About a week ago I went to the library and checked out the 1st season of a show called Nip/Tuck. I have wanted to see the show since I first heard about it coming to the F/X channel four or five years ago. It is set around the lives of two plastic surgeons in Miami, and I was initially interested by the medical aspect of the show – the plastic surgery is often displayed quite graphically, and about half of the plot in each episode revolves around the character(s) getting the operation – who they are, why they want to change themselves, what their situations are. In fact, early in each episode we see the doctors’ consultations opened with the line, “Tell me what you don’t like about yourself.” And that kind of story fascinates me*.
But there is a problem, and the problem is this. The other half of each episode takes place in the personal lives of the doctors, and the majority of the substance of those plot lines deals with who they are flirting/sleeping with, who their friends and family are flirting/sleeping with, and consequently how each of them rationalizes and justifies these sexcapades. That kind of story does not fascinate me.
Generally, I am fine with sexual content in television shows and movies, however strong, as long as it benefits a story or a character’s development in some way. It always bothers me a little to hear people make statements wholly condemning sexual content in entertainment, arguing that it will inevitably affect the viewer in some negative way**. Because you know what? I enjoyed the movie Atonement, and I like going to the library, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s okay to bang my girlfriend against a bookshelf. I love Moulin Rouge in all its colorful musical candied-apple-of-my-eye-candy majesty (I’ve put some sort of pun there, I just know I did), but that doesn’t mean I’m going to find me a hooker and write sheet music for her after making music between the sheets with her (okay, I definitely made a pun there). And just because I’ve recently gotten into Battlestar Galactica doesn’t mean I plan on seeking out a planet from which mankind was recently eradicated and impregnating a robot disguised a human. I have morals, people! But that doesn’t mean the characters in the television shows and movies I watch have to as well.
Unless, of course, the sexual content stops contributing to the plot, and instead becomes the plot, because that’s when we’re left with little more than a glorified, illustrated romance novel. That is what I believe was happening in Nip/Tuck. It just wasn’t doing it for me (perhaps because the characters were only doing it for themselves) so I only got through 9 out of the 13 episodes in the first season. Which is unfortunate, because the surgery scenes were really cool.
*No promises, but maybe I’ll get into my opinions on people’s desires to change themselves (externally or internally) later on. I’ve been talking to some people a bit about that lately, and maybe once some more stuff gets talked about I can turn that into something on here. We’ll see.
**Yes, sexual content that is too graphic or simply too prevalent can negatively affect people’s hearts and minds. But not necessarily everyone’s. The point I’m trying to make here is about knowing yourself and being responsible – if you know something will cause you to stumble, stay away from it! But don’t assume that just because it is a problem for you then it is a problem for everyone.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Bartlett/Powell '08
When Obama found out that he couldn’t bring non-military press or his campaign staff to visit the wounded soldiers at Landstuhl air base, he decided it wouldn’t be worth his time. What would be the point if there is no way to exploit the situation for the sake of his campaign? I mean, someone from Washington actually caring about the soldiers? What good would that do? After all, he never voted for this war, so I guess he doesn’t really need to give it an emotional investment. We’re all a little tired of it, so maybe if we ignore it, it will go away.
Apparently the only thing that will be on McCain’s agenda when he becomes president is to reform government and the way things are done in Washington. He thinks the government needs to work with the people. We need to work together. Just what it is that we are supposed to be working together to achieve still escapes me.
They speak without having anything to say. Why can’t someone just say something? Something that lets us know they care about America and not just the presidency? They haven’t convinced me yet that they have my interests at heart. And since they don’t care about me, how dare they expect me to care enough about them to give them my vote in November? I just wish they would stop insulting my intellect and passion long enough to tell me what they plan on doing with the country I live in.
Apparently the only thing that will be on McCain’s agenda when he becomes president is to reform government and the way things are done in Washington. He thinks the government needs to work with the people. We need to work together. Just what it is that we are supposed to be working together to achieve still escapes me.
They speak without having anything to say. Why can’t someone just say something? Something that lets us know they care about America and not just the presidency? They haven’t convinced me yet that they have my interests at heart. And since they don’t care about me, how dare they expect me to care enough about them to give them my vote in November? I just wish they would stop insulting my intellect and passion long enough to tell me what they plan on doing with the country I live in.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The Fear of a Name
There’s this guy at work. I’ve talked about him before. So here’s what happened.
We were sitting at lunch and somebody brought up reality shows, then somebody mentioned Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Then somebody mentioned this one episode where they build a new house for a family who had adopted 15 or so children, many of whom have various disabilities. (Note: Because I don’t know the details of this particular episode, from here on out I’ll be talking about it as a strictly hypothetical situation where a couple adopts 15 disabled/special needs children.) We all agreed that these were very good people and admired their selfless and loving actions towards these kids. I couldn’t help observing, however, that since a new house was apparently necessary, the parents seem to have taken on more than they could handle. I said that I thought it was a little irresponsible, both socially and personally, for them to have done that – the excess of children made it difficult for them to sufficiently care for each of them the way they needed and deserved.
