seventeenth slate

Final Oscar Predictions

2011-02-27T14:27:00.000-05:00

some of these might be slightly different than in my initial posts.

Animated Short

Will win: Day & Night

Should win: Day & Night

Live Short

Will win: God of Love

Should win: ???

Documentary Short

Will win: Strangers No More

Should win: ???

Documentary

Will win: Inside Job

Should win: Inside Job

Foreign Language Film

Will win: In a Better World

Should win: ???

Animated Feature

Will win: Toy Story 3

Should win: Toy Story 3 (or The Illusionist)

Visual Effects

Will win: Inception

Should win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt. 1

Sound Editing

Will win: Inception

Should win: Inception

Sound Mixing

Will win: Inception

Should win: The Social Network

Makeup Design

Will win: The Wolfman

Should win: ??

Costume Design

Will win: The King's Speech

Should win: The Tempest

Art Direction

Will win: The King's Speech

Should win: Inception

Should have been nominated: Shutter Island

Song

Will win: "We Belong Together"

Should win: "We Belong Together" OR "Coming Home"

Score

Will win: The Social Network

Should win: The Social Network

Should have been nominated: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt. 1

Cinematography

Will win: True Grit

Should win: True Grit (or Inception)

Should have been nominated: Shutter Island

Editing

Will win: The Social Network

Should win: The Social Network

Should have been nominated: Inception

Supporting Actress

Will win: Melissa Leo

Should win: Hailee Steinfeld (or Jacki Weaver, for an actual supporting role)

Should have been nominated: Dianne Wiest for Rabbit Hole

Supporting Actor

Will win: Christian Bale

Should win: Geoffrey Rush

Should have been nominated so that he could have won: Andrew Garfield for The Social Network

Actress

Will win: Natalie Portman

Should win: Annette Bening

Actor

Will win: Colin Firth

Should win: Colin Firth

Should have been nominated: Ryan Gosling for Blue Valentine

Original Screenplay

Will win: The King's Speech

Should win: The Kids Are All Right or Another Year

Adapted Screenplay

Will win: The Social Network

Should win: The Social Network

Should have been nominated: The Ghost Writer

Director

Will win: David Fincher

Should win: David Fincher

Should have been nominated: Christopher Nolan

Picture

Will win: The King's Speech

Should win: The Social Network

Should have been nominated: Shutter Island, The Ghost Writer, Harry Potter

i've begun to have doubts about TSN winning best score, but i'm sticking to my guns. that is one category where i'll actually be pretty upset if it doesn't win, because it deserves it. Also, while i've maintained the frontrunner predictions for Actress, S. Actor, and S. Actress, i'm gonna predict there will be an upset in at least one of those categories (Annette Bening, Geoffrey Rush, or Steinfeld/Weaver/Carter). i'm still very unsure about Art Direction and Costumes, so i've defaulted to King's Speech. Also, if all the hype about a King's Speech sweep proves to be unfounded, look for an upset in Original Screenplay as well.

that's it, these are my final best guesses, we'll see what happens tonight.

Wrapping up

2011-02-26T16:22:00.001-05:00

i'm gonna try an power through all the rest of the categories now.

Visual Effects

Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt. 1
Hereafter
Inception
Iron Man 2

Iron Man's effects were kind of sloppy, i though, and Alice looked (unintentionally) cartoonish. Hereafter's nomination is confusing to most people, though it is the one film here i've not seen, so i can't speak well to it. Suffice it to say, it has basically no chance of winning. i personally would pick Harry Potter and would select it to win. However, logic tells me otherwise, so my prediction is for Inception, which also had some pretty outstanding effects, and would make a deserving winner.

Makeup
Barney's Version
The Way Back
The Wolfman

The only film here i've seen is The Wolfman, and most predictions say it will win here, which makes sense to me (though i'm always partial to aging makeup like in Barney's Version, will seldom gets to win here, frequently overshadowed by creature designs). So let's predict Wolfman, though Barney's Version might surprise.

Costume Design
Alice in Wonderland
I Am Love
The King's Speech
The Tempest
True Grit

This category is one of the harder to predict this year, along with Art Direction, because there isn't even a frontrunner and a possible spoiler, but several films that could easily win and deserve it. The Tempest is the one here i've not seen, but from the trailers, i suspect i would prefer it most in this category. However, it will likely not win. This category is a bit of a toss-up between Alice in Wonderland and The King's Speech. I Am Love is a truly outstanding movie, with some nice upper-class Italian dresses that really nail down the characters, but it's too contemporary to actually win here. True Grit would also be deserving, but it's unlikely. i'm not totally sure what all the costumes in King's Speech did for the film other than accurately place the period, but it appears to have the edge over the competition, so i'll predict it (though the more i predict for King's Speech, the more likely it seems to sweep, which isn't a thought i like...), but i am partial to the designs in The Tempest, and really all of Julie Taymor's films.

Original Score
How to Train Your Dragon
Inception
The King's Speech
127 Hours
The Social Network

How to Train Your Dragon was wonderful, but not really quite a winner, in my mind. Inception, the same thing. It had the now kind of iconic BWOMP thing going, but there were several times in the movie where i actually think the music was very distracting. It's nice that after a decade of snubs, Hans Zimmer is getting recognition again, but this isn't the one to win it again for him. i think that in 127 Hours, Rahman rips off sounds from a half a dozen other composers, like Zimmer, Rachel Portman, John Williams, even Thomas Newman, and there's one riff that basically sounds like the intro to Eminem's "Lose Yourself" on loop...
Anyway, this appears to be between The King's Speech, going for a sweep and a win for the three-time loser Alexandre Desplat, and The Social Network, which it seems most people think actually deserves to win. For me, it's not Desplat's score is bad or weak, it's actually quite appropriate for the film...but i think he wrote two other scores this year that were actually better and he wasn't nominated for them - The Ghost Writer and HP7. Also, i'd be surprised if anyone actually believes this was the best score of the year. The Social Network's score created an entire mood and atmosphere for the film that would have been totally different with a soundtrack or something lighter. It's a tremendous piece of work, and deserves to win here, and i think that it actually will hold off the surge from The King's Speech, so i predict The Social Network.

Best Actor
Javier Bardem - Biutiful
Jeff Bridges - True Grit
Jesse Eisenberg - The Social Network
Colin Firth - The King's Speech
James Franco - 127 Hours

i've still be unable to find Biutiful to watch somewhere, so i can't speak about Bardem here, though i suspect he is excellent as always. That said, this really is Firth's to lose. Some people criticize that, thinking it's just making up for losing last year, but let's be honest, he is absolutely phenomenal here. It's a much smaller, more detailed and nuanced performance than the naysayers are giving it credit for. James Franco and Jeff Bridges did good work, but i suspect that there are possibly other actors who could have given performances of a similar caliber. Eisenberg was really just as good as Firth and would also deserve to win, and as some have pointed out, he actually had a much more challenging role, in terms of playing an unlikable protagonist and getting the audience's sympathy without necessarily making him more likable. Firth's sympathy factor was built in - Oh, he's got a stammer. Aw, everyone is looking at him. Oh my, his daddy's mean to him. So in that respect, Eisenberg's accomplishment might be more notable. But the prediction has to be for Firth. In any other year, Eisenberg.

Best Original Screenplay
Another Year
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech

This will probably go to The King's Speech. Inception has the best chance at an upset here, if people are feeling a lot of support for the film and still upset about Nolan missing a director nod. personally, i'd like to see it go to Another Year or The Kids Are All Right, but can see that's unlikely (although this will sadly be Another Year's writer Mike Leigh's seventh Oscar loss). Plus, The King's Speech has an excellent screenplay, and it wouldn't be the worst thing ever if it wins.

Best Director
Darren Aronofsky - Black Swan
Joel and Ethan Coen - True Grit
David Fincher - The Social Network
Tom Hooper - The King's Speech
David O. Russell - The Fighter

Here is yet another question of King's Speech and Social Network. At this point, it's just unclear as to how big King's Speech will win. Actor, obviously, Picture and Screenplay, probably, but Art Direction? Cosumes? Sound Mixing? Supporting Actor? Supporting Actress even? It could go either way in almost every category. i think David Fincher is going to keep his place here. He's well respected, and people want to give him an award. There's also the idea that Hooper was less essential to his film than Fincher was to his. And plus, in times of doubt, it's helpful to remember that Fincher really actually did do the best direction of the year. So, prediction and preference: David Fincher

Best Picture
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

First off, in my opinion, Winter's Bone, 127 Hours, and The Fighter shouldn't even be here. They should be replaced by Shutter Island, The Ghost Writer, and Harry Potter. But whatever, i can't fix that. This is the question of The King's Speech and The Social Network, and if The Social Network can get enough support to come from behind with the upset. i've seen a few websites that did the math and predicted a Social Network upset with almost absolute certainty. It has something to do with the way they do the math with the ballots - if Social Network gets enough #1 rankings and enough #2 rankings, and The King's Speech doesn't get enough #2 rankings, then, well, who knows?

To be clear, i loved The King's Speech, i thought it was an exceptional film, just not the best of the year. And considering how few Best Of lists it made, a lot of people actually didn't think so either. So i'm not sure how it got here as the frontrunner, except that it was well-made, and it sure does make you feel happy, doesn't it? So, i'll predict The King's Speech because i'm not as confident in all the intricacies involved with an upset, though my preference is obviously for The Social Network, and i'll be extra thrilled if it deservedly wins, considering, you know, it actually is the best movie of the year.

now, on to the awards that are practically impossible to get all right!

Best Documentary Feature
Exit Through the Gift Shop
Gasland
Inside Job
Restrepo
Waste Land

i've seen Exit Through the Gift Shop, and intend to watch some of the others tonight and tomorrow. From what i've read on this category, a lot of people are predicting Inside Job, but saying that Exit Through the Gift Shop is the best one. Considering that this is one of the categories where you have to have seen all 5 nominees in order to vote (as are the rest of the categories i'm gonna get to here), i suspect that if people are saying one is the best, that that is the one most people will vote for. So i'm gonna predict Exit Through the Gift Shop.

Best Documentary Short
Killing in the Name
Poster Girl
Strangers No More
Sun Come Up
The Warriors of Quigang

Uh, Strangers No More. Because someone else said so.

Best Foreign Language Film
Biutiful
Dogtooth
In a Better World
Incendies
Outside the Law

Again, i've not seen any of these (but i'll try to at least watch one before tomorrow). In a Better World appears to be the favorite, but this category is notorious for surprise winners. So i'm not positive what will happen.

Best Animated Short
Day & Night (you know, it's the one that played before Toy Story 3)
The Gruffalo
Let's Pollute
The Lost Thing
Madagascar, carnet de voyage

Well i've seen Day & Night and i've seen The Gruffalo, and i thought Day & Night was better, so let's go with that.

Best Live Action Short
The Confession
The Crush
God of Love
Na wewe
Wish 143

God of Love. Because i heard it somewhere.

So, all right, that's all. i'll post again summarizing my predictions/preferences, and some tallies. Peace.

Keepin' on keepin' on

2011-02-21T22:46:00.000-05:00

and here's some more for ya.

Sound Editing
(again, i believe this is the category about actual aesthetic sound design)

Inception
Toy Story 3
Tron: Legacy
True Grit
Unstoppable

i've now seen all the movies here, but i must admit Tron and Unstoppable were good, but not dvd quality bootlegs. Regardless, i doubt either have a real shot at winning here. True Grit did win a guild award a couple days ago, but i doubt it will actually win here - a wider set of voters will reward it in cinematography and possible supporting actress. My pick would be for Toy Story 3. 7 of the last 8 Pixar films have been nominated in this category, and only The Incredibles won. i find it baffling that films that literally have to create and record every single sound we hear (aside from dialogue) do not win more often. That said, Inception is the most critically acclaimed of the technical wonders this year, and will likely win here. Like many of the categories this year, a well-deserved probable win, but not the one i'd most like to see.

That said, the sound categories are notoriously difficult to predict, and i'm even starting to have doubts about the Sound Mixing prediction i made earlier....i'm starting to think either True Grit or The Social Network have a chance at an upset there. But this one should be squarely in Inception's corner.

Song
"Coming Home" from Country Strong
"I See the Light" from Tangled
"If I Rise" from 127 Hours
"We Belong Together" from Toy Story 3

This is another tough one. i haven't actually seen Country Strong or Tangled, but that's less important in this category. Having listened through all the songs today, i have to admit i find "I See the Light" to be a little simplistic and cheesy, not likely to actually win i don't think. i understand that for a while "If I Rise" was the frontrunner here....but honestly, that song is terrible. It is dull and lethargic. There's a chance people are looking for a chance to reward the film somewhere, but i can't imagine many people actually think this the best song from movies this year. i admit bias here in that i have a passionate grudge against A.R. Rahman for beating Thomas Newman and Wall-E and i can't abide the thought of him winning a 3rd and/or 4th Oscar this year. At least this time the lyrics are in one language...

