savior. But something so radiant never needed to be stated. Throughout his 45 minute discourse, his love for Christ radiant from within him, evident to anyone who would have seen. Truly, this was the most notable thing about Bright during his life, the thing that made his influence so wide.
Jonathan

Jason Mraz and the Relient

2005-11-30T17:32:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm being nitpicky about songwriting, but for the last two days I've been listening to Mr. A-Z, the new album from Jason Mraz, and I have to say that I am disappointed. It's sad, because Mr. AZ is a songwriter's songwriter, designing his own music and album covers the way that he likes them. However, I get the feeling that he has begun to think he can just cram whatever he wants into his many-worded songs, and then put them together into an album. Now, don't get me wrong, I like Jason. Guys like him strike a special chord with guys like me, because I identify with him. I identify with him in the same way I identify with songwriters like John Mayer, Damien Rice, and David Gray. I identify with all of them because for them, songwriting is a journey. They not only write a few songs, but they also want to design their album covers, their liner notes, their artwork, and everything else. Their final project is extravagant and unique, showing their creativity in every artistic aspect of their profession. But I just feel like this album from Jason is a bit... hastily produced maybe? The songs are a bit all over the place, and while he does experiment with some variety in his production, he fails to do any one thing perfectly. That's the difference between him and a John Mayer - John may be nerdy, but he uses his whit to word songs like nobody else can.
Anyway…

The reason that ‘the Relient’ made it into the title of this post is that, at the same time, I also have the new album MMHMMM by Relient K in my playlist, and I have to say, there are few times that I have been more impressed with an album. The Relient has progressed in their songwriting since their initial stardom over three years ago like few other musicians get the chance to do. Usually – and unfortunately – the initial offering is the best the public gets to hear from a musician, the reason being that musicians in general get to spend their entire life writing their first album, but are only allowed a year in most cases for writing their second. But Relient K was composed solely of teenagers upon their first release, and the band’s progression into the twenty-something era is apparently going to be a pleasant one.

Forgiveness

2005-11-22T16:05:00.000-05:00

November 22, 2005

God’s forgiveness is so often under-appreciated – not just in general, in the overall literature or teaching of the Christian world, but mainly specifically in my own heart and mind. I’m forgiven, according to the Bible. I know it in my self as well as I can know it. But I think that most of the time, I only know it in my head, and not in my heart. In my head, I know that the Lord’s word says he is “faithful and just, and will forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” And I believe that as well as I can possibly believe it, in my head. I know the justification for that backwards and forwards; I know that in Christ’s death, I get not just forgiveness, but also Jesus’ righteousness and all of his achievements on top of just alleviation of guilt.
But in my heart, I have a lot of problems. I don’t take advantage of his forgiveness when I sin; when I sin, I resign myself to feelings of disgust and worthlessness. I put my tail between my legs; I freeqe in the headlights of the law that I’ve created. And then, as a result, I fall back into the same sins, over and again, because I haven’t taken view of the forgiveness that the Lord gives and then taken steps to put the sin behind me. If the Lord has forgiven me, and if he has put it in the past, then I can put it in the past and begin to put down my struggle completely. But if he has not, or if his forgiveness is somehow conditional, then I must repay, I must be apologetic, I must live in disgust and sorrow for a time in order to pay off my sin.
But how can I pay off my sin? It’s impossible. It’s not a sliding scale; it’s not a loan that I can put a spiritual mortgage on. Sin is still there, and it has to be forgiven, or it will still be there for eternity. So, my feelings of worthlessness and sorrow are mostly an attempt to either pay for my sin by acting really sorry, or just remedy it by running away. I run away by falling back into the sin or escaping to some new pleasure-giving habit or activity. And by doing that, I’m completely disregarding the forgiveness that God says he has already given.
So, when I humanize that, what does it look like? If I had a father who tried to forgive a grievous sin of mine that I had done against him, and I did not fully accept his forgiveness, I know he would be deeply saddened. He would be deeply dismayed that I did not want to take advantage of the closeness that he had offered me in spite of my sin against him. When I think of it in that light, it would be a considerable amount of love that would have to be present in my direction for my father to forgive me and expect nothing in return. So by not fully taking hold of my forgiveness, I am rebuffing the love of my father. What a cold and hurful thing of me to do, and what a great amount of joy I am robbing myself – and my father – of.
Then what if I had a creditor to whom I owed a great deal of money? If he then forgave my debt so that I could pursue greater financial interests, and yet I continued to pay my monthly payments to him as if I was in fact not forgiven, what good would that do? I would be perpetuating a debt that did not exist, and handicapping myself by not taking advantage of that forgiveness. I would be losing money, losing effort, each month, trying to improve a situation that needed no improvement.
Don’t think that in saying this, I’m saying also that there is no place for a righteous sorrow over personal sin. Certainly, Jesus himself said, “blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” He was talking about those who mourn over their sin because of the sadness they know that it causes Christ. If we are truly influenced by Christ, we must be saddened by the things that he is saddened by. This is a spontaneous thing; it propensity toward feeling the same things as the Lord cannot be summoned if it is not there. But I am talking about self-pity and cowardice – the spiritual act of running from the face of God, or avoiding total closeness, because of the shame that our sin has caused us. God offers me a seat at his table, and a place in his life, even though I’ve wronged him. Though I must acknowledge my wrongdoing, I also must take that seat. I must take that place offered to me in the life of God. If I don’t, I’m pushing away his outstretched hand; if I don’t, I’m telling him I need something else to complete my forgiveness. His forgiveness must not be good enough.
What am I doing, calling myself a child of god, and at the same time not taking hold of the forgiveness he’s given me? I am investing in a debt that I do not owe, diminishing my ability to serve him fully, and I’m rebuffing the love that he necessarily has for me, throwing the closeness that he offers back at him because of my silly games of self pity. This is not the same thing as mourning over sin – this is unbiblical avoidance of God because of shame. The closeness that God ffers personally is something that I very rarely experience because of these selfish games, and that’s truly a shame, not because I suddenly know the joy that I am missing, but because I am suddenly aware of how seldom God is truly worshipped in my inmost being. It is only when I take hold of the restored intimacy in the light of his forgiveness that I am truly satisfied with him, and that he is finally fully glorified and worshipped within me.
Praise him. Let my inmost being praise him.