Well, my fellow laborers thought that I was a heartless pig after this comment. They interpreted “irresponsible” as “bad parents” and when I said the parents couldn’t care for them efficiently, they thought I was saying they hadn’t done anything to better the kids’ lives. Now that was not at all my intention, but before I got the chance to explain that, someone (knowing my Christian faith) reminded me that Jesus tells us in the Bible to give up our worldly belongings, to pick up our cross. At this point, the guy I mentioned at the beginning of this story abruptly stood up and said, “Well, I’m leaving.” The very mention of the Bible made this guy leave the table and the conversation (which was a shame because he agreed with me about the parents). How does someone get to the point where the discomfort at the mention of a book is so great he has to remove himself from the conversation? It just baffled me.
After that, I pulled the guy who brought up the Bible and more fully explained my position – that is, that these people’s hearts were clearly in the right place, but that they were ultimately unable to give the kids the lives they deserved because they had adopted so dang many of them, and that that was ultimately irresponsible. I also mentioned that although we are told to pick up our crosses and are expected to suffer for Christ, the crosses we bear should not cause others to suffer on our behalf. We were cool.
But I still can’t get over that one guy. I mean, it’s consistent with so many other things about him – he doesn’t laugh at comedians, people who professionally make people laugh, because to him, “they’re all the same.” (He doesn’t even laugh at Demetri Martin. I mean, does a person who can’t laugh at Demetri Martin even have a soul?)
I guess I don’t really have anything more to say on the matter. It just confuses me how someone gets to that point. To be so worn out with the idea of religion, when you aren’t even exposed to it all that much. But then, my real question is probably more like how do we wear people out with religion before we even get the opportunity to expose them to spirituality?
Just things I’ve been thinking about.
(And by the way, if anyone disagrees with what I was saying about the hypothetically huge family, let me know, and I can try to explain myself a little better.)
We were sitting at lunch and somebody brought up reality shows, then somebody mentioned Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Then somebody mentioned this one episode where they build a new house for a family who had adopted 15 or so children, many of whom have various disabilities. (Note: Because I don’t know the details of this particular episode, from here on out I’ll be talking about it as a strictly hypothetical situation where a couple adopts 15 disabled/special needs children.) We all agreed that these were very good people and admired their selfless and loving actions towards these kids. I couldn’t help observing, however, that since a new house was apparently necessary, the parents seem to have taken on more than they could handle. I said that I thought it was a little irresponsible, both socially and personally, for them to have done that – the excess of children made it difficult for them to sufficiently care for each of them the way they needed and deserved.
Well, my fellow laborers thought that I was a heartless pig after this comment. They interpreted “irresponsible” as “bad parents” and when I said the parents couldn’t care for them efficiently, they thought I was saying they hadn’t done anything to better the kids’ lives. Now that was not at all my intention, but before I got the chance to explain that, someone (knowing my Christian faith) reminded me that Jesus tells us in the Bible to give up our worldly belongings, to pick up our cross. At this point, the guy I mentioned at the beginning of this story abruptly stood up and said, “Well, I’m leaving.” The very mention of the Bible made this guy leave the table and the conversation (which was a shame because he agreed with me about the parents). How does someone get to the point where the discomfort at the mention of a book is so great he has to remove himself from the conversation? It just baffled me.
After that, I pulled the guy who brought up the Bible and more fully explained my position – that is, that these people’s hearts were clearly in the right place, but that they were ultimately unable to give the kids the lives they deserved because they had adopted so dang many of them, and that that was ultimately irresponsible. I also mentioned that although we are told to pick up our crosses and are expected to suffer for Christ, the crosses we bear should not cause others to suffer on our behalf. We were cool.
But I still can’t get over that one guy. I mean, it’s consistent with so many other things about him – he doesn’t laugh at comedians, people who professionally make people laugh, because to him, “they’re all the same.” (He doesn’t even laugh at Demetri Martin. I mean, does a person who can’t laugh at Demetri Martin even have a soul?)
I guess I don’t really have anything more to say on the matter. It just confuses me how someone gets to that point. To be so worn out with the idea of religion, when you aren’t even exposed to it all that much. But then, my real question is probably more like how do we wear people out with religion before we even get the opportunity to expose them to spirituality?
Just things I’ve been thinking about.
(And by the way, if anyone disagrees with what I was saying about the hypothetically huge family, let me know, and I can try to explain myself a little better.)
Friday, July 18, 2008
Stuck to my chair, not the floor.
This past week I watched Sunset Blvd. (1950) and Rear Window (1954) and it still absolutely amazes me how older movies can suck you into the story and the atmosphere in just minutes. Meanwhile, half of the stuff on the silver screen today is total schlock. So much "entertainment" today is just made for cheap thrills and cheap laughs. What so many of these old films had was the ability to fascinate. Movies can enthrall you, I promise they can. They can do more than just leave your eyes and ears numb with special effects and loud explosions. Sure, we have modern classics (Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List, The Lord of the Rings, to name a few), and sometimes the "popcorn movies" are exactly what we need to relax, but I feel like my generation is losing it's touch with quality, with depth, with the tremendous sensation of entering the world of a movie and leaving the theater with more than just sticky shoes from the guy who spilled his soda behind you. I want more than sticky shoes.