It looks to me like this is between "Coming Home" and "We Belong Together." Honestly, i don't mind if either win - i think if people actually listen to the music, there's a chance for "Coming Home" which is actually a really good song, but more likely i think is Randy Newman (on his 20th nomination with only 1 win), the chance to give Toy Story 3 more than just one win in Animated Picture, and the really really good and fun song that is "We Belong Together."

(I'm holding off on Best Score until i have the chance to listen through the whole score for Inception on Youtube like i have for the other nominees.)

Best Actress
Annette Bening - The Kids Are All Right
Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole
Jennifer Lawrence - Winter's Bone
Natalie Portman - Black Swan
Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine

Lawrence totally carried her film, but she's young and there are better in the category this year. Williams was very good but the film's too small, and this just isn't here year. Kidman's already won, and she needs to do a few more good performances like this before she'll actually get to win again. This is clearly a race between Portman and Bening. Portman is obviously the frontrunner, and she will probably not suffer the upset from Bening. However, Bening has more previous nominations (3 to Portman's 1), and there is criticism of Portman's performance as too "showy," while Bening creates a nuanced, emotional performance of a person who seems like she might actually exist in the real world. My pick would be Bening, as i think it legitimately is the better performance, but i have to predict Portman as i don't see the upset as very likely. Portman was excellent, don't get me wrong, and this won't go down in history as a great mistake on the Academy's part, but i do think it's not the most deserving win.

Adapted Screenplay
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

The Social Network, all the way. i cannot imagine there being such a backlash against this movie that it loses this category. That's what people thought about Up in the Air last year, i know, but this has got to be even more of a lock. Somehow Sorkin wrote A Few Good Men, The American President, and Charlie Wilson's War without ever getting nominated, and he's gonna make up for it here with the best screenplay not only of this year but of the last several years. Sorkin and Firth (for best actor) have got to be the two most locked locks of the year.

Next categories

2011-02-21T00:50:00.001-05:00

Art Direction
Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt. 1
Inception
The King's Speech
True Grit

Honestly, i can imagine any one of these winning. The King's Speech is riding a wave of support in general, but i still don't imagine it pulling a total sweep, and it doesn't really deserve the win here. Alice in Wonderland i feel the same about as i did with Avatar last year - i can't tell where the visual effects end and the art direction begins...it seems like most of the credit should belong with the special effects teams than the designers, and the designs honestly didn't really do much for me - most of the time i thought they were just trying to do too much visually with this movie, and the effect was to come off jumbled and mismatched - it really is a pretty ugly movie. True Grit got 10 nominations, which is a lot, and people are wondering if that means it'll get some surprise wins in these types of categories. i don't see it happening here, since the art direction demands here seems fairly simple for a period piece. My personal preference is for Harry Potter to win here, though i doubt it will happen - i'm keeping my fingers crossed for part 2 next year to finally win a few for the franchise. For my money, i think Inception is the likely and very deserving winner. Several dream worlds, all distinct and imaginative, from the Japanese castle to the James Bond-esque snow fort, from the hotel to Cobb and Mal's "memory lane," consistent, effective work. i'll predict Inception will pull it out, but a King's Speech sweep could make me eat my words.

Cinematography
Black Swan
Inception
The King's Speech
The Social Network
True Grit

This is really up between Inception and True Grit. It seems to me that the camera in Black Swan was a little too focused on making sure we didn't see Natalie Portman's legs while she danced, and that got on my nerves. A lot of people will find the odd composition and framing of The King's Speech to be a little too, i dunno, calling attention to itself, to merit a win. The Social Network had some tremendous photography, but i don't think anyone really credits the camera it for the success of the movie as much as Fincher's being behind it. True Grit had some great work from the now 9-time Oscar nominee (never the winner) Roger Deakins, but i've gotta be honest, i'm not sure it's his best work and he did have the template of the first movie for several sequences... My pick would be Inception, again citing the juggling of several different feels and looks of the various dream environments, but also the different sorts of narratives - photographing action in world and suspense in another, and always giving the viewer just enough info on the screen to not overload us. Not to mention the floating/rolling hotel sequences which still totally blow my mind. My preference: Inception, but i'm still gonna predict that True Grit and Roger Deakins get the sympathy/career respect vote, and the desire to reward the movie with a statue or two. And it's not like this would be an undeserving win, just not the one i personally would go for. (i still say Inglourious Basterds should have had it over Avatar last year...)

Film Editing
Black Swan
The Fighter
The King's Speech
127 Hours
The Social Network

Again, i think Black Swan was trying to conceal things from us (like Natalie Portman's legs... not like plot things). I'm shocked to see 127 Hours here if only because that tri-fold thing they did was so enormously distracting - totally calling attention to the post-prod, and just clawing at ways to make the movie more interesting or visceral - really bugged me. The King's Speech...not sure that the editing did much here, and same for The Fighter - both were really just piecing the story together effectively. My preference and prediction are both for The Social Network here - the editing here really propels the narrative - it turned shouldabeen boring scenes like uploading photos into heists - it helped keep a 160-page script not only under 2 hrs, but really interesting and compelling and exciting and totally coherent all at the same time. This just seems like an obvious call to me.

Best Supporting Actor
Christian Bale - The Fighter
John Hawkes - Winter's Bone
Jeremy Renner - The Town
Mark Ruffalo - The Kid's Are All Right
Geoffrey Rush - The King's Speech

John Hawkes will not win, as his nomination was a surprise and it likely took the place of Andrew Garfield who not only should have been nominated, but should have pulled an upset win for giving one of the best performances of the whole dang year in The Social Network. Also, Jeremy Renner was very good, but not really mind-blowing i didn't think - it's just a Boston spin on the Joe Pesci thing. Mark Ruffalo is a very likable actor who played a very likable character and, at least to me, somehow gave a really annoying performance. i should have liked him (despite the story about him sleeping with the married lesbian), but i just found him really annoying and aggravating at times.

This is really a race between Bale, the frontrunner, and Rush, possibly pulling the come-from-behind upset riding The King's Speech wave. i have to admit, i have never like Christian Bale as an actor, i find something about him really annoying. i will not deny that he gave an exceptional performance in The Fighter, a film i didn't really care for either. However, it's a really flashy, showy performance, and i'd just personally like to see performances awarded where the acting goes on a little more below the surface. i think that Rush deserves this win over Bale - consider that without Rush, the entire premise of The King's Speech is blank. Not just his character, but his performance - if his performance were anything less than what it was, the movie would have flopped, or at least not been as successful as it is, because no one would have known why they were watching it. If we're going to reward Firth for a movie that is essentially about a friendship, how can we not reward the other half of the relationship? However, i cannot in conscience make an actual prediction for Rush, as that really would be the upset of the year - Bale has been winning everything, he's never been nominated though he's enormously respected, plus it's a chance (along with supp. actress) to reward The Fighter since it won't get anything else. Prediction: Bale, preference: Rush. (i'll be excited to get this prediction wrong.)

First Round of Oscar Nominations

2011-02-18T12:10:00.002-05:00

So i'm gonna go through categories for which i've seen all of the nominated films, and work on finishing up some of the other movies so i can have discussions/predictions/preferences in all the major categories. So let's start out with a few categories i've seen all the way through, in no particular order.

Sound Mixing
Inception
The King's Speech
Salt
The Social Network
True Grit

First, a brief note on this category. Basically, "sound mixing" refers to the compilation of all sound effects in a film, from music and dialogue to ambient noise and sound effects. "Sound editing" is the actual creation and construction of sound effects, either with computer audio effects or foley recording, etc. Again this is very basic, but this category is about the overall putting together of the sound in the film, while sound editing is more about the sounds themselves. They're both actually very important fields, it's just hard to be actively aware of that while watching a good movie.

Now, i'm not 100% sure why The King's Speech has a nomination here, as that audio all seemed pretty straightforward. The Social Network and True Grit had a little more to do, but again, sound wasn't exactly a driving technical element for those movies. That leaves Salt and Inception. i saw Salt, i thought it was fun and entertaining and the sound design is definitely important , but even in technical categories, the Oscars tend to reward average movies with nominations and not awards, so i think Inception is the clear favorite here. Also, Inception kind of deserves it - it had to juggle a whole lot of moving parts and the sound helped a lot with the transitions around time and space.

Supporting Actress
Amy Adams - The Fighter
Helena Bonham Carter - The King's Speech
Melissa Leo - The Fighter
Hailee Steinfeld - True Grit
Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom

Melissa Leo is still the frontrunner, but she has a lot of obstacles stacked against her. 1) Splitting votes with Amy Adams, who is also an admired previous nominee. 2) Jacki Weaver, who is outstanding in her film and competing with Leo for the "worst mother of the year" award in movies. 3) Helena Bonham Carter, who will surely get votes riding the wave of The King's Speech popularity. and perhaps most importantly 4) Hailee Steinfeld, who, though in the wrong category, gives a better performance and a more vital performance to her film - plus i think voters will probably want to reward True Grit with more than just cinematography.

Leo was wonderful, and i like a lot of her work recently (including the tv show Treme, and i'm looking forward to her work next to Kate Winslet in Mildred Pierce), and if she wins, i won't be sad or disappointed, it will be well-earned. i don't think Carter really deserves to be here - she's a great actress with a lot of versatility, but her performance here wasn't really all that special to me. It was serviceable, but i feel like a dozen other actresses could have played the role and achieved the same success. Adams was also very good, but again, i felt like other actresses could have done something similar. i was floored by Weaver, and would love to see her win here just because that would be really cool, but i have to acknowledge that it probably won't happen. All that said, Steinfeld was really the standout here and i think she deserves the trophy - Oscars aren't totally opposed to rewarding young talent, either - let's not forgot Academy Award winner Anna Paquin (Best Supporting Actress for ~~X-Men~~ The Piano). So my prediction is still Melissa Leo, with a strong chance of a Steinfeld spoiler, and while my preference is for Steinfeld, either would be deserving wins.

Best Animated Feature
How to Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Toy Story 3

This category is hardly even a question, Toy Story 3 will win, and should win. i enjoyed How to Train Your Dragon a lot, but we've seen so many examples now of how animated movies can elevate the format to something greater and with more depth than mere entertainment. Sure, it had a nice message about coming together and understanding differences, but it had a couple of pretty frustrating plot issues and it just didn't resonate quite as well with me. Good movie, yes. Oscar winning animated film? Probably not. (side note: i'm curious about how there will be a How to Train Your Dragon 2 since they already trained all the dragons...)

Okay and then there's the issue of The Illusionist. Look y'all, i hated this movie. i hated it because it was so awesome. i just couldn't handle it, it ended up being just way too emotional and heartbreaking and awesome and hopeful, and i still don't know what to do about it. So there. It won't win because it's a little too obscure, but imagine if the emotional impact at the end of Toy Story 3 was repackaged into something a little more resembling real life... you don't want to, because you couldn't handle that either.

So yes, Toy Story 3 for the win, great movie, great adventure, and it was phase one of my farewell to my childhood. Phase two commences this summer with HP7 Part 2...

So yes, that's the first 3 categories. i'll be back soon with 3 or 4 more. (i still need to watch some more movies for Visual Effects, Sound Editing, Makeup, Costumes, Song, Actor, and Original Screenplay, but i have all the others.) see ya soon.

Celebrating Rock'n'Roll Legend Lady Gaga

2011-01-12T11:19:00.000-05:00

So a friend of mine recently sent me a Huffington Post article about the recent Passion conference, Chris Tomlin, and Christian rock in general. It was basically saying that Christian rock is finding a niche, citing Tomlin's two albums on Billboard's top 20 last month.

It was interesting enough, but it's not exactly news to those in a Christian community that David Crowder, Matt Redman, and Chris Tomlin are popular. The comments on this article though, I found particularly interesting.

There were a couple of people who were happy to see something about Christian music in a secular news source. But mostly people were grumbling. They were complaining about how Christian music sucks, doesn't sound good, is too cheesy, is lyrically too limited, is like love songs that just insert the name "Jesus." What got to me most, though, were the comments about "what rock music is supposed to be."

Rock is about rebellion!

Rock is supposed to be about sex and drugs and resisting repression - Christian music only promotes more repression under a religion!

Rock is about resisting conformity and Christianity is all about conformity!

From what I can tell, those commenters whose memories stretch back to the late 70s-early 80s believe rock is all about rebellion. Those whose memories extend to the early 70s might believe rock is about sex and drugs and individual freedoms. There were a few who apparently remember all the way back to the late 60s and claim that rock is also about love, joy, peace, and harmony (and who further understand that in many ways Christian rock does reflect those values).

Now, I will concede a few points to the naysayers. There is a subgenre of Christian rock, "Praise & Worship" (I find that the ampersand is an important feature here), which can sound quite cheesy. In which the chorus are repeated ad nauseum like a mantra that rarely changes meaning or emotion - that is, until the band drops out and we find ourselves singing a cappella and can really feel the Spirit moving…that is, until the band comes back in louder than ever and we realize, "Oh, THAT'S when the Spirit's supposed to start moving, I get it!" Most of all, the genre of Praise & Worship IS quite lyrically challenged, because frankly, there's only so much to say. We've recently taken to lifting the lyrics of old hymns, changing the melody, and then writing a new chorus just to mix it up. All this is to say nothing of one of my favorite trends (insert eyeroll), adding the line "Who was, and is, and is to come," after almost any reference to Jesus, Christ, or Lord, which is meant to present Christ's timelessness and eternal presence, but which I suspect is truly only a filler where the creative process leaves a gap.