2AM and I'm naked...

2005-11-13T19:00:00.000-05:00

There's a light at each end of this tunnel, you shout
'Cause you're just as far in as you'll ever be out
And these mistakes you've made, you'll just make them again
If you only try turnin' around.

2 AM and I'm still awake, writing a song
If I get it all down on paper, its no longer
inside of me, threatening the life it belongs to.
And I feel like I'm naked in front of the crowd
'Cause these words are my diary, screaming out loud
And I know that you'll use them, however you want to.

This is truly an example of good songwriting. The artist is Anna Nalick, a new artist who has just released an album called "The Wreck of the Day". Find out about her on her site at www.annanalick.com. This is the type of single that, when you hear it on the radio for the first time, you know it must be sung by the person that wrote it. It is not the same as modern pop, which amounts to an opiate for the masses, though ironically it might be soon validated by the checkbooks of the masses. It looks like she's on her way to stardom, and it will be well-deserved, in my opinion. With this song, she shows a songwriting ability that few people - few songwriters - have.

It's hard to explain what makes a well-written song. Sometimes, a song is well-written because it very clearly tells a story or makes a point. But I think that just as often, story songs are the easiest of all types of songs to write. In some situations they require the least imagination, because they are merely recounting events. However, depending on the melody and meter of the music, they can require the most creativity when trying to form the events to the structure of the song. But what Anna does is something also done often by Sheryl Crow - she wraps sentences and phrases around the musical "phrases" in each verse of the song while still getting all the hanging words to rhyme. This needs definitions...

By "hanging words", I mean the words at the end of each line. She gets them all to rhyme, and not only in a simple AABBCCDD pattern; she gets them to do a cool AABCCB thing. The time signature is 3 quarter, which means it's based on threes, and so she makes every third and sixth line rhyme. But then she makes the two lines in between rhyme with each other. Cool.

By "musical phrases", I am referring to the way each verse is divided into lines. So, the verses in this song generally have six phrases. So, an easier way to write a song to this melody would have been to construct verses consisting of six short sentences, with a few exceptions. You would sing one short sentence per line, broken up by small pauses between them. Instead, Nalick's last verse that I pasted here ("2am...want to") has three sentences. The bridge part, which is the other paragraph that I posted from the song, is one long sentence. That's difficult, because you have to think of a way to word the sentences that lets you insert rhyming words at multiple points within the same sentence. This is also hard to explain, so if you don't quite get it, just email me.