Here are some recommendations if you want to get a feel for what I'm talking about, and though I obviously can't promise that each of you will like every one of these movies, but I think I can guarantee that at the very least they will fascinate you.
Older (before 1990): The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Casblanca, Psycho, West Side Story, The Color Purple, On the Waterfront, Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, Nashville, Vertigo, Raging Bull
Newer (1990 and later): Almost Famous, Fargo, City of God, Gosford Park, Trainspotting, Magnolia, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Once, In America, The Insider, Goodfellas, Philadelphia
(Just so we're clear, my criticism here is not of people or their taste, but of the industry whose products so limit the reach of our taste.)
Good hunting.
Here are some recommendations if you want to get a feel for what I'm talking about, and though I obviously can't promise that each of you will like every one of these movies, but I think I can guarantee that at the very least they will fascinate you.
Older (before 1990): The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Casblanca, Psycho, West Side Story, The Color Purple, On the Waterfront, Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, Nashville, Vertigo, Raging Bull
Newer (1990 and later): Almost Famous, Fargo, City of God, Gosford Park, Trainspotting, Magnolia, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Once, In America, The Insider, Goodfellas, Philadelphia
(Just so we're clear, my criticism here is not of people or their taste, but of the industry whose products so limit the reach of our taste.)
Good hunting.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Love is made complete among us.
"Emotionally, I find that the experience of true Christian fellowship helps me believe . . . In a few significant friendships, I have felt loved with a love which could only come from God. The friends who love me in this way help me believe that Jesus was not only love (1 Jn 4:16) but also truth." -- Disciplemaker's Handbook
This applies to many of my friends on some level or another, but to be perfectly honest, I've got about seven people in my head right at this moment that made me want to post this. I hope you know who you are because I love you too.
This applies to many of my friends on some level or another, but to be perfectly honest, I've got about seven people in my head right at this moment that made me want to post this. I hope you know who you are because I love you too.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
That Little Flame
I watched Lawrence of Arabia four nights ago, but it's taken me that long to figure out how to blog about it. I started the movie just knowing there would be something deep and profound that would jump out at me and make me want to start typing immediately. That didn't happen. I was really conflicted - the only things I could think of were either too small to matter that much, or too big for me to condense here. I think I finally found a way to tie the movie together along the same strain as the other movies I've talked about here.
T.E. Lawrence was a British officer stationed in Cairo during WWI, while the British were fighting the Turks in Arabia while the French and Russians were fighting the Russians in Europe. He was assigned to Arabia to find prominent Arab leaders and determine their long-term goals in the region. (In other words, the British wanted to know what resistance they would face when they claimed Arabia as their own, those naughty imperialists.) Well, the Arabs just wanted the Turks out of their country so that they could live peacefully. Lawrence quickly assumed a major role in Arab independence, made it a passion of his, and discovered that he was pretty dang good at what he did. With Lawrence's aid and strategy, Arab forces were able to take Turkish held cities and territories, and bomb the railroads so that their entire transportation system was regularly thrown out of whack. (Many hold that Lawrence was an important contributing factow in the development of the insurgency warfare that some Arab group so prominently employ today.)
But through all of this, one simply has to wonder why he did it at all? Why was this such a passion of his?
I think one explanation can be found in lyrics from a song from the Tony award-winning musical Avenue Q (which features such classics as "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist," "It Sucks to Be Me," and "The Internet is for Porn").
Purpose, it's that little flame that lights a fire under your ass.
Purpose, it keeps you going strong, like a car with a full tank of gas.
Helping the Arabs fight for their independence from the Turks was Lawrence's Purpose. It's what he wanted to do and he had all the skills and motivation to do it, so he did it. He knew it was what he was meant to do, he knew that in this particular area he was somewhat extraordinary, so he did it with everything he had to give.
He went through pain and suffering on the way, though. From the scorching deserts to the persecution of his fellow officers who thought he went a little crazy ("What?" they thought,"He wears their clothing and actually treats them as equals? Absurd!"). From the pains of warfare to, at one point, being taken captive by Turks and subsequently beaten, whipped, and raped. Why would someone put up with all of this? Just to fulfill this Purpose?
Because there's another aspect to this Purpose thing, something that comes from Lawrence himself. He would put out matches with his thumb and forefinger, and upon being told by one who tried it himself, "It damn well hurts!" Lawrence casually responded, "Certainly it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts." He went through all the painful stuff because he had to in order to do what he was meant to do. Eventually though, it did get to him - he no longer wanted to be extraordinary, he just wanted to go home. Of course, he couldn't do that, he had to finish the job he started. And here's where things go a little fuzzy. Is he only staying out of his arrogance and pride? Has he gone a little insane? Or a little bloodthirsty? What effect would he really have, given England's aspirations of colonization?
Let us now shift with almost no transition to a discussion of Jesus.
He came here to save us. To forgive us and to teach us. And he went through death so that he could fulfill that Purpose. The apostles were meant to spread the good news about Jesus, but they had to put up with jail and persecution and execution to do it. Because it was their Purpose.
We came here to....
We put up with....
Because it was our Purpose.