[NOTE: Unresolved issues unrelated to songwriting - I wonder why so few worship leaders are women. And I wonder, if Tomlin and others are sincere when they say their image isn't important and that they don't "want people staring" at them while they sing, why they insist on going into their middle ages wearing clothes that look like they came from Abercrombie & Fitch and spiking their highlighted hair with so much gel.]

Now, anyone who read my last post knows I have a few issues with Christian music, but don't think me a total cynic. I just don't like the lazy stuff, the stuff that sounds like everything else and has nothing challenging or theological or profound to contribute to our faith outside of a pretty basic "God is great! I love Jesus and he loves me!"

However, those naysayers who criticize Christian rock as somehow less than legitimate rock music miss a few other significant points:

1) Praise & Worship is, after all, merely a subgenre of Christian music. Other subgenres include actual Rock & Roll, some alternative rock, country, folk, bluegrass (obviously), R&B, hip hop, rap (though it's rarely good), and gospel. I'm surely leaving some out, but I know no one is going to try to tell me that Ricky Scaggs, Allison Kraus, Heather Headley, and Aretha Franklin all suck, even if their style is not your cup of tea. So to say that Christian rock sucks might be an incomplete thought but a valid opinion, but please don't argue that Christian music sucks, because you'll only put your ignorance on display.

2) There are a LOT of really good Christian music artists out there. Consider the crossover success of acts like Flyleaf, Skillet, Underoath, Anberlin, Lifehouse, Needtobreathe, Switchfoot, and others. The legitimate talent of Christian groups like Jars of Clay, who explore new sounds and styles with each album, recently playing with genres from traditional folk to euro-pop. Then of course there are popular bands and musicians who identify as Christians but do not identify with Christian music. Bono and U2 come swiftly to mind. They're kind of a big deal.

3) Rock and roll is the music of sex, drugs, and rebellion? Really? In the 70s, I'd buy that, but let's take a quick gander around our culture, shall we? I see sex and drugs and decaying morality all over the place. I don't say that to condemn or judge, I just observe it. We release press statements that decry the state of our society and culture, yet magazines still print hypersexualized images and as we've seen just this past weekend with the shooting in Arizona, we are far from being a peaceful, hate-free society. Now, given this state of affairs, how can we classify "rock and roll" music which is predominantly about sex (or "love") or drugs or violence as "rebellious" when it is so clearly in line with the state of mainstream America? If the only music that can classify as "rock" is that which is against the conformity to and repression of broader secular culture, then it seems to me that the only true "rock" music out there today comes from Christians and Lady Gaga.

4)Finally, there are those artists who are both Christian and blatantly rebellious. What about Justin McRoberts' song "Safe," which takes a sardonic approach to the isolationist policy that churches frequently take in an attempt to protect their congregations from the evils of the world outside? (Ask me to send you the file if you're interested.) Derek Webb is another who certainly comes to mind. He writes songs challenging predominant Christian practices, from linking religion to politics, attitudes towards the LGBT community, and really just hypocrisy in general (an occupational hazard when it comes to being a Christian), all the while not afraid to use words like "bastard", "whore", and singing: "Cause we can talk and debate until we're blue in the face/About the language and tradition that he's comin' to save/Meanwhile we sit just like we don't give a shit/About 50,000 people who are dyin' today." If rock is about rebellion, and Christian rock isn't, then will someone tell me where this fits in?

So there, see, really I just have problems with everyone! The people who make lazy, boring, typical Christian music and the people who make blanket statements about the state of Christian rock and music based only the poor representations. Who would listen to one Nickelback album and surmise from it that all rock music from the past decade must have been terrible? And of course, I haven't really heard much pop music lately that rebels against anything, not repression or culture, there's nothing political, there's nothing philosophical out there. And given how much of it sounds the same, it's hardly a celebration of individualism and freedom. So we need to redefine our notions of what counts as "rock" music, as well as what counts as "Christian" music. Because I don't think I can live in a world where the only rock musician left is Lady Gaga.

Some people say, "Our God is too big for our body," and then I say, "Compared to what?"

2010-11-04T22:50:00.000-04:00

One week ago, i was in the middle of worship at InterVarsity, enjoying myself, praising like i do. And then we sang a song that made me sit down and totally lose my vibe.

No way? Yah-weh.

It wasn't until we got to the chorus of Chris Tomlin's latest big hit, "Our God," that i realized which song we were singing. i thought, "oh, this is that song i heard on the radio that made me really uncomfortable," and then of course i was uncomfortable at IV as well.

For those of you who haven't heard it, the chorus and bridge read:

"Our God, Our God
Our God is greater, our God is stronger
God You are higher than any other
Our God is Healer, awesome in power
Our God, Our God

And if Our God is for us, then who could ever stop us
And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?
And if Our God is for us, then who could ever stop us
And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?
What can stand against?"

And as is typical of praise&worship music, these mantras are repeated over and over and over again.

i wonder just what Tomlin could have been thinking when he requests that the Body of Christ sing about itself as an unstoppable force. When he took a verse from Paul and completely adapts the meaning and context of it for the purpose of a catchy tune, did he mean to create a dangerous, almost aggressive subtext? Surely not, but i fear he may have done just that.

Let's just start by taking a look at the shoddy song-writing. "Our God is greater, our God is stronger." Tomlin here describes God with comparative adjectives. He then fails to draw any comparison. Greater than what? Stronger than who? Tomlin does not complete the thought implied by comparative adjectives, which essentially leaves the task up to us, the worshipers, sometimes more aptly described as the audience. This is an exceptionally dangerous open end. One member of the congregation might be thinking, "Our God is greater than the sin and temptation i experience." Totally valid, right? But what if someone is thinking, "Our God is stronger than Allah and all the Muslims?" i don't claim i think that is a particularly rampant notion in our humble IV chapter, but the ambiguity of this chorus cannot possibly be 100% healthy for various congregations to be singing, especially considering that racism and anti-Muslim ideologies can be prominent among conservative Christian communities. And who knows what other words people might be using to fill in the blanks left by Tomlin?

i do not mean to indicate that i personally don't think that factually, yes, our god is stronger and greater than just about anything you put after Him, but this song is less a testament to his greatness and strength than it seems to be an emphasis on the fact that he is ours and not yours or theirs. The follow-though seems to indicate that because our God is greater than x, y, or z, that we are greater by association. In case you disagree with that idea, let us continue to the next set of lyrics.

Next is the part that some people might refer to as the bridge. What a tremendous irony that is, for something called a "bridge" to involve such dialog-halting sentiments. "Who can ever stop us?...Who can stand against?" (Yes, of course, we might also consider this a "Chorus II" but work with me.) Here Tomlin is paraphrasing Paul's line in Romans 8:31, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (ESV). But by lifting this half of a verse, he fails to consider the fuller context of what Paul is saying.

Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans probably around the mid to late 50s CE, when Christianity in it's fullest form was hardly 20 years old. The Roman Empire almost didn't even notice it, but when it did, it wasn't friendly about it. Christianity, for 300 years, was the subject of persecution - not necessarily the violence and martyrdom that we emphasize at times, but at the very least a sense of condescension and nonacceptance was directed by the pagan (or Jewish, depending) majorities. He writes of the Christians' sufferings compared to the glory of Christ's return. He writes of dedication and perseverance in the face of persecution. It is to embolden when he asks rhetorically, "Who can be against us?"

But this context is enormously different from the situation of American Christianity today. Perhaps there is not quite the same conservative political force present as there once was with institutions like the Moral Majority, but surely no one would claim that Christianity is under any systemic attack in our nation. To sing a song declaring that no one can stop us because God is with us rings with an almost aggressive subtext. (This is supported by the music swelling to its forte climax, drums banging loudly in simple eighth-note marching rhythm.) It is not a message of perseverance in the face of persecution; instead it becomes a song celebrating our own correctness and validating our own efforts against other people. Everyone believes God is on their side - it's the best way to add strength to their argument. Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed Gott mit uns - "God with us." Both armies in the American Civil War believed the causes they fought for were justified by God. Modern Ugandan politicians believe God is on their side when they argue for a death penalty for homosexuals. White people as recently as one hundred fifty years (and, sadly, more recently) continued to believe that God supported their oppression and enslavement of black people - policies which bled over in spirit into British imperialism in Asia and other regions less than one hundred years ago!

Another problem with Tomlin's lyrics is his adaptation of the text from Romans. Romans asks, "who can be against us?" Essentially, this creates a passive form of an other. To "be against" something is not an active state, it could be a simple as disagreeing or objecting to a position, being unfamiliar with it, or not understanding it (as was certainly the case for the majority of the Roman Empire given the newness of Christianity). But by changing this question to, "who could ever stop us?...what can stand against?" we have assigned our others with actions like stopping and standing against which have very different connotations from the basic passive differences established by Paul. We are now in a mindset of an enemy who is actively opposing us which allows us to believe ourselves victims, when this is not the case.

To use Romans 8:31 in modern settings is almost a cop-out from seeking true, logical reasoning to support one's arguments and positions on matters of great importance. The most important word in the verse is that big fat "IF" right at the beginning. We claim God is for us because we want him to be, but that claim may many times be false - not intentionally perhaps, but false nonetheless. We project our own sense of righteousness onto God's identity and use this verse to rationalize it. Sometimes God is for us, and no one can stand against, but in those instances we get it wrong, we might never know because songs like Tomlin's pervade our Christian atmospheres with a sentiment that tells us to charge forth regardless.

Now i know that many people might read this incredulously, claim that i am overreacting and reading too far into the matter. This might be true. But i object to the notion that we should be above taking a critical eye to the music we sing when praising our great, strong God because it's easier to gloss over the nuances, and i absolutely object to the notion that we should be singing music in our worship services that are too simple to even merit that analysis. We must challenge ourselves and other members in our community to do better, to constantly be pursuing the best ways in which we can observe God's wishes and praise Him with the honor he deserves, instead of lazily repeating a single verse or two repeatedly for five minutes when that verse may not even apply well to our circumstances.

Perhaps best of all, Chris Tomlin's upcoming CD is entitled, "And If Our God Is For Us..."

i take it that the ellipsis means the possibilities for us when we are with God are endless. Let's hope it does not also imply that the potential for our distortion of His message for us is endless as well.

some notes

2010-08-22T10:08:00.000-04:00

Why, hello there! Let me just change sweaters real quick before we sit down and have a chat.

Okay, that's better. It's been a long time since i was here, and there are a few reasons for that. One is that i've been in the process of moving back to college for my senior year. But i'm all moved in now so i have no real excuses. Except this other one, that i've been wanting to write something deep and profound and epic about several loose ends that have been in my brain lately - among them, Paul's idea that "if God is for us, who can be against us," Chris Tomlin's recent song celebrating that idea, the danger that idea presents to Christians in a nation where patriotism and faith so frequently collide, and tying a lot of it up through the perspective of the Civil War. i'm sorry, i just haven't gotten around to it yet.

But here's another thing that happened - the Creative Arts Emmys! Overall, pretty good stuff, good shows represented well. However, we need to talk about the guest actor/actress awards for a moment. Okay, go:

Best Guest Actor in a Drama - John Lithgow, for Dexter. You know what? This was a freaking awesome performance. You know what else? It was also a supporting performance, not a guest spot. Which means Lithgow kind of probably took this award (since he was all but guaranteed to win it) from someone equally deserving in an actual guest role capactiy. Not totally his fault maybe? Since also, if he won supporting actor for his single season on the show, he could have taken that award from someone who's put in more time into their show. So i love him and his performance and i'm glad he won something, but i can't help feel that someone else got gypped someway or another by the process.

Best Guest Actress in a Drama - Ann Margaret for L&O:SVU - i didn't see this, i'm sure she was wonderful (i hear she got the only standing ovation of the evening), i just wanted to say that i was partial to Lily Tomlin in Damages, and i'm sad she didn't win.

Best Guest Actor in a Comedy - Neil Patrick Harris for Glee. i'm sorry, but are you freaking kidding me? He did nothing special...nothing really at all in his episode. He played a slightly more musical version of Barney Stinson. Which probably means he won't win in Best Supp. Actor in a Comedy yet again this year, and i think everyone just really wanted him to have an Emmy. And i know that's how this works sometimes....but seriously, why can't we award the more deserving acts? Like, oh, i dunno, Will Arnett for 30 Rock where he is consistently amazing? Or even Eli Wallach, who is still better at what he does at AGE 94 (that's even older than Betty White) than most of the other guys doing this!! (i admit that Jon Hamm probably did not deserve his 30 Rock nomination for the 4 minutes or so he was on the air this season - he got the nomination the same way NPH did - by not winning for his other show.)