The words are also personal, and sufficiently complex, to make me feel like I've heard about a significant experience (well, significant enough to write about) in the author's life. I just hope that I can obtain the same level of songwriting with my own efforts.

And Forgive Us Our Sins...

2005-10-16T19:00:00.000-05:00

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That’s true; you can look in 1 John, capter 1. According to the Bible, this is the truth, word for word. And so, because we see this verse and others like it, we look up at God and pray this prayer. It comes, for some, in whispered tones during a moving eulogy given by a gifted preacher at the funeral of a loved one. For others, it comes at a crucial, perhaps life-or-death, moment, coming to mind as a last resort at an instant when it seems the end is near. Those people pray it because they think they are supposed to, as if it is something that they forgot, which can’t be left out before they leave this world. There are still countless other manners in which people will happen to pray this prayer, according to the events of their lives. But many feel that, whatever happens, it is an element that cannot be left out of life, lest the anger of God be unleashed on them in the afterlife. So, we pray. “God, I have sins. You know them better than I. I confess; now please forgive me. Cleanse me from my unrighteousness.”
And what is wrong with this? After all, that’s what God requires of us, isn’t it? If we confess our sins… and then, if we do what is required of us, then God will certainly do what is required of Him, because he is faithful and just. As it says, word for word, “…he is faithful and just, and will forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.” We do our part, he does his part. Whether we do it early in life or late, that’s all that’s required in order to get to be “OK” with God, and all we can do afterwards is be grateful to God and remember that we are forgiven, if we did indeed initiate that first part of the formula. We confess that we are sinful. He is faithful and just, and will forgive us, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
I don’t think that I am getting hung up on semantics by saying that in these first two paragraphs, I have misunderstood something. There is something that does not fit, and does not fulfill, if what I’ve already said in my past writing is true. If God, at least as depicted in the Bible, is personal, complete with a personality and a deep desire to know people, then I don’t think he would appreciate us talking about his gift of forgiveness as I have done here, because what I’ve done is reduced a relationship with God down into a formula.
There is a lot of unpacking that is required now. In one sentence, I just equated God’s forgiveness with a relationship with God. And that’s essential; one can’t be forgiven without coming into a relationship with God. But in the formula that I presented, I said nothing of a relationship with God – I talked only of forgiveness. And that’s what we want after all, isn’t it? When it’s all said and done, we will do whatever we need to, just as long as the plan that we follow has forgiveness somewhere at the finish line. Otherwise, what’s the point?
I wonder how many of us can say that there’s something missing from this “just forgiveness” description of the Christian life, but can’t quite figure out what it is or how to articulate it. As I sit in church this morning, I’ve just recited, along with about 200 people, a scripture passage that gats at the missing idea. It is Ephesians 2: “As for us, we were dead in our… sins, in which we used to live when we followed the ways of this world… But because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive in Christ… it is by grace we have been saved.”
This verse – this chapter – of scripture speaks of a relationship that is the very reason for meaningful life itself. And that’s the problem, I think at it’s core: we, in an effort to communicate Christianity simply have reduced the message of Jesus down into a few short verses that can be communicated in 10 minutes or less. We can’t expect someone to give up an entire hour every time we see an opportunity to explain the gospel. But when we only look at verses, we come away with a formula to get forgiveness. When we stop and read chapters, books, and attempt to understand their contiguous meaning, we get what God actually intended – a life-altering relationship that is the reason for living.
Again, think about what things would look like in a relationship with a person – your best friend, your husband, your wife. What if you ever reduced any of those relationships to formulas for getting what you want? The obvious application is an aloof husband or wife, who simply does what they know will please their spouse so that they can get sex. After all, that’s what they want, isn’t it? We can’t get sex any other way, so that is the formula we must follow to be truly fulfilled in a romantic relationship. I hope you don’t have to think too hard about that one to know that sex itself is not what anyone is really after in a relationship. Sex doesn’t comfort you in your weakest moment, or believe in you when even you don’t. Sex is an act; it’s not a person, and only a person can fill those needs. Sex is an expression of unity with another person that is meant to indicate that there is unmistakable unity in other areas. Anyone who is under the impression that sex is the ultimate thing that they can get in relationships has been deceived by the sensuality of the American culture we live in. Sex can’ t give you a fulfilling relationship; it’s not even in a class of things that can – it’s not human!