Plenty of us don't really know yet. Indeed, we may not know until after it's already happened. But just as in Reimagining Evangelism, where Rick Richardson stresses the importance of honing in on our specific spiritual gifts so that we may use them to their fullest potential, we must also follow God into places where we have things to do for him, regardless of what pain or suffering may await us. Which would suck, except we're supposed to rejoice that we should be so worthy as to be persecuted in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:41).
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not making Lawrence out to be some sort of Christ-figure. I'm just pointing him out as an example of the zeal that we should perhaps admire in terms of following Purpose. But he is also a warning. He wanted too much. He wanted to do it all himself. He was prideful. And the weight of taking on the mission almost entirely on his own shoulders led to a form of inner destruction that I can't sufficiently explain - you'd have to watch the movie to get what I'm saying, but I think that eventually it just broke his body, and broke his heart, a little bit too much for him to be effective. He tried to go beyond his Purpose, and then lost himself.
So what am I saying? I often am not sure. But to sum up, we all have a Purpose, and we have to follow it no matter what gets in our way. But we cannot do it without help from God, or we will fall. (I know you're all wondering why I can't just write that at the beginning and save you the trouble of reading everything else. And I don't know the answer. I just do what I do.)
I will definitely have this movie (and all the others I've written about here) at school next year, and would love to share them with whoever is interested. Maybe we can hit up Murphy 116 every now and then, because really, all of them deserve big screen viewing.
Until then though, peace be upon you.
T.E. Lawrence was a British officer stationed in Cairo during WWI, while the British were fighting the Turks in Arabia while the French and Russians were fighting the Russians in Europe. He was assigned to Arabia to find prominent Arab leaders and determine their long-term goals in the region. (In other words, the British wanted to know what resistance they would face when they claimed Arabia as their own, those naughty imperialists.) Well, the Arabs just wanted the Turks out of their country so that they could live peacefully. Lawrence quickly assumed a major role in Arab independence, made it a passion of his, and discovered that he was pretty dang good at what he did. With Lawrence's aid and strategy, Arab forces were able to take Turkish held cities and territories, and bomb the railroads so that their entire transportation system was regularly thrown out of whack. (Many hold that Lawrence was an important contributing factow in the development of the insurgency warfare that some Arab group so prominently employ today.)
But through all of this, one simply has to wonder why he did it at all? Why was this such a passion of his?
I think one explanation can be found in lyrics from a song from the Tony award-winning musical Avenue Q (which features such classics as "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist," "It Sucks to Be Me," and "The Internet is for Porn").
Purpose, it's that little flame that lights a fire under your ass.
Purpose, it keeps you going strong, like a car with a full tank of gas.
Helping the Arabs fight for their independence from the Turks was Lawrence's Purpose. It's what he wanted to do and he had all the skills and motivation to do it, so he did it. He knew it was what he was meant to do, he knew that in this particular area he was somewhat extraordinary, so he did it with everything he had to give.
He went through pain and suffering on the way, though. From the scorching deserts to the persecution of his fellow officers who thought he went a little crazy ("What?" they thought,"He wears their clothing and actually treats them as equals? Absurd!"). From the pains of warfare to, at one point, being taken captive by Turks and subsequently beaten, whipped, and raped. Why would someone put up with all of this? Just to fulfill this Purpose?
Because there's another aspect to this Purpose thing, something that comes from Lawrence himself. He would put out matches with his thumb and forefinger, and upon being told by one who tried it himself, "It damn well hurts!" Lawrence casually responded, "Certainly it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts." He went through all the painful stuff because he had to in order to do what he was meant to do. Eventually though, it did get to him - he no longer wanted to be extraordinary, he just wanted to go home. Of course, he couldn't do that, he had to finish the job he started. And here's where things go a little fuzzy. Is he only staying out of his arrogance and pride? Has he gone a little insane? Or a little bloodthirsty? What effect would he really have, given England's aspirations of colonization?
Let us now shift with almost no transition to a discussion of Jesus.
He came here to save us. To forgive us and to teach us. And he went through death so that he could fulfill that Purpose. The apostles were meant to spread the good news about Jesus, but they had to put up with jail and persecution and execution to do it. Because it was their Purpose.
We came here to....
We put up with....
Because it was our Purpose.
Plenty of us don't really know yet. Indeed, we may not know until after it's already happened. But just as in Reimagining Evangelism, where Rick Richardson stresses the importance of honing in on our specific spiritual gifts so that we may use them to their fullest potential, we must also follow God into places where we have things to do for him, regardless of what pain or suffering may await us. Which would suck, except we're supposed to rejoice that we should be so worthy as to be persecuted in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:41).
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not making Lawrence out to be some sort of Christ-figure. I'm just pointing him out as an example of the zeal that we should perhaps admire in terms of following Purpose. But he is also a warning. He wanted too much. He wanted to do it all himself. He was prideful. And the weight of taking on the mission almost entirely on his own shoulders led to a form of inner destruction that I can't sufficiently explain - you'd have to watch the movie to get what I'm saying, but I think that eventually it just broke his body, and broke his heart, a little bit too much for him to be effective. He tried to go beyond his Purpose, and then lost himself.