Best Guest Actress in a Comedy - Okay, here's one that i know i would take some heat for if anyone read this and cared. Betty White did not deserve this award. She was absolutely hysterical on SNL, i'm not denying that, but here's two things to consider: SNL hosts are not guest actors, no matter what the Emmy categories say. They are hosts - they are individual performances in a variety show (note that all of SNL's other merits are acknowledged in a variety show category, yet their performers are in the Comedy Series sections - that's not fair or right to the other shows and actors). Because they are hosts, doing sketches, i do not believe it's fair to think of them as guest actors in the same fashion as the other nominees - the other nominee's bear the responsibility of creating a fully realized character in their limited time and episode arc, whereas on SNL, they have only to do caricatures and read funny cue-cards. And let's please also note that Betty White, well-versed as she is in live tv, still wasn't spot on the entire night. The Muffin sketch was pure gold, but the Scared Straight sketch was...well, awkward. And no one can say, Oh but how impressive that she did it at age 89! because as i've just pointed out, Eli Wallach is 94, and no one felt like awarding him for that.

SO, in conclusion, Betty White is wonderful, but did not deserve this award - because Kristin Chenoweth did, for Glee. She did the best job of creating a comic character while on a comedy series (as compared to the guy who played Kurt's dad, who was also nominated for Glee, who was wonderful, but was essentially a dramatic character in the comedy series, which i personally feel contributes to his not winning - just as that will contribute to Chris Colfer not winning in his category next week as well).

And that's what i have to say about that. If i have time this week, i hope to also get on here and lay out some opinions on most of the main nominations before the awards next Sunday.

Now, i'll go to church.

Strangers on a train

2010-07-28T15:11:00.001-04:00

Whew, i'm back. i've kept on thinking about things that might be worth blogging about...but i've been a little busy lately, and certainly a little tired...so i've just never managed to get my thoughts together with my time until right now, this moment.

First off, for the past 2 weeks i've been going to bartending school, learning about making drinks and stuff - definitely been having a blast, but i've had to wake up around 6AM, a lot earlier than i am used to, so it's wiped me out a lot when i get back home in the afternoon.

But now i'm here.

So which thoughts should i begin with for my first post in a while? Let's start with the Metro. i love the metro. i love riding it. i love going in a tunnel and coming out the other end in a totally new place. i love the people on it, they're the best! Last week i saw a guy reading Thomas Hardy start surreptitiously, but totally checking out this one girl who got on reading Henry James. i saw a girl reading The Irresistible Revolution, which was just nice to see. Also nice to see was the guy going through Deuteronomy - i'm not sure if he was trying to do the whole bible cover to cover or what, but it was cool no matter what.

but here's what i really like about being on the metro: that feeling of knowing just exactly where i'm going. When you're a tourist, you have to carry around a book and a map with you so you know which attractions to see and where they are. There's plenty of hurry-up-and-wait involved while you figure your surroundings out. But i'm not a tourist here - i don't know the city like the back of my hand or anything, but i'm definitely not a tourist. i'm familiar with the metro lines, where they go, what's at the major stops - so when i get on, i sit down take out my book, and keep a tally in my head of the numbers of stops we've gone through. And when i reach my stop, i get off, quickly find the escalator to my next train if i'm transferring (sometimes running to catch it if i'm lucky enough to have it waiting for me), and i'm good. i'm confidant, comfortable. i know where i'm going.

Of course, we very seldom get that opportunity in life, knowing where we're going and how to get there. But here's this one chance to make sure you've got it figured out. And it isn't hard to look around and see who's ridden that line a thousand times, and who's just trying to get in to see the monuments. i like to imagine the tourists seeing me and thinking, "Oh, we could ask him, he probably knows what to do."

On my more profound days, this is the part where i might try to find some interesting sermon-esque way of tying this all up with Christianity or something. Maaaybe that we have confidence in living with Christ, so it's okay if we don't know where we're going? Or we can take comfort in Christ the same way we take comfort in the things that help us know where we're going? i'm not sure...i had a few more in the back of my head, but i'm not gonna do any of that. i'd just be forcing it, it doesn't come naturally to me this time. So i'm just gonna let it stay as is - i enjoy the comfort that comes from being one of those guys on the metro who knows what's up. Feels good. Nothing more complicated than that.

I just thought that ice tongs was the way to do it.

2010-07-15T16:40:00.000-04:00

Wow, i did not realize it had been more than a week since my last post.

i haven't been on here because, although i've watched several movies in the past week or two, none of them have completely totally knocked me off my feet (the way, say, Titus did), so i was waiting for a collection. Also, i've spent some time watching some TV shows, in light of the Emmy nominations announcement. namely, catching up on Nurse Jackie and watching the first season of The Good Wife. My parents told me that show was good, but i didn't have time this past year to keep up with it, but now i have, and it is indeed good. i enjoy a good legal procedural, and this one manages to keep the characters in focus and interesting (similar to one of my favorites, Boston Legal, but on the serious side).

As for movies:

i finally rewatched Shutter Island, a movie that has now blown me away not once, but twice. Its mixed and negative reviews must surely be from people who are stupid.

The African Queen, with Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn. A really fun adventure movie (i would assume one of the first of the "adventure" genre as we know it today). i was watching with an interesting perspective though, thinking, "In today's Hollywood, i don't think anyone could make a movie about a riverboat escaping Germans in WWI occupied Africa...and still manage to make it a bit of a romantic comedy, without it being lambasted as political incorrect and insulting in tremendous ways." Yet we look back and view this film as a classic. Interesting how situations reverse and flip and turn oh all sorts of ways.

Poltergeist - really exciting horror movie from the early eighties. Written and produced by Steven Spielberg, though not officially directed by him. However, many have come to believe Spielberg to be the de facto man behind the curtain, and those familiar with the look and feel of Spielberg's movies (especially the earlier ones), can easily see his thumbprint all over this movie - with the possible exception of the final sequence where suspense and supernatural thrills turns to all out horror (coffins popping up out of the ground and skeletons falling out, all in the mud and rain, etc etc). Really well worth the time for an example of how a movie doesn't have to be a scare-a-minute kind of scary to still work.

A Passage to India - David Lean's final movie, another epic. This time set in India (obviously), it is, as Lean's work always is, incredible to look at. As with Doctor Zhivago, it's difficult to avoid getting sucked in and immersed in all the sights and sounds...but then again, why would you want to avoid it? That's the experience! This movie is benefited by a better story than Doctor Zhivago, focusing its energies on the class system of British Imperial India, and the friendships and relationships therein, rather than on a romance. i can't think of much to say specifically, except that it has held up really well over almost 30 years, is fascinating and enjoyable.

Finally, i've been continuing in my viewings of Woody Allen movies, still enjoying them immensely. Of particular note is Zelig, a faux documentary about a man in the 20s and 30s who had a particular chameleon-like genetic trait, allowing him to develop the features of those around him, and therefore, blend in. (For instance, when standing next to Orthodox Jews, he grew a beard almost instantly. His skin color would even change around African and Native Americans.) it sounds absurd when i simplify it as such, but it was really amusing and interesting. A psychiatrist (or psychologist...) played by Mia Farrow is determined to help figure out his condition and help him control it. Between the lines, it's a movie about learning to be comfortable with ourselves as we are and not feel the need to conform to whatever seems to be the easiest way for us to get by. Taken on that level...well, it was a really great film.

That's it for now, i guess.

shalom, y'all!

a father's love

2010-07-07T23:05:00.000-04:00

So this weird thing happened at the gym the other day. i saw a guy, a dad, working with some free weights, and this guy looks like he takes his weightlifting seriously. i could tell because of his special weightlifting gloves and belt. he was with a kid, i assume his son, who looks...let's say 10th grade? And the dad is teaching the son the ropes - basic lifts and lifting technique. i know the son is new at this because there's about a 30-40 lb. difference between his weights and his dad's (and even i'm using about 10-15 lbs. more than him, so that's really saying something).

But the funny thing wasn't that a dad was teaching his son about lifting weights. It's that he just seemed so stinkin' happy about it. It was all acted out like a scene from a movie, but a cheesy movie where the facial expressions are so transparent that i feel somewhat confident in the story i created to go with them. The dad looked to me as if he was thinking how proud he was of his son for choosing to do this thing that he loved - happy that his son was following in his footsteps. He even pointed out some other (totally ripped) guys at the bench press as if to say, "Look at them, son. You could have muscles like that some day. You could life that much weight some day. Just stick with me and I'll show you how." But...as wonderful as that sounds, there was something off about the whole thing. Because behind that happiness and pride, i felt that i almost detected a certain gratefulness. Grateful that his son was choosing to lift weights like his old man, instead of, oh i dunno, join the chess team? take ballet classes? go to cooking school? be a member of whatever the opposite political party is? or what have you...

i'm sure the son wanted to be there, or else he wouldn't have been there (because in 10th grade, we don't do things we don't want to do, or at least not without being a jerk about it in the process). but i couldn't help wondering, what if he didn't want to be there? would that father still have been as proud and jovial?

Now i add the extra layer to this. Curiously, at the same time i was observing all of this and creating the little backstories (which again, i feel confident in, because the scene really was awfully cliched), a song by Jason Upton came on my ipod called "Come Up Here," in which there are very few actual written lyrics (as Upton has a tendency to improvise in his worship songs...like, a lot), but among them are, "Come up here, come up now/ My beloved, my beloved," which i took be a reference to God's proclamation at Jesus' baptism that that was his beloved son, with whom he was well pleased. And, without trying too hard to judge the father in my story, who i am certain loves his son very much, i could not help but see the juxtaposition and contemplate on unconditional love and wonder if the portrait i saw of fathers and sons in the gym actually displayed it. Or were those weights actually strings attached to the father's heart? Was it a conditional love? i have no reason to believe it was anything but unconditional, and i certainly hope that's exactly what it was. i have been ~~lucky~~ ~~fortunate~~ blessed to have a father who loves me all the time because of/in spite of all the things i am and love, as well as a Father who loves me even more than that! i guess when i was at the gym, i was reminded of that...and i hope that kid has the same blessing in his life, even if he puts the weights down.

What i've been up to

2010-06-27T20:27:00.002-04:00

Right. Okay. Movies. Let's go.

i've watched many more movies over the last couple of weeks than i will mention here. the ones i do choose to bring up are because of the director, others because they have a classic status i should at least acknowledge, and still a couple more that i mention because i loved them, because they had some effect, because they were meaningful on some level.

to begin with: Alfred Hitchcock. i cannot say it enough. go watch his movies. they are wonderful. i've just recently seen several from his...i think "British period" is what some people might call it. from the silent period up until about the movie Rebecca, which won the best picture oscar, and after which he got into his more famous style, with more distinct "Hitchcockian" elements, either in camerawork or other visual production values. Blackmail, The 39 Steps, Sabotage, Strangers on a Train, and Marnie are the ones i've seen most recently. they're all good, but the best are probably The 39 Steps and Strangers on a Train. To save time, i'll just tell you again to go watch them, and let the joy of them speak for themselves.

i've also continued watching several more Woody Allen movies -- i'm understanding more and more what all the fuss is about, and he's quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. it's fascinating to see him go from his earliest films, which are completely absurd (his very first, What's Up, Tiger Lily?, is nothing more than a japanese spy movie with dubbed over voices creating a new story, not unlike Mystery Science Theater 3000), to his more mature, serious works in the late 70s and 80s, taking his comedy to existential levels. i've not seen anything from the 90s, and the most recent decade saw a back and forth, hit and miss sort of thing happen (Match Point and Vicky Christina Barcelona among the successes). one of his best movies, Crimes and Misdemeanors, manages to somehow be a comedy while very seriously dealing with questions of adultery and murder and making something meaningful out of our lives, all with an underlying question of just what God has to do with it.

This all says something awesome about comedy, that one of its fundamental elements essentially is tragedy. comedy is about pain, but with a different perspective on it. either a schadenfreude thing, or perhaps just a more hopeful look at it, but it finds light in bad situations. there's something here that i haven't quite tapped into just yet, but i'll be sure to write something incredibly profound and publication-worthy when i do.

Let's see, what else? The original 1932 Scarface, a pretty awesome film noir gangster movie. it's one of those things that laid groundwork that allows us to subsequently have other things like, well, large chucks of the film noir period, The Godfather, The Sopranos, Martin Scorsese, and more.

Doctor Zhivago - 1965, directed by David Lean, who's easily one of my favorite directors. i read somewhere that he puts internal characters and internal stories onto a large scale in the midst of very externally driven circumstances. This movie's greatest strength is easily its visuals -- the movie just looks so breathtaking at times. the story, though, is essentially a bit of a soap opera about finding true love (outside of preexisting marriages, of course) during Russia's Bolshevik Revolution. so the story, while essentially trite, is fine given the feast for the eyes that Lean manages to make of it (it helps that is also acted well, with enough passion from Omar Sharif to make the soap opera elements digestible). definitely worth the 3 1/2 hours if you're looking for a movie that'll absorb your attention and lose you in its world.