Now that we’ve got that issue squared away, think about the other person in this quasi-, tit-for-tat relationship. Think of how hurt they would be if they had been under the impression that we desire a mutual relationship with them. They have been investin their lives – all their cares, thoughts, aspirations, and passions – for the purpose of knowing us, while we have been only using closeness to them to get sex. They really want just us, but we have shown that we really only want something that is not even animate.
Go a step further. Think about this in connection with relationships in general, not just with marriage. What kind of relationships in real life do we usually allow ourselves to reduce to formulas for getting things we want or need? Think about those people at work that you don’t like personally (or just don’t know well enough to like personally). Perhaps you’ve been at a job that you don’t like for a long time, and your workplace is filled with them. The stress that they cause is so useless, so unnecessary, that you’ve taken some time to figure out exactly what you need to do in order to get things that you need from them, and nothing more. None of their crying games about the boss that nobody likes. None of their stories about what the waitress at some tasteless restaurant said to them last night, or how their coffee from Starbucks was too sweet this morning, or how much more they like the new TPS cover sheets than the old ones. I don’t want their lives, with the stories, which really sound like just complaints all the time; I just want what I need for right now. That’s the type of relationship we’re talking about. How is that different from you with your best friend?
The difference is obvious – we want our best friends; we don’t want our annoying co-workers and their untimely stories. We enter into life with our best friends, and even more with our wives and husbands. We usually act as if it would be better if the annoying co-worker wasn’t there. And when we’re acting in the “annoying co-worker” mode, we usually act as if they aren’t there in person. Instead, we interact with a formula, designed to give us an output, according to the input we give it. If we give an improper input, we mess things up, and we get back an annoying story – an annoying piece of that person’s life – instead of what the formula was programmed for.
I know, this provides me with an application on two levels. First, while I don’t have to be (and can’t be) everyone’s best friend, I can enter into life with people a whole lot more than I do now. Most of the time, I don’t want to get to know people because I don’t want to expend the effort. If requires too much; I would rather just get what I want and keep those people that I don’t care to know at a generic, faceless level. Otherwise, effort would be required, and risks may be necessary. So, no growth, but no risk. How Christ-like is that? Or, if you don’t claim to know Christ, is that like the perfect, caring, loving teacher and friend that you probably want Christ to be?
On a second level, our application can be to our relationship with God. God says he is our best friend – or, at least, he wants to be. He says he loves us with the same passion he used to fashion the universe and all of its amazing things. But how often do I take his love and just use him like a formula to get what I want? I have become the aloof husband who uses his wife for sex. I have been the annoyed person who just wishes his coworkers would just give him what he needs to do his job, instead of a slice of their lives too. I’ve looked at God, with all of his riches, with the relationship he offers – the thing that can give purpose to all of my life and make sense of everything around me – and said, “But God, I just want forgiveness – I don’t have time to really listen right now.” Just give me what I need, so that I can live the way that I want.
That’s not what God is, nor is it what I would say that I want him to be. But it is how I act, which would then mean that it is what I really believe God’s place is in my life. With my actions, I show that I believe it is better for God to serve his place as the inanimate formula that he is not, than for him to require me to relate with him as he is in reality. He requires risk. He requires growth. The relationship that he offers requires growth, pain, conflict, and change, just like any real, significant relationship will. But it will also change who I am, from someone who does not know Christ, into someone who lives out the life of Christ every day. And I can’t say that for every other type of relationship.