So what am I saying? I often am not sure. But to sum up, we all have a Purpose, and we have to follow it no matter what gets in our way. But we cannot do it without help from God, or we will fall. (I know you're all wondering why I can't just write that at the beginning and save you the trouble of reading everything else. And I don't know the answer. I just do what I do.)
I will definitely have this movie (and all the others I've written about here) at school next year, and would love to share them with whoever is interested. Maybe we can hit up Murphy 116 every now and then, because really, all of them deserve big screen viewing.
Until then though, peace be upon you.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Ready for Love
Did you ever hear a song without really listening to it? And then later when you take the time to listen to it, you wonder why you’ve never heard it before?
I was listening to India.Arie’s Acoustic Soul album the other day, which I have heard a few times before, but a song started playing that forced me to look up from the book I was reading (Reimagining Evangelism, see previous post) and actually listen to it, to take in the words and the music. Before any of you continue reading, please listen to the song here. The lyrics are below, but don’t even look at them until you’ve listened. Then I’ll explain why I was struck by the song.
_______________________________________________
Ready for Love
I am ready for love
Why are you hiding from me?
I'd quickly give my freedom
To be held in your captivity
I am ready for love
All of the joy and the pain
And all the time that it takes
Just to stay in your good grace
Lately I've been thinking
Maybe you're not ready for me
Maybe you think I need to learn maturity
They say watch what you ask for
Cause you might receive
But if you ask me tomorrow
I'll say the same thing
I am ready for love
Would you please lend me your ear?
I promise I won't complain
I just need you to acknowledge I am here
If you give me half a chance
I'll prove this to you
I will be patient, kind, faithful and true
To a man who loves music
A man who loves art
Respect's the spirit world
And thinks with his heart
I am ready for love
If you'll take me in your hands
I will learn what you teach
And do the best that I can
I am ready for love
Here with an offering of
My voice
My eyes
My soul
My mind
Tell me what is enough
To prove I am ready for love
I am ready
_______________________________________________
India.Arie may have written this song about human relationship (I doubt it), but there are a few things about the words that really stand out to me. First off, this is truly a love song. She is singing about a real, true, deep relationship between her and someone else. It seems like so many songs today throw around the word love without any comprehension of its meaning or implications. Take Maroon 5’s “Shiver” – I doubt if the shivering the title refers to is a warm fuzzy feeling in the heart. (In fact, I do not believe Maroon 5 is capable of writing songs about topics other than messy breakups or sex in its various forms, but I suppose everyone must write from what they know, whether that knowledge serves any purpose or has any substance.) Or if you’ve listened to the radio in the last few months, you’ve probably heard Usher’s “Love In This Club” – the “love” Usher is singing (singing?) about here definitely does not refer to deep emotional connection between two people (though I’m sure there is a deep connection made in some other way). And now look at this song. “I am ready for love/Here with an offering of/My voice, My eyes, my soul, my mind.” Almost as important as those body parts mentioned are those left out, which are apparently insignificant (or at least less significant) to the kind of love this woman is singing about.
The other thing that got my attention is this. Until the line the specifically mentions a man, I could have sworn this song was a prayer. I thought this language portrays almost exactly the kind of love we Christians always talk about approaching God with – that’s why I started listening in the first place. “I am ready for love/All of the joy and the pain/And all the time that it takes/Just to stay in your good grace… I am ready for love/If you'll take me in your hands/I will learn what you teach/And do the best that I can.” Isn’t that precisely what God wants from us? Our best efforts according to his teachings?
It’s difficult to imagine a man turning away a woman who comes to him with these pleas for love, but I find it near impossible to imagine God turning us away if we come to him with this same offering of love and devotion – “If you give me half a chance, I’ll prove this to You: I will be patient, kind, faithful, and true.”
Let me know what you think about the song. I hope you see where I’m coming from with the God stuff, but honestly, I think that part of the reason this song resonates with me probably comes from the human aspect as well (except, you know, for the "man" part). Oh well, we'll see how that goes later on.
Much love, real love.
I was listening to India.Arie’s Acoustic Soul album the other day, which I have heard a few times before, but a song started playing that forced me to look up from the book I was reading (Reimagining Evangelism, see previous post) and actually listen to it, to take in the words and the music. Before any of you continue reading, please listen to the song here. The lyrics are below, but don’t even look at them until you’ve listened. Then I’ll explain why I was struck by the song.
_______________________________________________
Ready for Love
I am ready for love
Why are you hiding from me?
I'd quickly give my freedom
To be held in your captivity
I am ready for love
All of the joy and the pain
And all the time that it takes
Just to stay in your good grace
Lately I've been thinking
Maybe you're not ready for me
Maybe you think I need to learn maturity
They say watch what you ask for
Cause you might receive
But if you ask me tomorrow
I'll say the same thing
I am ready for love
Would you please lend me your ear?