Catch-22 - one of the best books ever (and definitely one of my favorites), is unfortunately just a little too immense, and takes up too much of its story inside the characters than outside them, to work well as a movie. that said, Mike Nichols does about as good a job as someone can do with it. definitely gets some of the comedy, and some of the travesty of war, and almost captures the frenetic chronology of the book, but somehow just can't pull it all together just right. i think a big part of the problem lies in the portrayal of Yossarian by Alan Arkin (a very good actor). something about the character is just too...weak, i suspect. Yossarian is by his own admission, a coward, but he stands by the sanity of his cowardliness so steadfastly and with such conviction, that one cannot help but believe him to be both a coward, but also deeply principled, and also quite the badass. in the movie...he was just kind of pathetic. so, all in all, the movie is a noble, worthwhile failure.

Finally, Titus, directed by Julie Taymor, easily one of the few true visionaries in the film and theatre world today. Aside from the fact that it is an original and exciting interpretation of Shakespeare's play, Titus Andronicus, it is visually one of the most awesome things i've seen in a very long time (except, in different ways, Doctor Zhivago). by blending Ancient Rome with Mussolini's Italy with various other historical elements, Taymor creates an entirely independent other-world, both tangible to us and distant from our own reality. She then take Shakespeare's most violent work, and puts it over the top so as to be both affecting and alienating. i am already head over heels in love with Taymor's work in Frida and Across the Universe, not to mention the stage version of The Lion King (which i believe to be one of the absolute best creative achievements in film or theater in the last several decades), and with Titus (her first film) Taymor demonstrates again that she is a creative powerhouse. We lament so frequently nowadays that we are losing originality in our creations. Adaptations of adaptations of adaptations are all we see, not to mention the sequels and franchieses. And then there's Julie Taymor, who, even when she has source material in an animated film, or a Shakespeare play, or the paintings of Frida Kahlo, or the music of The Beatles, never stoops to the level of imitation or re-presentation - she uses this preexisting works as muses for her own creative juices, not ripping them off or cheapening the value of the originals, but reworking them into something new and visceral and phenomenal. (NOTE: Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet with Leonardo Dicaprio and Claire Danes did something of similar newness and originality, but with comparatively less gravity than this film. Where R&J made me go, "man, that's cool...i like what they did there...interesting take on that!...etc etc," this one made me go, "hey wow that's....i mean, it's just....gah, that's so...!!! ...jeez, that's freaking awesome...what the WHAT?!")

Check out the trailer (with awkward Polish subtitles) HERE.

i'm not sure if that part about the "ultimate sacrifice of love" is really accurate...

but anyway, that's where i've been lately. i know, Titus could have had it's own post, keeping this one more trimmed, but whatever. If you've read this far, way to go! you get a gold star :)

peace.

Something Worth Saying

2010-06-22T22:19:00.000-04:00

it's been nearly two weeks since i last updated, i know.

i have, of course, continued to watch some good movies, too many now, in fact, to give them all mention here. i've also finished another book. i won't get into any of it right now - but i will look over the movies i've watched and determine which most deserve something on here - i just want to make sure if i say something, it's because i have something worth saying.

in the meantime, i'm considering a new name for this blog (have i already mentioned that?) and presumably along with it a new URL (for continuity's sake), and i might want a new background/template design. i feel the blog, while experiencing it's recent rebirth, did not go the full distance.

back soon.

Je ne sais quoi.

2010-06-11T17:01:00.000-04:00

i cannot explain adequately just what it is about Woody Allen movies that i find so wonderful. of course, he is well-respected (21 Oscar nominations, with 3 wins) and i'm sure plenty of critics have described why his films work so well. i, however, cannot put a finger on it. i just watch them and discover i am...well, delighted is the word that comes to mind.

A little while ago i watched one of his earliest movies, Bananas, about a youngish man whose girlfriend dumps him because there's "something missing" and in order to win her back, he joins the cause of revolution in Venezuela, a cause his ex-girlfriend strongly supports. It's already a far-fetched notion, but add to it elements like ordering 1,000 tuna sandwiches from a small diner for the rebels, Allen's character becoming the president of Venezuela after a coup, and Howard Cosell literally commentating on the events of the coup as though it were a sporting event, and suddenly the balance tips from being obscure and odd to being so bizarre one cannot help but just sit back and laugh at the ridiculousness.

Next was 1979's Manhattan, a more serio-comic movie where Allen is torn between his 17-year-old girlfriend and the mistress of his best friend. Again, a seemingly absurd premise, but this time made somehow very human in the telling of the story. Allen's tendency is to take what should be comic supporting characters, and turn them into protagonists. Imagine Dwight Schrute, strip away some of the inanity, and give him a story of his own. Allen makes these stories work. i think it wise not to get too much into my own analysis of Manhattan, in part because i wouldn't know where to start, but mostly because i think far superior writings could be found from real critics.

very soon i'll write another post on some things i've watched more recently.

(Kind of a) Book Review: Reconciling All Things

2010-06-11T16:43:00.001-04:00

i recently finished a book called Reconciling All Things. it's written by Emmanuel Katangole and Chris Rice of the Duke Center for Reconciliation. i'm not sure i have the energy or even the full comprehension to adequately summarize and explain the book right now, but i'll give you a few highlights.

First, reconciliation is not necessarily the work of vast sweeping movements and intensely organized efforts. it is not merely celebrating diversity (or ignoring it), and it is not a way to put a band-aid on problems that require more intensive work.

I was struck particularly by a chapter on lament, and the necessity of it as a discipline in the hopes of reconciliation down the road. We must recognize problems and lament their existence, finding a true desire for improvement. In order to pursue these solutions, according to Katangole and Rice, we must keep in mind certain things: we must move slowly, we must be close to the problem, and we must recognize that we are seldom (or perhaps never) truly innocent or removed from the situation. We might not be complicit, exactly, but we are not innocent.

Finally, reconciliation is the work of smaller things than we sometimes think. It is a lifestyle, not an event. i'm not sure exactly how to say it better than that. Reconciliation is in the many things we do continuously, not the one thing we all get together to do at once (though of course, these things can be good, too!).

If any of these thoughts or ideas seem interesting, i recommend getting the book to pursue it further (the authors do a better job than me) - it's a pretty short read, but it's something i know i'll be returning to eventually so that i can continue to find the implications of its message.

After reading it, i thought back to the movie Invictus. When i first saw it, i thought, "okay, that was pretty good." i also remember a lot of remarks on the subject matter - not criticism, exactly, but a certain underwhelmed reaction. A lot of people seemed to think that if there was a movie about Nelson Mandela, it would be be about his imprisonment, or his release, or his campaign for president, or his presidency.

Instead, we got a movie about rugby. But after reading this book, i look back on the movie and see it differently - yes, of course there could have been a more Mandela-based movie about Mandela, but this movie was, at its core, about reconciliation - about bringing hostile peoples together with a common cause. And really, isn't that movie much more in the spirit of Nelson Mandela than just another hollywood biopic? Surely, that is the greater testament to the man's life.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far away...

2010-06-04T15:03:00.003-04:00

Okay okay, so it's been a while since I updated this. Get over it.

Since the last post i've watched a whole bunch of movies, so let's get started.

i went through the entire Star Wars Series, in order, Episode I to Episode VI. It was really awesome. Here's what i realized: the new movies aren't that bad! Really, truly, they're actually pretty good movies. Do they have weaknesses? Of course. Especially Episode II has some pretty bad writing and an particularly annoying performance from Hayden Christiansen. But the differences between the original and new trilogies isn't a matter of quality. (The originals had some awkward writing and bad performance moments as well.) The new movies are more complicated movies. They're political, and actually a kind of smart political - they're complex and intricate. Senates and chancellors, trade agreements and armies, allegiances and betrayals. The original trilogy had a rebellion and an empire. It was one versus the other, and we were supposed to root for the good guys. End of story. Now, the new movies don't always handle their complexity well, but they frequently do. It's a different kind of story in the same kind of environment our responsibility as viewers is to adapt our expectations. Otherwise, we'll always be disappointed.

i also think i picked up on some interesting Old Testament elements to the prequel trilogy. The originals, what with their fulfillment of prophecies and tame sort of messiah figure, have some mild New Testament themes we can see if we really want them. But there was something interesting, I thought, in the way the Jedi once felt they had everything figured out with Anakin and the prophecy, only to find out they were wrong - the Republic and the Jedi were forced into a sort of exile, a decades long suffering under the evil of the Empire. It's really a pretty loose sort of Biblical parallel, i know - i'm not saying it's profound or deep or anything. But there was an overall "things get worse before they get better" thing going on over the course of the entire series and i couldn't help noticing a bit of the Christian worldview kind of thing happening.

Okay, other movies, briefly:

The Invention of Lying - cute, maybe worth a redbox rental, some really good laughs, but not exactly mindblowing.

Crazy Heart - fantastic performance from Jeff Bridges in a really good movie. Worth checking out.

Also, I re-watched Cinderella Man. I saw it in theaters, I've seen it once or twice on DVD since, but it had been a while, so I went back to it. Guys, seriously, this is such a good movie. Aside from one of Russell Crowe's best performances, and the turn from Paul Giamatti (who deserved the Oscar that George Clooney didn't), it's just so emotionally driven you can't help but be pulled in to the story. By the end, when Braddock is fighting in that last boxing match, you know what has to happen. You know who has to win, but you won't let yourself be sure. I remember watching it in the theater and being so tense, cheering so hard for Braddock to win, and I just couldn't loosen up until after the winner is announced. Then again, the same feelings, the same tenseness, even on my 4th or 5th viewing. It takes a really special movie to stir up the same strong emotions time after time. If you haven't seen it, go rent it right now. If you have, go watch it again. It'll be worth it.

As for awards and stuff - I'm still not sure how Crowe didn't get an Oscar nomination for this. It also deserved a cinematography nod, and maybe art direction as well. It might should have won the film editing and makeup awards it was nominated for as well. For some reason, the Oscar for makeup tends to acknowledge wounds and more subtle makeup for nominations, but always goes with the more over the top mask-type work for the win. Which isn't fair. 2004-2006 should have gone to The Passion of the Christ, Cinderella Man, and Apocalypto, in my opinion, but instead went to (the also impressive and deserving) Lemony Snickett, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Pan's Labyrinth. Those are just a matter of personal preference though.

Okay, all for now, be back later with some classic Woody Allen movies, and maybe a book review.

Holding out for a hero

2010-05-27T19:06:00.003-04:00

A couple days ago i watched Marty, the 1955 Best Picture winner. In case you haven't noticed, a careful blend of Turner Classic Movies and DVR have been really helping this blog out this summer.

The movie is about a 34-year-old bachelor whose younger siblings are all married, and who is getting a lot of pressure from older people (like his mother, and customers at the butcher shop where he works) to settle down, or on the other hand, pressure from his peers to continue a lifestyle of bar-hopping, or perhaps finding certain streets to see just what kind of action they could find (for a cost, surely). Well, he gives into the bar-hopping one night, but inadvertently finds a girl who had been ditched by her date. They hit it off and spend several hours just talking and getting to know each other. The next day, the same people pressuring him to find a girl have changed their minds (for instance, his mother realizes she doesn't want to lose her last child to marriage because she'd be left all alone), and his friends urge him to not waste his time on a girl they deem less than attractive enough. In the end, Marty decides that what he wants and what makes him happy are the things he should be focusing on, and calls her up. i suppose the rest of the story is the material for a different movie.

All in all, i really enjoyed this film. It taps into fears that i think a lot of college students have - that we'll end up 34 years old working a mediocre job, having still not found the one we want to spend the rest of our lives with. frankly, it's an outcome that scares me sometimes when i let it. However, there's something to be said for patience. There's also something to be said for pursuing things the right way in the first place, and another thing to be said for knowing what we are capable of and having reasonable expectations. If we stay grounded and patient, then anything exceeding expectations gets to come as a wonderful surprise! and if we stay on an appropriate path from the beginning, those disappointments are more likely to fall few and far between. The right things fall in to place as long as we push just enough and not too much in the right directions. So here's hoping that after college i can seek after jobs and a career that are right for me and make me happy, never settling for something less-than, and never taking something more-than simply because of the attraction of a pay check or a reputation. Sometimes patience, reason, and (dare i say it) righteousness can actually pay off.

We have no way of knowing where the heart is. See, every human is different.

2010-05-23T19:55:00.002-04:00

okay, i have FOUR more! but i'm going to keep it brief.

The New World - this movie's mainly about Pocahontas, a bit about John Smith, and a bit about John Rolfe later on. overall, i enjoyed it. it's a bit slow, and relies heavily on voice-over for character insight, and consider the movie is a little bit heavier on character than plot, that makes it pretty important. like with Terence Malick's earlier film (he's only made 4 in the past 40 years, with a 5th coming out this year) The Thin Red Line, i found the voice over a tad distracting because it's all quite deep and profound in its insights and i'm not sure if that is somehow pretentious, or simply true to the characters. i've seen each film only once, and feel they both deserve a repeat viewing eventually to see if they just require more effort than perhaps i put in.