Prayer

2005-10-13T18:56:00.000-05:00

Today I was real with God for the first time in a while. There was no big, hidden sin issue that I was hiding from Him; no 800 pound gorilla that I had to talk to Him about; I just simply had a conversation with Him, and I can’t remember doing that at any time in recent memory.
Oh, I’ve prayed. Don’t get me wrong; I’ve prayed quite a bit. I’ll always probably say that I’ve not prayed as much as I should, but I have actually prayed quite a bit lately. So I can say honestly that I’ve prayed a good bit lately. But there’s a reason I would call it praying and not talking with God, and the reason is that when I talk to people, I don’t sound like I do when I’m praying. When I talk to people, I connect. I react. I consider. I measure my words, and I say things that I want them to know about me. But I don’t pray to people. In fact, I think that if I did, it would seem like the most impersonal, one-sided method of relating. When I pray, I just… talk (for lack of a better word) without paysing, mostly focusing on myself, my needs, or somehow indirectly on me. I don’t think that the way that I would pray would invite much of a response, were I to pray to some friend of mine.
So, going on with this same terminology, when I pray I don’t connect usually. I don’t listen. I don’t get deep. I’m not really emotional about much of anything; most of all, I am overly formal, and I sue words that I would never use while talking with my Father, friend, or a companion – all roles that Jesus ascribes to himself in the Bible.
But when I talk to people – especially my friends, my companion ( my girlfriend), or my father – I do connect. I am emotional. I am honest. I don’t play around; I try to choose my words carefully and say things that I really mean. I’m real and I’m significant – sometimes too significant – with the things that I talk about. And I usually talk about things for a long time – usually long enough that my friends loose interest.
Isn’t that a weird contrast? I mean, Jesus engaged his father in prayer before he was killed, and I think it was probably the most real, deepest, most significant conversation he had with anyone or anything during his time on earth. He wept. He sweated so intensely that drops of blood fell from his forehead. And who did he pray for? He prayed for himself, first and foremost.

"Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

He asked the Father – in a fashion that was more a directive than a request – to give him his due glory, the glory he had before the beginning of the universe. Then he recounts how he’s done all that the father asked. He has done all that was asked of him, and now all that is left is for him to be glorified as he was before. He knows that the father doesn’t need a reminder on this one; this is part of the biggest plan in the history of plans. The Father himself had made the plan; there was no doubt that the Father knew the next step. But Jesus still didn’t forego the opportunity to speak to his father from the heart about the most important moment in his earthly life. In going to the Father, he didn’t gloss over a list of prayer requests; he spoke to his dad honestly about what was tearing him up inside.
Then he wasn’t finished. He told the father about the twelve men that he had become closer to than anything else. I think this is something we forget all the time about God and how he redeemed us. In Christianity, most of the time we act as if Jesus’ death on the cross was a simple, academic exercise, and God did it effortlessly because he had the thing won before the fight began, and he’s only concerned with the ultimate result, and can see through the here and now. In actuality, Jesus had passion in His heart just like every one of us. He had longings. He had emotions and desires that were every bit as strong and controlling as ours are. And to him – though he obviously knew that leaving his disciples behind would ultimately bring about the birth of the early church – leaving the twelve at that stage of the game was the hardest thing he could have done. He had spent the past three years pouring himself into them, and they still didn’t understand who he was! What had he come for if, three years into his ministry, he was to leave before his closest friend even fully understood why he came? Though he obviously knew the plan and how things would end, this is how he felt. He loved the disciples with a godly passion that was undeniable, but also human. And the human side of that passion made leaving them the scariest thing he could possibly do.
So what does this do for us? It shows us how to pray. Yes, God tells us to bring before him our requests. But I think He wants people to talk to him about the things that they honestly are torn up inside about – not just the things that other have told them to “talk to God about”. I think about this, and I ask myself how I would feel if my friend only talked to me about things other people had asked for him to remember when talking to me. I think that I would make him stop, and demand to know if he wasa really telling me what he thought, or just what other people had said. I would rather he talk to me than talk to me fore everyone else he knows. That doesn’t mean he can’t talk to me about other people; he just needs to tell me what he really wants or feels for that person.
I could write on and on about prayer and talking, but my point is pretty simple. If God is a person, then our prayer should include language that we could say to a person. With our words we should express what we truly feel, mindful that God wants to hear of our deepest longings, frustrations, opinions, likes, dislikes, and feelings of love and sadness – not just our simple requests. And second, when we talk to someone, we also must listen, meaning that our prayer should be filled with a readiness for God to respond. If we talked a friend’s ear off and never stopped for them to respond, they’d probably stop trying after a while.

Love's Been Left Behind

2005-10-13T15:31:00.000-05:00

There’s another thing that I’ve run into that I think adds to the hindrances that keep us from truly relating to God first and foremost as a personal being. That thing is all the talk that goes around about the concept of the “End Times.” If you don’t know anything about the end times, or if they evoke in you a response similar to “…the end of what?”, then first I would ask you which rock or building you have been hiding underneath, and then I would probably dismiss the subject all together, reasoning that you are most likely better off in your present ignorance.