I promise I won't complain
I just need you to acknowledge I am here
If you give me half a chance
I'll prove this to you
I will be patient, kind, faithful and true
To a man who loves music
A man who loves art
Respect's the spirit world
And thinks with his heart
I am ready for love
If you'll take me in your hands
I will learn what you teach
And do the best that I can
I am ready for love
Here with an offering of
My voice
My eyes
My soul
My mind
Tell me what is enough
To prove I am ready for love
I am ready
_______________________________________________
India.Arie may have written this song about human relationship (I doubt it), but there are a few things about the words that really stand out to me. First off, this is truly a love song. She is singing about a real, true, deep relationship between her and someone else. It seems like so many songs today throw around the word love without any comprehension of its meaning or implications. Take Maroon 5’s “Shiver” – I doubt if the shivering the title refers to is a warm fuzzy feeling in the heart. (In fact, I do not believe Maroon 5 is capable of writing songs about topics other than messy breakups or sex in its various forms, but I suppose everyone must write from what they know, whether that knowledge serves any purpose or has any substance.) Or if you’ve listened to the radio in the last few months, you’ve probably heard Usher’s “Love In This Club” – the “love” Usher is singing (singing?) about here definitely does not refer to deep emotional connection between two people (though I’m sure there is a deep connection made in some other way). And now look at this song. “I am ready for love/Here with an offering of/My voice, My eyes, my soul, my mind.” Almost as important as those body parts mentioned are those left out, which are apparently insignificant (or at least less significant) to the kind of love this woman is singing about.
The other thing that got my attention is this. Until the line the specifically mentions a man, I could have sworn this song was a prayer. I thought this language portrays almost exactly the kind of love we Christians always talk about approaching God with – that’s why I started listening in the first place. “I am ready for love/All of the joy and the pain/And all the time that it takes/Just to stay in your good grace… I am ready for love/If you'll take me in your hands/I will learn what you teach/And do the best that I can.” Isn’t that precisely what God wants from us? Our best efforts according to his teachings?
It’s difficult to imagine a man turning away a woman who comes to him with these pleas for love, but I find it near impossible to imagine God turning us away if we come to him with this same offering of love and devotion – “If you give me half a chance, I’ll prove this to You: I will be patient, kind, faithful, and true.”
Let me know what you think about the song. I hope you see where I’m coming from with the God stuff, but honestly, I think that part of the reason this song resonates with me probably comes from the human aspect as well (except, you know, for the "man" part). Oh well, we'll see how that goes later on.
Much love, real love.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Don't Pity the Fool
When we were on a break at work the other day, my fellow laborers and I started up a discussion about world events, globalization, the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc. You know, normal stuff. Someone posed the hypothetical question, “Isn’t there just a way we could get everyone to be nice to everyone else?” I responded, “Well, I’ve got an idea,” and (only half-jokingly) pulled my Biblia out of my bag and held it up. When another member of this discussion saw it, he responded strongly, “No! You can’t solve the world’s problems just by forcing everyone to have the same religion as you!”
Well, I wasn’t sure exactly how to respond to this, and fortunately someone else started talking before I had to. But I can say that my heart hurt a little bit because upon seeing a guy holding a Bible, the first thought that came to this person’s mind was of an objectionable and oppressive force. You see, I’ve been reading Matthew lately, and all I was trying to say with my little gesture was that if people observed the Sermon on the Mount a little more closely, then everyone probably would be nicer to everyone else. I was talking about a lifestyle change, not some tyrannical crusading “religion,” as my friend indelicately put it.
I just finished reading a cool book I bought at Rockbridge called Reimagining Evangelism by Rick Richardson. Richardson reminds us that our faith is a journey, not a product, and in our witnessing we should be more like traveling guides than traveling salesmen. His goal is to “rebuild trust in a post-Christian society.” I’ve got a feeling that this broken trust may be partially responsible for my friend’s reaction to my Biblia. A few of the points I found particularly useful or interesting relate to the way he suggests we approach seekers and skeptics about faith.
He emphasized the need for us to identify our specific spiritual gifts and use them to their full potential, but to recognize that we cannot (and therefore should not) try to do it all. Too many Christians look at non-Christians as projects, which does little more than cheapen the whole experience. At Rockbridge, our chapter’s coordinating team was asked to make a goal for the chapter: to set a specific number of people they wanted to bring to Christ over the course of the upcoming year. Our c-team refused to do that, and I couldn’t have been more proud of my friends that day. We are supposed to do what we can with what we have, and the rest is up to God. He sets the number, not us.
Richardson also talks about the need to open up about our own trials and struggles and resulting transformations, rather than speak from a place of moral authority (a place that not one of us has to speak from anyway). “When trust has been broken, leading with strength merely lengthens the distance between you and others. Broken trust is rebuilt as you show and share your humanity and your needs. An open, trusting heart is what melts the hearts and defuses the defenses of others.”
Basically the book has a lot of good stuff in it, more than I have taken the time to get into here, but I think a lot of it comes down to not insulting the people you’re trying to care for. There is a reason they have rejected faith thus far (in general, or specifically Christianity) and it is the reason we should be looking at, not just the rejection. When talking about the actual question and answer regarding the choice to accept Christ, Richardson sums up with this:
“Post-Christian people don’t want to hear the question popped in cliché ways and with a one-size-fits-all approach. And they will be offended if it seems as if you need them to respond more than they want to respond. Evangelism is not about sales but about spiritual guidance. It’s not about getting “in” instead of being “out.” It’s similar to getting married, becoming one with the God who loves us and will transform us. So let’s not ask post-Christian people to mark their choice with trite responses. Prompt them to use their own words and to mark their ignition in a significant and meaningful way.”