All of that aside, very good performances all around, and really, truly, remarkably beautiful to look at. it was filmed (entirely?) on location in America, predominantly in Virginia, i believe, and frankly, it was a wonderful reminder that there really is a lot of beauty remaining in North American nature. we tend to forget the power of that particular kind of creation as we celebrate our cities and skyscrapers and roads, etc. i found it even a little ironic that the recent Avatar, which many felt simply ripped off the story of Pocahontas for the sake of an environmentalist nature was actually less a celebration of native cultures and the creation of nature than it is a celebration of man's ability to create those environments in computers. this movie is the real deal - several actual breathtaking images just about make this movie worth the viewing regardless of the other elements and slow pace.

Whatever Works - Woody Allen's most recent, from last year, starring Larry David (who i absolutely love with Curb Your Enthusiasm). i've only seen about 6 Woody Allen movies, but i've generally enjoyed all of them, and while he's bit a little hit or miss the past decade, and this movie in particular got mixed-to-negative reviews, i actually really enjoyed it. a little too slow paced to pull off its own quirkiness, but i felt like it was a good sort of homage from Allen to some of his own earlier works. random character reversals (the bourbon-drinking conservative Christian southern belle mother becomes a hip NYC photographer/artist), unlikely relationships, and the main character breaking the fourth wall to provide commentary to the audience that no one else can see, etc. it was fun, is what i'm saying, and sometimes there's nothing wrong with that.

While cleaning my room yesterday, i popped in a DVD i have with about 18 early Alfred Hitchcock movies, none of which i'd watched yet, and selected The Lady Vanishes. All of these movies are prior to 1940 Best Picture winner Rebecca, and therefore prior to the period when Hitchcock really started making the "Hitchcock movies" that we're more familiar with. However, while he might not yet have been an auteur as we use the word, he was still quite a talented director. The Lady Vanishes was a fun, exciting thriller with a little bit of Nazi related paranoia and espionage, all taking place in the confines of a train. It was a good time. As per usual, it's nice to see older movies that can still resonate and be a good thrilling thriller. In fact, several elements of this film were recycled a few years ago in Flight Plan, starring Jodie Foster, which just goes to show that sometimes good film making is just that, and it never ages.

Finally, this morning i watched Vera Drake. Set in 1950, it's about a mother and cleaning lady who performs abortions in her spare time. she does it for free, primarily for working class (or lower) girls who are "in trouble and need help." regardless of anyone's opinions on the issue, there's no doubt that she is doing it simply out of the kindness of her heart and a sincere desire to help people in need. Wonderful performance from Imelda Staunton (who most people would recognize as Professor Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix). It was a very sad transition to see between the first half, where Vera is such a happy bubbly person, trying to do good, and the second half after she has been caught by the police where she is quite simply a bit of a crying mess. (She was arrested due to a report after a girl gets sick from the operation, the first instance of this Vera has ever experienced, and information she is sincerely troubled by, and surely feels responsible and guilty for). Regardless of one's opinions on the issue, it was really a good film, and worth checking out for the sake of placing a human face on the issue that we don't frequently focus on.

that's all for now - maybe soon i'll have gotten through a book and i can tell you about that instead of movies. peace.

Pterodactyls Are Pterrifying!

2010-05-20T15:54:00.004-04:00

Last night was A Single Man. i don't have much to say about it specifically, except to say that it was very good and also quite sad, but not in a particularly depressing way - visually really wonderful, a lot of visual style. Some have considered it "over-stylized" but i disagree, on the basis that, well, i just didn't think so.

Colin Firth was absolutely wonderful. It takes a special performance to not reveal certain things. i found myself seeing some mild similarities to The Reader (in my opinion, the movie that should have beaten Slumdog Millionaire for Best Picture), in that both dealt with a certain kind of taboo relationship, and main characters who were trying (and succeeding) to hide elements of their pasts (being a Nazi or being a gay man whose partner had died). It was an awesome performance - restraint is so much more effective in a performance, but so much less celebrated. it brought enough gravity to the movie to balance out the stylization of the visual appearance.

This morning was the 1933 King Kong. and i'll tell you, it was really good! of course, the special effects are now almost 80 years old, so it lacks a certain amount of realism, and the acting style is now almost 80 years old, so it lacks a certain grounding in actual human behavior, but it was still an engrossing story that played out with a lot of excitement. i was especially surprised at how faithful Peter Jackson's 2005 version had been to the original. When watching it, i kept thinking, "Whoa, was that really in the original? Dinosaurs? Island people? King Kong fighting a T-REX?!?!" But sure enough, it was all in the original (even Kong breaking the T-rex's jaw bone!). It makes me want to go back and watch the newer version again now because i think it was a whole lot smarter than i had realized at the time. It essentially takes a story and movie that already works on many levels (seriously, just watch the original version, and you'll see, it still holds up in a lot of ways), kept all of the function elements, and brought the effects into our own century so we could watch it without snickering.

This movie was yet another reminder to me that if an old movie has been deemed a "classic" on one level or another, if it has that kind of reputation, the odds are that it deserves it, so go watch it!

Lemon out.

Where the part is used for the whole, the specific for the general.

2010-05-18T16:38:00.006-04:00

Okay, i have two movies already.

the first - The French Connection - 1971 Academy Award for Best Picture, i finally got around to it because i could dvr it on AMC. i thoroughly enjoyed it for several reasons. it's a cop/detective movie where Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider try to find some french guys and catch them smuggling heroine into the country. it was complex enough to merit a movie, but simple enough to not be confusing. It's based on a true story, as well, if the epilogue had any merit to it.

It had a great early 70s look and feel to it - a lot of shaky camera work, but in a gritty "we didn't really have a choice, it's a giant camera and we had to run around with it" way, instead of the Paul Greengrass, intentional nausea way (which, for the record, i also enjoy when implemented well). as with most movies made before, say, 1990, i was struck by the pace. it's slower, but never uninteresting. there are several chase sequences that go on for a decent amount of time, but the chases are frequently on foot through NYC, and frequently unaccompanied by music. that's just the kind of thing that most movies cannot get away with nowadays. there was one really great chase where a car is trying to keep up with a subway train, but it wasn't littered with explosions or anything, just a few brief near-misses and small crashes.

for 2-hour movie, a lot happens in a way that feels like not a lot is happening, and still manages to be exciting. who does that anymore? as for awards and status - i think it definitely merits its place as a Best Picture winner in the context of it's day as one of the earlier cop movies moving towards a more realistic approach to the style before the genre got copied and rehashed into attempts at box office success with less narrative integrity. i do question Gene Hackman's Oscar for Best Actor, not because he wasn't good, but because it appeared to be a fairly simple role to play - some good dialogue, a lot of passion for catching the bad guy, but frankly, i didn't see much of a "character" outside of the function of the movie. but oh well, still worth checking out for all the other reasons.

Now, on to the second movie, which i watched this morning - Synecdoche, New York:

i'll be honest, i do not have a clue how to respond to this movie. it was wonderful, fascinating, sad, crazy, a little disturbing, (very) darkly funny, and just all around a really awesome kind of movie-going experience that we don't really get a lot of these days. you have to really work to keep yourself engaged in order to follow parts (that is, without getting frustrated at the oddities), but at the same time, that's not difficult because the movie is so engaging in spite of the occasional frustration. for what it's worth, i'll direct you now to Roger Ebert's review of it. he doesn't quite make more sense of it, but he's at least more eloquent when talking about the movie he would later call the best film of the decade.

Written and directed by Charlie Kaufman (who is responsible for writing some of my favorites - Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - one can immediately expect a weird movie. but it's some how more than that - about a theatre director who wants to create a massive theatre piece with a miniature reproduction of new york, art is constantly imitating life constantly imitating art constantly imitating life constantly imitating... and on and on. it's about the performances we play as ourselves (a phenomenon i once remarked on when mentioning All About Eve), and about remembering to remember that everyone else in the world is playing themselves, and that ours is not the only story, it's just usually the only one we choose to focus on. at it's most depressing themes, it is about the utter hopelessness of our ever finding happiness because we keep delaying smaller happinesses in confidence that something better will come along. however, i simply cannot believe that is truly Kaufman's worldview, so i suspect there is something deeper at play, some irony which i can only glean from repeat viewings (of which i'm sure there will be several down the road).

i am reminded now of Joseph Heller's Catch-22, in which the central theme, as written, was something like, "The spirit gone, man is garbage." but i do not believe that Heller or Yossarian truly believed the spirit to be gone, in the same way that i believe Kaufman does not believe our lives are a truly a waste, but rather that we must work that much harder to be honest with ourselves and appreciate the goodness while it is there. at a sort of climactic scene, a character in the play, a minister at a funeral, goes off with the following (and forgive the profanity, as i am merely quoting):

"Everything is more complicated than you think. You only see a tenth of what is true. There are a million little strings attached to every choice you make; you can destroy your life every time you choose. But maybe you won't know for twenty years. And you may never ever trace it to its source. And you only get one chance to play it out. Just try and figure out your own divorce. And they say there is no fate, but there is: it's what you create. And even though the world goes on for eons and eons, you are only here for a fraction of a fraction of a second. Most of your time is spent being dead or not yet born. But while alive, you wait in vain, wasting years, for a phone call or a letter or a look from someone or something to make it all right. And it never comes or it seems to but it doesn't really. And so you spend your time in vague regret or vaguer hope that something good will come along. Something to make you feel connected, something to make you feel whole, something to make you feel loved. And the truth is I feel so angry, and the truth is I feel so fucking sad, and the truth is I've felt so fucking hurt for so fucking long and for just as long I've been pretending I'm OK, just to get along, just for, I don't know why, maybe because no one wants to hear about my misery, because they have their own. Well, fuck everybody. Amen."

is the problem here whether what he is saying is true or false? or is the problem that he has devoted so much energy to dwelling on these complexities and uncertainties that he has, perhaps, not only drained life of the joys it does have to offer, but also drained himself of the capacity for recognizing them?

Maybe Synecdoche, New York, is the town where one man is meant to represent us all? i wonder if the Whole has ever been asked how it felt about being represented by just One Part of it? i think, just maybe, Synecdoche, New York is less of a worldview expounded as the narrative of a sad life than it is a cautionary tale. but i'll have to figure it out next time, or the time after that, or the time after that, or the time...

From the Ashes Again

2010-05-17T16:58:00.003-04:00

i will attempt yet again to resurrect my blog this summer. having tried several subjects - general Christianity/faith questions, movies, books, random news and updates - i am going to try to focus this time on one thing: movies. there are several movies i am trying to watch almost all the time. From trying to complete AFI's top 100 list, to watching Academy Award winners for Best Picture, and slowly but surely checking off the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, there's always something for me to rent, DVR, or stream online.

if the opportunity arises to tie in a movie i watched with some Christian ideal, i will of course try to do that. i intend to limit my posts to older movies, those i've watched for the first time, or stuff i've not yet seen from some of my favorite directors, generally avoiding anything i see at the theater unless it was just mind-blowing enough to merit a response.

hopefully, in my movie reviews/analyses/responses, i will feel compelled to write about other things. i have a long list of books i hope to read this summer as well (a list of about 18 so far - i'll be lucky to get around to about 8).

anyway, on the great experiment - i intend to have at least 1 movie watched by the end of the day.

Oscars again

2010-03-06T13:32:00.002-05:00

So i didn't do as well as i'd hoped in my task of watching all the nominated films. Some of them i simply couldn't find. Other times my computer had some trouble with the sites i was using to watch them...trouble like getting viruses demanding my computer hard drive be replaced. There are some categories i've not seen all the nominees for, but in most of those cases, the ones i haven't seen aren't terribly likely to win anyway. Below is my list of who i think should win in the categories, and who i think will win. Here we go.

Best Picture - I think Inglourious Basterds is the best of the bunch - i think it had a really awesome commentary on the relationship between cinema and history (i.e. cinema's power to change and influence history), as well as a great genre juxtaposition by placing western style over a WWII setting. My #2 is maybe Up, but i'd need to see it again to be certain. The Hurt Locker is more likely to win, and i'll be okay with that, it is almost as deserving and does great work to place the audience in the action and the tension with the characters. If Avatar wins, as much as i do enjoy it, well that will be sad because it's simply not the best of the best this year. My hope: The Hurt Locker and Avatar split votes, and Inglourious Basterds gets enough #2's and #3's to come up in the middle and win for the upset.

Best Director - Kathryn Bigelow. She's probably most responsible for creating the tension and atmosphere that makes the film work so well. She deserves it, and will probably win.

Best Actor - i haven't seen Crazy Heart (this is the movie most likely responsible for my virus problems), but from what i hear, Jeff Bridges isn't merely getting a lifetime achievement award, he actually gives the best performance of the group. So there. i also haven't seen Colin Firth in A Single Man, though i suspect if i did, i'd be partial to that performance.

Best Actress - i'm gonna say Sandra Bullock has the edge for the actual win, and it's actually a very good performance, in my opinion. However, despite the relative inexperience, i think the best actress was Gabourey Sibide in Precious. She might never make another movie (let's be honest, she's not the easiest actress to cast...), but this one should be enough.

Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds, all the way.

Best Supporting Actress - Mo'Nique's gonna win, and she deserves it. i wondered for a while how much of it was just play acting, pretending to be mean, and then i remember some of the things she had to do for the role. For example, she had to throw a mentally handicapped little girl on the floor and call her a monster. i don't see how you can do that and not have to be giving a tremendous performance without being a monster yourself. That said, my #2 is definitely Anna Kendrick for Up in the Air.