A word of caution – don’t think that I’m advocating an attitude of laziness concerning knowledge of God. The problem here, I think, is that most people who delve into this madness of End Times conjecture are not simply seeking knowledge of their God. And I’ll explain why.

Think of how it would be if you were married to someone. If you actually are married, then this will be easy. Say that you’re newlyweds, and that you are firmly locked in the trance of love that many newlyweds are immersed in during the early stage of marriage. And now say that you are separated by thousands of miles for a significant period of time.

What is going to occupy your time while you’re not together? Most who have been in this situation will know that your spare time – the time that you would normally have spent with your spouse, were they present – would be filled with thoughts of how much everything is reminiscent of them. During every moment of every day, you will at some level be conscious of the fact that you lover is not with you, and that when you go home at the end of the day, they will not be there. I think anyone who has been in love and separated from their lover for a long time can identify with what I am attempting to describe here.

But what of their return? What would be your greatest concern? Obviously, your greatest concern would be what they will do when they return. You would be occupied with wonder over the fashion in which they will choose to return. You would talk to your friends everywhere about the date and the hour at which they would return. You would agonize over what type of car they would choose for their drive hoe. You would get other friends to talk to them to attempt to deduce as many details as possible. Every conversation between you and your spouse would be devoted to how they would chose to return to you, what clothes they would be wearing, whether or not their hair has changed and so on. Am I right?

No. I think I’ve missed the point.

I think that you would be much more taken with what you would do to receive your spouse, and how happy you would be after their absence is through. I think you would be devoted to learning as much as you could about their experiences along the way, and you would be waiting to end your discontentment and bask in the satisfaction of being with them.

The correlation is pretty obvious, I think, to our relationship with God, if we claim to have one. I hear a lot more talking in Christian circles about how the End Times will transpire (how our bridegroom will return, according to the Apostle Paul), than I hear about how will respond, and how satisfied we will (or should) be after we are finally united with him. So, I don’t think that our thirst for knowledge about the End Times is generally out of a desire to feed our anticipation of being finally united with him. I think that our fascination is out of a desire to satisfy our curiosity, our prideful desire for conspiracy theory, and to fall in line with the trendy marketing forces that sweep us up in American capitalistic culture. The last time I looked, the Left Behind series had sold a lot more copies than A Celebration of Discipline or Knowing God. The horrifying truth is that our appetite – in the supposedly born-again Christian world – for conspiracy-theory-like master plans and exciting, entertaining story lines is bigger than our appreciation for the personality of our God.

The biggest detriment to Christianity in this is that it emphasizes Christianity as a “system”, rather than a relationship with a person. And you can’t communicate that in a post-modern culture. Christianity is a relationship with a personal God – a person, named Jesus Christ. And this relationship affects every inch and layer of everyone who opens up their heart to him. It is this, and it is not a system of belief, if a choice between the two is necessary. Touting Christianity against other world religions as a superior system of belief does not give a post-modern world a reason to believe that a personal God even exists; describing loyalty to God with sentences that begin with, “In Christianity, we believe…” only fuels the modern post-modern idea that Christianity is mostly just a religion. And religions are systems of belief which people were born into and pay homage to twice a year in the world of yesterday. They were creations of primitive peoples who attempted to explain the things they couldn’t otherwise understand.

But a relationship is not a system. And an experience is not a system. My experiences are unmistakably greater than a system of argument, because my experiences are real – they are tangible. I could, at the moment when they happened, touch and feel and hear and see them, along with the effects that they had. And so the point is unmistakable – my Jesus is my friend, my companion, my Father, whom I am not currently with in the physical sense. But I know him, and I love him, and I can’t describe the anticipation with which I look forward to finally being with him. My thoughts are taken often with how I will respond to being with him. Borrowing a phrase from popular Christianity, I can only imagine. And therefore, I will not treat him with the same attitude that I have toward my earthly fascinations with conspiracy and scandal. I will only engage that which helps me understand him better now, and which increases my anticipation of being with him after he returns. This is the attitude I would have toward God, concerning his return, if I truly understood him as my perfect, holy, personal companion.

A New Idea Forming...