So many people are just like my friend - they think they know what Christianity is by the words they've heard used to often in church or on television. But so few of them understand the truths behind those words because it seems like no one ever takes the time to really explain it to them, let alone let them try to figure it out for themselves.
Please feel free to ask me more about the book or whatever else may relate to this topic. I’m always happy to learn more.
And now for something completely different!
I feel the need to clarify something about my last post. I may have misrepresented my current living/family situation. For the most part, I have a good relationship with my family. As good as anyone else’s, I’ve always assumed. Any anger or frustration that I wrote, explicitly or implicitly, pertains almost exclusively to the particular incident involving Paris (because I am right, and they are wrong).
Sometimes, I wonder about the potential sinfulness of self-pity. I have talked with some folks about this in the past, and I think it’s probably something we all experience occasionally. We all slip into selfishness from time to time, and if we’re not careful, that can turn into a “woe is me” sort of attitude. Although I don’t think that is the case with my situation this time, I realize that it is close and could be seen that way. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think it’s a sin to be a little angry when you don’t get something you want, or to share that frustration with others. I just think that pitying yourself, or looking for others’ pity, is non-productive attention-seeking selfishness and can therefore become sinful.
Got any thoughts? Leave your comments at the sound of the tone!
That’s it for now everyone, I’ll be back soon, hopefully with my next and final movie. In the meantime, check out this song from Justin McRoberts!
Shalom.
Well, I wasn’t sure exactly how to respond to this, and fortunately someone else started talking before I had to. But I can say that my heart hurt a little bit because upon seeing a guy holding a Bible, the first thought that came to this person’s mind was of an objectionable and oppressive force. You see, I’ve been reading Matthew lately, and all I was trying to say with my little gesture was that if people observed the Sermon on the Mount a little more closely, then everyone probably would be nicer to everyone else. I was talking about a lifestyle change, not some tyrannical crusading “religion,” as my friend indelicately put it.
I just finished reading a cool book I bought at Rockbridge called Reimagining Evangelism by Rick Richardson. Richardson reminds us that our faith is a journey, not a product, and in our witnessing we should be more like traveling guides than traveling salesmen. His goal is to “rebuild trust in a post-Christian society.” I’ve got a feeling that this broken trust may be partially responsible for my friend’s reaction to my Biblia. A few of the points I found particularly useful or interesting relate to the way he suggests we approach seekers and skeptics about faith.
He emphasized the need for us to identify our specific spiritual gifts and use them to their full potential, but to recognize that we cannot (and therefore should not) try to do it all. Too many Christians look at non-Christians as projects, which does little more than cheapen the whole experience. At Rockbridge, our chapter’s coordinating team was asked to make a goal for the chapter: to set a specific number of people they wanted to bring to Christ over the course of the upcoming year. Our c-team refused to do that, and I couldn’t have been more proud of my friends that day. We are supposed to do what we can with what we have, and the rest is up to God. He sets the number, not us.
Richardson also talks about the need to open up about our own trials and struggles and resulting transformations, rather than speak from a place of moral authority (a place that not one of us has to speak from anyway). “When trust has been broken, leading with strength merely lengthens the distance between you and others. Broken trust is rebuilt as you show and share your humanity and your needs. An open, trusting heart is what melts the hearts and defuses the defenses of others.”
Basically the book has a lot of good stuff in it, more than I have taken the time to get into here, but I think a lot of it comes down to not insulting the people you’re trying to care for. There is a reason they have rejected faith thus far (in general, or specifically Christianity) and it is the reason we should be looking at, not just the rejection. When talking about the actual question and answer regarding the choice to accept Christ, Richardson sums up with this:
“Post-Christian people don’t want to hear the question popped in cliché ways and with a one-size-fits-all approach. And they will be offended if it seems as if you need them to respond more than they want to respond. Evangelism is not about sales but about spiritual guidance. It’s not about getting “in” instead of being “out.” It’s similar to getting married, becoming one with the God who loves us and will transform us. So let’s not ask post-Christian people to mark their choice with trite responses. Prompt them to use their own words and to mark their ignition in a significant and meaningful way.”
So many people are just like my friend - they think they know what Christianity is by the words they've heard used to often in church or on television. But so few of them understand the truths behind those words because it seems like no one ever takes the time to really explain it to them, let alone let them try to figure it out for themselves.
Please feel free to ask me more about the book or whatever else may relate to this topic. I’m always happy to learn more.
And now for something completely different!
I feel the need to clarify something about my last post. I may have misrepresented my current living/family situation. For the most part, I have a good relationship with my family. As good as anyone else’s, I’ve always assumed. Any anger or frustration that I wrote, explicitly or implicitly, pertains almost exclusively to the particular incident involving Paris (because I am right, and they are wrong).
Sometimes, I wonder about the potential sinfulness of self-pity. I have talked with some folks about this in the past, and I think it’s probably something we all experience occasionally. We all slip into selfishness from time to time, and if we’re not careful, that can turn into a “woe is me” sort of attitude. Although I don’t think that is the case with my situation this time, I realize that it is close and could be seen that way. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think it’s a sin to be a little angry when you don’t get something you want, or to share that frustration with others. I just think that pitying yourself, or looking for others’ pity, is non-productive attention-seeking selfishness and can therefore become sinful.