Best Original Screenplay - Inglouious Basterds deserves it, and i think it will win because people will want to reward it in more than one category. There's competition from The Hurt Locker, though, which in my opinion simply doesn't deserve it for two glaring reasons: it's yet another screenplay with biased, limited, and all around insulting portrayals of officers in the military and that whole Jason Bourne-esqu sequence where the guy goes off base with a pistol to find that kid...it was weird. it worked for the character's emotions...but not as a plot point in the movie. totally distracting, doesn't deserve to win.

Best Adapted Screenplay - Up in the Air. Just the best screenplay here.

now on the to technicals:

Film Editing - The Hurt Locker - again, my point about all the tension building, playing on the audience, a lot of that happened in the editing room. My #2 would be Inglourious Basterds, partly because i want it to win as much as it possible can, and partly because it's a movie that understands how to let shots linger before rushing off to the next one - although that technique did work well for The Hurt Locker because it was used well.

Cinematography - i know i know i know, James Cameron invented a camera to shoot Avatar. But more and more over the past semesters i've been learning to appreciate cinematography as the composition of images and those images' effects on the audience. And i'm sorry, but the majority of the images in Avatar were created in post-production by a visual effects team, probably with the director of photography in the background saying "Oh no, more light there," while pointing at the screen. If there were a category for Best Digital Photography, i'd give Avatar that Oscar, but there isn't yet (i suspect there will have to be eventually). For now, i'm going my preference is Inglourious Basterds, and the likely winner is The Hurt Locker. For me, The Hurt Locker was just a little too shaky, with just a few too many quick zooms to really best the best. It was the best way to do that film, yes, but while it ran as fast as it could, other films ran faster. The White Ribbon was also really awesome camera work...but i think a lot of its effect came from the black and white (it did look an awful lot like a old film, with its framing and all), but that color scheme came in post, not in production...so i'll rule it out on a technicality.

Art Direction - i've heard the The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is possible the deserving winner here, but i've not seen it. i'd give it to Nine (which is a much better movie than critics would have you believe - not a great film, no, but it was good, not terrible like the reviews let on). Again, Avatar has the best chance of winning, but again, i think it's cheating. The designs are tremendous, but they were implement in large part by a visual effects team, and there's a separate category for that.

Costume Design - Again, i liked Nine's stuff best of what i saw, but the Oscar tends to go more period film here, so i think The Young Victoria has the edge over the spoiler Bright Star. The other two aren't likely.

Makeup - anything other than Star Trek is an upset, and pretty much undeserving.

Original Score - Up. gorgeous stuff, and again with Pixar, there are entire sequences that rely on the music alone to accompany the story the images create (the same reason Wall-E deserved to win last year, and was robbed by Slumdog Millionaire's just-like-every-other-Bollywood soundtrack)

Original Song - Crazy Heart - best song here, and sometimes that really is enough to win.

Sound Mixing - The Hurt Locker does some really cool stuff blending together the natural sound and effects to again work towards creating an entire atmosphere for the audience

Sound Editing - Avatar had the most to work with here and put it all together better than the other movies.

Visual Effects - Avatar. obviously.

Animated Feature - Up

Documentary Feature - The Cove

Foreign Language Film - The White Ribbon (though really, it's anyone's game, and Un Prophete could easily upset)

Documentary Short - The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant

Animated Short - Logorama (or maybe A Matter of Loaf and Death)

Live Action Short - The Door

So there's that. 24 categories, 24 predictions, plus a few places where i just said what i wanted to happen. We'll see how it goes tomorrow night.

A Brief Note on My Resolve.

2010-02-23T14:43:00.001-05:00

Oh, shut up.

Current Project

2010-02-06T19:55:00.002-05:00

Oh no! So i haven't been blogging all that much. i'm having a little bit of trouble with that particular new years' resolution. but just to keep everyone informed, i'm currently working on watching all the movies nominated for Oscars this year. i'm going to try to something for the first time this year, and that is to watch the documentaries, foreign films, and shorts in addition to all the main movies. it's gonna be a good time, and then in a few weeks i'll be able to give my solid honest opinion on what should win what.

though i can tell you now that i've seen all the best picture and director nominees, and i think Kathryn Bigelow was the best director and Inglourious Basterds was the best picture. and i'm not likely to change my mind. reasoning for both of those opinions will follow in the coming weeks.

Ken

2010-01-23T11:04:00.005-05:00

A little less than a week ago i attended a memorial service for Kenneth P. Strong, who was my beginning acting professor when i was a freshman here at UNC. He had brain cancer. It was in remission when he taught my class and for another year after that. But it came back, and the few times i ran into Ken last semester, the toll it was taking on him was growing more apparent.

When we got the email saying he had died, i wasn't entirely surprised - he had resigned near the end of last semester, so it was really a matter of time. But at the specific moment i opened the email, Ken wasn't what was on my mind, so it still came as a bit of a shock.

And then the memorial service proved, well, more difficult than i had anticipated, given the inevitability of the situation. i was struck particularly by two remarks. the first came from McKay Coble, the drama department chair. she showed a picture of Ken in character as Uncle Vanya, screaming, and explained that it was both like him - in his tremendous talent - and unlike him because the picture looked so mean. Ken wasn't mean. She said he could not comprehend meanness. Why would someone choose that over kinder alternatives? Second, i remember Ray Dooley commenting on his ceaseless sense of humor. Even through the cancer, he found ways to make people smile, seeking out the laughs to be had.

What really got me about these remembrances was when i thought back to my time in class with Ken, really thought about what he was like, and i was reminded of all these things. His enormous kindness and humor. And how he ended ever class by telling us, "I love you!" And as much as i despise cliches, i can't get over the idea that this is precisely the kind of man that i should be trying to live like. So here i am, and i'm going to do my best to understand meanness less than i do, and to always look for the humor around me and share it with whoever is close by.

But don't worry, i'll be careful out there.

Christian Students Today

2010-01-17T14:01:00.005-05:00

A few days ago at the first Intervarsity large group of the new semester, Alex Kirk told about this time he was asked to go to some place talk to a bunch of apparently important people (i've lost some of the nuances of the tale in the last few days) on the subject of Christian students today. While i don't remember what Alex had to say about Christian students today, i remember him mentioning something about the "challenges" we face. And that got me thinking. What are some of the biggest challenges to Christian students on college campuses? To the development of our own faith and to our ability to witness to other people. (i continue to be uncomfortable with words like witnessing and ministering.)

It is the second stumbling block that first came to mind - what are the things that keep us from being able to reach non-believers and seekers on our campuses?

And the conclusion i came to, first and foremost, was this:

Conservative Christian leaders on television. From pastors with megachurches on Sunday mornings, to talking heads with political ties on the Sunday news shows. (i'm always particularly struck by the irony that Christians on television come out most on the sabbath, keeping it holy in a delightful blend of the Church and the State, depending on which channel you watch.)

Using television to reach a large audience can be a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong. But there's some sort of flaw in the system. It appears that the people who most want to get the attention of the large audiences are the ones who are most extreme in their beliefs (and in the case of Christianity, that is usually a conservative extreme), and that in turn makes it so that the wider audience's primary view of what all Christians are like is directly influenced and skewed by the appearance of Joel Osteen telling us all how God wants us to be wealthy so that we can be happy (a rather interesting interpretation of the Rich Young Ruler story).

So, when us college students want to share our faith with our fellow students, not only do we have to deal with the issues of suffering, sex, pride, greed, and above all self-centeredness, but we have to do it while also trying to correct the image these fellow students have formed about where we're coming from. It's not always about saving souls from Satan.

We aren't trying to judge them just because the Talking Heads are. We aren't all discriminatory and we aren't all supporting our political opinions with our spiritual beliefs (or if we are, we at least know that they aren't always the same thing). And even if we pledge allegiance to the flag, we know that there are some allegiances that are more important.

Television has almost completely undermined any clean slate we Christian students may have to work with on the campus around us - and given the tarnish of sin, most of those slates are already pretty dirty. We have to take 3 steps back before we can ever take a step forward. And given the fact that Christianity is a religion that at its most basic level demands primarily that we love each other and take care of each other, it shouldn't be such a difficult thing for college kids trying to figure their lives out to be open to hearing about. But it is.

So in the meantime, we'll keep on doing what the apostles did. Looking for opportunities, sharing what we know to be true with the people who care enough to listen, and sharing meals with people as often as possible, because nothing is ever going to beat the impact that having someone sit down and engage with you like a unique and valuable part of God's creation can have on a person. Not blogging or reading books, not hearing sermons from men in expensive suits, and certainly not being talked at by a television screen.

Cinephilia: The disease that needs no cure

2010-01-03T17:49:00.003-05:00

Apparently, the thing that people are supposed to do at the end of the year is make a list. And this being the end of a decade, there are twice the lists out.

Now, i'm a bit of a cinephile.

cin·e·phile [sin-uh-fahyl] n. A film or movie enthusiast.

i really like movies. a lot. i watch a lot of them, a lot of the time. So i'ma give into the trend, and put up a list. here are 30 movies i have selected as my own personal favorite/best movies of the decade, divided into a few categories. it's a subjective list. all of these things are. i'm probably missing some awesome ones because i forgot. i've probably subconsciously left a few off because they're a little too obvious. but either way, if there are movies listed here that you've never seen, you should probably look them up. i own a bunch of them, so if you know me, ask and you shall receive.

The Ones You'll Probably See on a Lot of "Best Movies of the Decade" Lists:

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind*
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy* (yes, i'm counting it as one movie. because that's what it really is)
Lost in Translation
There Will Be Blood*
Kill Bill (Volumes 1 & 2, because again, it's really one movie)
Brokeback Mountain
The Royal Tenenbaums*
No Country for Old Men
City of God*

The Ones You Might See on Some of Them, Especially If It's A Really Awesome List:

The Fountain
The Pianist
Once*
The Passion of the Christ
Moulin Rouge
The Departed
Black Hawk Down
Gladiator
Almost Famous*
Gosford Park*
Finding Nemo*

The Ones That Will Probably Only Be on This List:

Inglourious Basterds
The Reader (i still believe this would have beaten Slumdog Millionaire for the Oscar if only a few people had actually watched it.)
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
Munich
Finding Neverland*
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Billy Elliot
Closer
A Very Long Engagement
Cinderella Man

So those are 30 movies that you should all go and watch right now. The movies marked with asterisks (that would be a * for those of you know them as "little star things") are members of very special elite group of the ones that stand above the rest (AKA the top 10), and should be higher on your netflix queue, which i am sure all three of you reading this are going to go change right away after leaving this page.

It's Clobberin' Time

2010-01-01T17:18:00.003-05:00

My new year's resolution: to get this thing going again.

i don't have a clue what i'll write about.

N.T. Wright is probably correct in his summation of blogging as little more than "intellectual masturbation"** But hey, i suppose there are worse ways to stimulate the organ of one's mind.

further, i'm 94% sure that not a single one of you will ever read this, so why not bother going for it anyway?

okay that's all.

peace in the new year, y'all.

**it is entirely possible that N.T. Wright never said that, and that it was said by someone entirely different, or that it was never said by anyone at all until i said it just now. i'm just giving fair warning, because fair warning is how i roll.

Checking In

2009-06-09T10:58:00.005-04:00

Wow. i thought summer break would make me more inclined to start writing on here. That turned out not to be true. See, i only like to write a blog, for everyone in the world to see, after i've somehow been challenged in my thoughts, or observe something cool in a show or a movie or a book, and then i process it and end up with a conclusion. That way, a somewhat fully formed set of ideas show up on here.

But so far this summer, i haven't been doing a whole lot. i've spent plenty of time with entertainment, watching tv shows online and movies on the DVR. i thought i had a job lined up at the Pentagon this summer, but that fell through, so i've been applying for jobs - haven't heard anything yet, but i'm holding out hope.

Since i don't really have anything to let your minds digest, here's a bit of what i've been up to:

Read:

Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman (this didn't really open my eyes to a whole lot i didn't already know about ehrman, or anything that really challenges my faith a whole bunch, which is why i didn't write a post about it - check it out for yourself, and see what you think)

Reading:

Justification by N.T. Wright (for Ben White's reading group. i'm taking part by email, except i haven't actually emailed any thoughts yet. i'm waiting for Wright to get to the point - right now, i can't really figure out what he's saying, or what Piper said, so i'm just trying to take it in as best as i can until ch. 4, which is actually about justification.)
Love is an Orientation by Andrew Marin

About to start reading:

Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides

TV shows i've been watching bits and pieces of so far this summer:

Mad Men
24
The Shield
True Blood
Entourage
The Practice
Pushing Daisies
Sports Night

i've also started reading Jeremiah and Luke, and will continue through those over the course of the summer.

and oh, i watched the Tony Awards on sunday, and i'm glad Billy Elliot did so well - i saw it in London, and it really is a great show. Next month i'll be going to the Kennedy Center to see The Color Purple and hopefully Spring Awakening. Because musicals are freaking sweet. deal with it.