2005-10-11T15:27:00.000-05:00

I am writing today to attempt to make a clear and concise statement about a problem that I see, both in myself and in others, having to do with how we relate to and think about the idea of God, specifically in Christianity. I think that the problem applies to people both inside and outside of the Christian religion, though some Atheists might claim it does not. That’s fine; I don’t intend to write a work of apologetics to help the human race prove that there is a God. I don’t have the credentials (or the desire) to do that. But I am going to write about what I see, and what I see is something that I think is applicable to most people, wherever they feel that they stand spiritually.

What I see is a glut of Christian (and non-Christian) texts that say that the God that exists is a “personal” God, and is to be known in a way similar to the way that we know a person, and longs to have a “personal relationship” with those people that He created. He has a personality, and is a “personal” God, represented on earth in human form as Jesus Christ, who did the necessary work of reconciliation by giving up His life so that we could “know” some other part of God than His wrath. So this is what the voices of spirituality in America are telling us about God – He is “personal”, He longs to know us “personally”, and we can relate to Him on a “personal” level.

However, after I look at that, I don’t have to go far to look at other stuff that doesn’t square with this claim. Or, if it does, then God is a really weird kind of personal being. Of course there are things unique to Him; He is perfect, all-knowing, the Creator, and ultimately not a flawed, self-interested person, and so there are some ways of personally relating that would not be valid with Him. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the idea of relating to Him personally. This relatively simple statement has become enigmatic to many (or, at least, to me) for whatever reason, and needlessly so. If “personal” relation is required, then we should treat God as if He has feelings (which can be broken), desires (which we can ask Him about), goals (which He wants to accomplish), interests (which we can converse with Him on), pleasures (which we should learn), joy and sadness (which we can sympathize with), and so on. However, when I listen to people pray, (by which I simply mean talk to God, whether with bowed knee or with the stroke of a pen, or with any other honest method), I hear things that don’t really help me develop a mental picture of a personal God. And when I listen to people talk about God, I get a mental picture that is more closely related to calculus than to personality. And most of all, when I look at how people live in relation to God, myself included, the impressions I get of God do not resemble a person at all.

God is our closest friend, but no person would refrain from talking to their closest friend. God is our perfect Father, but for some reason we act like we are more responsible for our position in life than He is. God is our brother, but we don’t really know anything about His likes and dislikes, what kinds of cars He likes, and how He keeps His room (in a manner of speaking, of course). God is our companion, but we don’t tell Him about our day. We “love” God, but we act as if His forgiveness is to be taken for granted. God is our friend, but we don’t have to be careful about His feelings. God is greater than anything else, yet there are countless things we anticipate more earnestly than being in His presence.

Ultimately, God is supposed to be all these things, but I think that usually it’s more comfortable for Him to stay in His distant, philosophical context that most of us seem to insist that He stay in. The thing is that if we really did understand God as personal, then for those of us who know Him the entirety of how we think about Him and treat Him would be changed. And for those of us who don’t care to know Him, if we really understood that He is personal and knew what that meant, then there would be no passive indifference to Him. We would openly reject Him and tell Him that He is not welcomed in our home.

Just think about people that you really do know. If someone had wronged you in some unforgivable manner, you would not welcome them. If someone’s presence threatened your lifestyle in ways that you were not prepared to consider, you would make efforts to steer clear of that person; and you would be intentional about it.

However, if God does have a place in your life, then you’ve got to treat Him as His personal nature would require you to – as if He were a person! You’ve got then to give Him the attention He deserves as, well, God, but also as your most significant personal relationship. You’ve got to be considerate of His feelings before you disregard what you know He would tell you. You’ve got to treat Him with gratitude for the sacrifices He’s made for you.

And if you say that you love Him, then you’ve got to treat Him as if you do. I must say that Christians have some of the strangest ways of “loving” God. They tell Him they love Him, and then tell Him to mind His won business. They tell Him they love Him, then annoy Him by intentionally doing things they know He can’t stand. They tell Him they love Him, but then don’t attempt to remember anything He’s said. They tell other people that they love Him, but never tell Him. They love Him, but never talk to Him about anything that is in their heart.

I think that if we loved human beings in the same way that we “love” God most of the time, before long people would be begging us to stop. We’d say that the world’s idea of love is a lot better than Christianity’s. And soon we’d all switch over, and there’d be no more Christian “love” going around. And finally there’d be no more Christians.

JT loves AC!

2005-09-10T19:49:00.000-05:00

This is me with my girlfriend, Ashley. She is overseas right now in Sarajevo, and will be until this summer. I miss her so much!