Got any thoughts? Leave your comments at the sound of the tone!
That’s it for now everyone, I’ll be back soon, hopefully with my next and final movie. In the meantime, check out this song from Justin McRoberts!
Shalom.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Traveling Alone
I just finished a pretty good book called Black Swan Green by David Mitchell. It's about a 13 year old British kid named Jason. There are thirteen chapters, one for each month he's 13, going from January to January. It's pretty nifty. Because each chapter reads kind of like a short story, I can't really explain the book better than that, except to say that it can be funny or scary, happy or sad, but it constantly keeps you involved and concerned for the main character. Here are a few out-of-context quotes that I made sure to remember:
I've been working at my community theater, but we're running out of projects because we work so quickly and diligently! We'll see what happens next.
I miss my friends. I hate thinking that I won't get to see any of you until the middle of August. But I guess another way of looking at it is that I'm half-way there. I had hoped to go to Paris to meet my friend Jon for a day or two, but that isn't going to work out, due to reasons beyond my control. That is to say, my parental units axed the plan. They've got some problem with me traveling alone - apparently it isn't safe. Which, really, is just stupid because I'd only be alone for an hour or two before meeting up with Jon, and Paris isn't anything I can't handle. Anyway, I'm pissed about it, but what can I do? Keep sitting around here, I guess, even if that means growing increasingly frustrated by my family, like usual. I think the problem may be that I'm traveling alone already.
Which reminds me, by the way, I'm sorry to anyone I haven't kept in touch with as well as they would like because that probably means I haven't kept in touch as well as I would like, either. I just don't realize it. I'm gonna try to get on that this weekend. But then, I suppose if we haven't been in touch, you probably aren't even reading this. Oh, whatever.
Happy birthday to Ian and Wyatt and whoever I may have missed.
Much love.
- "Me, I want to bloody kick this moronic bloody world in the bloody teeth over and over till it bloody understands that not hurting people is ten bloody thousand times more bloody important than being right."
- "Often I think boys don't become men. Boys just get papier-mâchéd inside a man's mask. Sometimes you can tell the boy is still in there."
- "Beauty is immune to definition. When beauty is present, you know. Winter sunrise in dirty Toronto, one's new lover in an old café, sinister magpies on a roof. But is the beauty of these made? No. Beauty is here, that is all. Beauty is."
- "The sequence of doors we passed made me think of all the rooms of my past and future. The hospital ward I was born in, classrooms, tents, churches, offices, hotels, museums, nursing homes, the room I'll die in. (Has it been built yet?) Cars're rooms. So are woods. Skies're ceilings. Distances're walls. Wombs're rooms made of mothers. Graves're rooms made of soil."
I've been working at my community theater, but we're running out of projects because we work so quickly and diligently! We'll see what happens next.
I miss my friends. I hate thinking that I won't get to see any of you until the middle of August. But I guess another way of looking at it is that I'm half-way there. I had hoped to go to Paris to meet my friend Jon for a day or two, but that isn't going to work out, due to reasons beyond my control. That is to say, my parental units axed the plan. They've got some problem with me traveling alone - apparently it isn't safe. Which, really, is just stupid because I'd only be alone for an hour or two before meeting up with Jon, and Paris isn't anything I can't handle. Anyway, I'm pissed about it, but what can I do? Keep sitting around here, I guess, even if that means growing increasingly frustrated by my family, like usual. I think the problem may be that I'm traveling alone already.
Which reminds me, by the way, I'm sorry to anyone I haven't kept in touch with as well as they would like because that probably means I haven't kept in touch as well as I would like, either. I just don't realize it. I'm gonna try to get on that this weekend. But then, I suppose if we haven't been in touch, you probably aren't even reading this. Oh, whatever.
Happy birthday to Ian and Wyatt and whoever I may have missed.
Much love.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The Truth is Truth
We all know about Mohandas Gandhi. He preached non-violence in the face of British imperialism, playing a crucial role in gaining India's independence, and he remains one of history's most inspirational political and spiritual leaders.
So now that I have my next movie to talk about, I don't really have much to say. I doubt that many people reading this have seen Gandhi, the 1982 biopic directed by Richard Attenborough (the old guy from Jurassic Park) and starring Ben Kingsley in a stellar performance. But you should. It is a wonderful film with strong messages about injustice, independence, marriage, and obviously non-violence, among others. Since Gandhi is pretty straightforward and since Gandhi is pretty straightfoward, I'll just leave you with a quote that pretty much sums it all up.
"Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi
So now that I have my next movie to talk about, I don't really have much to say. I doubt that many people reading this have seen Gandhi, the 1982 biopic directed by Richard Attenborough (the old guy from Jurassic Park) and starring Ben Kingsley in a stellar performance. But you should. It is a wonderful film with strong messages about injustice, independence, marriage, and obviously non-violence, among others. Since Gandhi is pretty straightforward and since Gandhi is pretty straightfoward, I'll just leave you with a quote that pretty much sums it all up.
"Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)