Okay, that's a basic update on my summer. feel free to get in touch, ask questions about the shows or books, and please pray for me to get a job! i need both the money, and to get off my butt and do something this summer.

alchemy

2009-05-19T17:48:00.005-04:00

on earth, where moth and rust
destroy, all things we
touch turn to virus,
sour blood red orange acid,
oxidizing my iron so it can't
sharpen anything else.
like a crippled king midas,
with no one to chide us -
where was the treasure before
the gold? can't remember.
now all we see is our
reflection in a shiny shallow
surface.
and the acid virus corrodes,
and my iron heart implodes.
stop the blood pumping, the
oxidation is my oxygenation -
they're the same thing,
one's just a bit lukewarm,
but i can take it.
as long as i'm fed my acid
virus vitamins by my reflection
in the gold, i can ignore the
rust below the surface
scratching, grating, weathering
my insides,
eroding my hots,
my colds,
leaving the sludge that's
left when the steam
disappears
from this earth, where moths destroy.
where time is all our enemy
unless we're counting down instead
of up.
unless.
unless.
we give it back.
reject the virus.
spew it from our mouths,
melt our reflection in the gold,
pour it into a new mold,
white hot heat
to form a new treasure.
finding value in the rust,
the sharper insides we can trust.
stop pointing our fingers assigning
worth, stop touching
creation with out alchemy.
gold sharpens nothing but
our narcissism,
but the immune system of
three bodies is not easily broken.
on earth where rust endures
more than flesh, where flesh
itself is lukewarm, destroyed
by the acid, attacked by the
virus - but our rusty hearts,
those are the parts that aren't
destroyed. what does ruse do
to rust? nothing. but wait out
the storm, as the temperature
goes higher.
and the fever breaks, and we break,
and our hearts break. and the
dams on our tears break, and all
those salty splinters come out,
and king midas is a peasant.
and his treasure is gone.
but it took the virus with it.
and his new treasure, his plight,
serves all - the anti-biotic of purpose.
the beauty in a brown-gray
moth, the healing powers
of rust blood on its wings,
these are what midas wants to
touch - and his dirt-covered
fingers now cleaner than
he ever saw them before,
leaving the earth, learning
his worth, as moth and rust
destroy around
about outside
west eastside
north southside
but not ever again inside
his sharpened iron heart.

If I Picked the Winners

2009-02-22T19:14:00.002-05:00

i know i haven't been around in a while, but i felt like putting this up. The Oscars are tonight, and i've had a lot of trouble with my predictions. i simply don't want to admit that certain things are likely to win because there are something i think deserve it more. So here is my ideal winners list, if only i picked them. The only nominated films i've not seen are The Visitor (nominated for best actor, Richard Jenkins), Defiance(nominated best music score, James Newton Howard), and Bolt (nominated for best animated feature).

Picture - The Reader. i know Slumdog Millionaire is supposed to win, but this one really stuck with me for a few days after watching it. It actually affected me, and it's not terribly easy for movies to do that.

Actor - Sean Penn in Milk. i'd be fine if Mickey Rourke wins, but i lean just a little towards Penn on this one. i've got a feeling, though, that if i see The Visitor i might be pulling for Richard Jenkins. But tonight i'm with Penn.

Actress - Kate Winslet in The Reader. Because she deserves it, frankly. i think it's the best performance in the category. Melissa Leo is a fairly close second (and there are apparently some murmurs of an upset from her tonight), but for me, it's gotta be Winslet.

Supporting Actor - Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. Again, because he deserves it. as much as i loved Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder, Ledger is simply amazing here.

Supporting Actress - Viola Davis in Doubt. By far the most difficult role in the film, and she nailed it. i'll be okay if Penelope Cruz wins for Vicky Christina Barcelona, but Davis takes her ten minutes on screen and makes the movie work.

Director - Danny Boyle

Original Screenplay - Milk (though i'd love to see Wall-E win it)

Adapted Screenplay - Slumdog Millionaire (or i wouldn't mind Doubt, but that won't happen)

Now we're gonna get into the technical and artistic categories. Some of them are more obvious than others, but again, these are just gonna be the ones i think deserve it most.

Cinematography - The Dark Knight

Editing - The Dark Knight (Slumdog Millionaire is a close 2nd)

Art Direction - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Costume Design - The Duchess (or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)

Makeup - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Score - Wall-E. i know Slumdog is the frontrunner, but i love this score, and think it does more for the movie than Slumdog's score. for instance, the first 20-30 minutes of Wall-E have no dialogue - the music has probably half the responsibility in carrying the story along, and it does it almost without even letting you know it's there. it's such a naturally integrated part of the movie, and i think it deserves this one because of it.

Song - "Down to Earth" from Wall-E. i just like the song a little better, and i kind of want Wall-E to get as many as it can, but i won't be devastated if "Jai Ho" from Slumdog wins, just as long as it's not "O Saya."

Sound - The Dark Knight (or Wall-E)

Sound Editing - The Dark Knight (or Slumdog Millionaire)

Visual Effects - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Animated - Wall-E

That's what i want to happen. Deal with it.

acting in the wings

2008-12-31T19:22:00.000-05:00

Today I watched All About Eve, a movie from 1950 about an aging stage actress and the younger woman who conives her way into the leading lady's role. I thought it was particularly interesting that in a film all about plays and stage acting, there was never a single scene of the stage performances - we never see any part of the plays or of the acting on stage. I'm pretty sure it's because everyone gives their best performances off stage.

Basic Math

2008-12-29T14:21:00.003-05:00

i don't really get what's going on. i don't understand it.

i've been keeping up on the current conflict between Hamas and Israel, and a lot of things just don't make sense to me.

To start out, here are some things i do get:

Israel is an actual nation. It has, you know, a real army and stuff. It has national sovereignty and the right to protect itself from attack.
Hamas is, well, a terrorist group who broke a truce. They do not recognize Israel as a nation, and therefore, lasting peace is not a viable option as long as they are the dominant governing body in Palestine, so something probably needs to be done about that.
The paradox there is that Israel does not recognize Palestine, so i guess lasting peace could also not happen while Israel is the dominant governing body of...itself. Israel has the advantage in this respect though, as they are, in fact, an actual nation capable of being recognized.

here are some things i don't get:

Last i heard, there have been 2 Israeli deaths as the result of Hamas' mortor attacks. There have been over 315 deaths as the result of Israel's attacks into Gaza, which Israel refers to as self-defense. i am under the impression that attacks are typically retaliated against based on a "proportional response." That would mean, basically, a life for a life. (This is the same sort of principle that support for capital punishment is frequently based on, but that is a subject for a different post.) My powerful math skillz tell me that 315 does not equal 2; these same math skillz tell me that this response is therefore not proportional. Now, that's fine and good if Israel decides they want to handle this one differently, that's their right. And it's fine and good if each of the 315+ people dead are members of Hamas, as they are the targets of Israel's attacks. But what if they're not? We can't know for sure, i don't think, and isn't the chance that Israel may have killed a couple of innocent folks who may never have even thrown a rock at a fence enough of a reason to step back a second and rethink what has surely gone past the category of self-defense? i'm certainly not saying Israel is wrong. Actually, i'm saying Hamas is wrong. i'm just also saying that maybe Israel should maybe back off a little bit. They made their point.
All that said, i don't understand why the media isn't being just a wee bit more objective in their coverage -- i'm hearing phrases like "a truce expired 10 days ago" when i should be hearing "terrorist organization Hamas broke a truce 10 days ago" and seeing headlines like "Israel pounds Gaza for third day" and little reminder of the fact that is is a response, even if it is a disproportionate one. It's kind of like how the media coverered the democratic nominees for the presidential candidacy, except instead of Obama, there's Palestine (his supporters are like the pro-Palestine protesters: overly emotional, and probably farther removed from the problems they're talking about than they're willing to let on), and that makes Clinton like Israel (who people will accept if they have to, since it seems like there's no way to get rid of it). Is that a fair analogy? Probably not. But given the example set for me by most major media outlets, i'd say i'm still doing alright.

But oh, i don't really even know what i'm talking about, aside from my crazy idea that we shouldn't go around killing people as a way to solve problems. i mean, i guess i just haven't learned from all the other times when it worked so well! Oh wait...no, that must have been something else.

i know this wasn't the cheerful holiday blog i may have predicted on facebook, filled with tales of London and Amsterdam and skiing in the Alps, but hopefully there's still time for that. Maybe i'll even reach far back in the bag of illusions (tricks are what a whore does for money) and write about something else, like the election, or my semester or something. Who knows? No one. Who cares? How many is less than no one?

Living in a box

2008-12-20T18:44:00.005-05:00

Wow, it's been a while, blog. i've missed you.

It's finally Christmas break, and i have to some to sit and be still and contemplate the many mysteries of the universe. i had a pretty fantastic semester at UNC with the Achordants and the small group, and the friends, and the classes, etc. But now i'm home, which means i can read Newsweek articles on msnbc.com and then post my commentary here. i just took a trip to London to see some plays, and i'll be back to talk about those later, but this struck my fancy, so i thought i'd get it out of the way while i'm around.

Barack Obama has selected Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural ceremony. This has apparently upset some members of the gay community, because Rick Warren, a Christian (zoinks!), is less than supportive of gay rights. To help settle this, Newsweek had two gay writers do a sort of article debate about it - Chris Crain in support of the decision, and Leah McElrath Renna against it.

Basically, Crain insists that we look at what unifies us, rather than what divides us, claiming that Warren represents the beliefs of many Americans, including the foundational Christian beliefs shared by President-elect Obama. Renna, on the other hand, claims that by selecting someone who doesn't recognize gays and lesbians as spiritually whole people, but as people who choose to be sinners, Obama has selected an inappropriate person to be the "spiritual representative of our nation as a whole."

For the most part, i side with Crain on this. Although i understand the complaints of those who may call him an appeaser and maintain their frustration with Obama and his selection, his arguments at least focused on the unity that Obama has been emphasizing, and he calls out Renna for encouraging disunity among Americans, gay and straight alike (an accusation i have been more than happy about making towards the many many Obama supporters who have managed to live through the cognitive dissonance it must have required to actually be an Obama supporter, seeking change and unity, except for, you know, that other half of the country, eewww).

i just wanted to point out that Renna fails to take into consideration the fact that Warren very likely believes that no one is spiritually whole, and that we are all sinners because, that's sort of what Christians believe. Not that Renna went out of her way to actually talk about or even speculate on what Christianity itself actually holds to be true. She mainly just focused on what she thought. Furthermore, i'm bothered by the fact that she gives the position of giving an invocation at the inaugural ceremony so much credibility. i was a bit surprised to discover that America even had a spiritual representation of our nationa as a whole, our very own direct line to God, who must be an American. i mean, if he wasn't an American, why would it be so important to represent the entire nation to Him?

But then, i wonder who Renna would have selected as a better "spiritual representation"? Is there anyone out there is atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu out there? Also, if that person could be gay and straight, black and white (no, wait, Obama's got that one covered already), a man and a woman, American and...well, no, only American (since that's apparently all that matters to God), then will that person please stand up, because i bet you meet Leah Renna's standards for who would be best to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Or no, how about this? If you can just be a Christian who agrees with Renna's opinions on this one particular issue, then i bet the entire gay community would feel better. Kay, thanks :)

Do you see, Leah Renna? No one will ever make you happy, which actually makes me kind of sad. Your sadness is a virus, and it is infecting me, so i'm going to leave now, before it spreads further, but before i do, i thought you should know, that gaping (cross-shaped?) hole in your soul cannot be filled by a woman. Or a man. Or a pro-choice, gay-rights activist Christian. Or Barack Obama. Or debating issues that have little importance aside from what you assign to them. i hope you've figured out what i'm getting at by now because i don't really feel like spelling it out any more.

Just because you put yourself into a box doesn't mean you have to make everyone else live in one, too.

(And before anyone does try to put me in a box on this, please feel free to get in touch with me about anything you'd like me to clarify about my faith, my opinions on Obama, who i actually don't mind very much, my views of homosexuality, etc. i can't guarantee i'll have very good answers, but i'd rather talk to you about them than let you draw conclusions based on this one entry.)

Singing my song, all day long at Hogwarts.

2008-11-02T16:01:00.002-05:00

i am so bad at this lately.

i don't know why.

i partly don't have interesting things to talk about, or rather, don't have interesting things to say.

and when i do have something to say, it's frequently of a nature or pertaining to relationships in such a way that i shouldn't put it online for people to read. things more appropriate to journal entries.

hopefully i'll get on here with substance soon. maybe the election will bring something out of me.

dark/light

2008-10-09T08:01:00.004-04:00

So yesterday i walk into class and i see 4 faces behind computers, illuminated by the eerie blue of their computer screens. All the lights were off. And i wasn't sure why. So i turned them on. i wouldn't take the time to say anything about it, except it's not the first time i've walked into the room and turned the lights on. It just doesn't quite make sense to me - why would you choose to sit in the dark when the light switch is just a few feet away?

Expanding Your Horizons

2008-09-23T16:12:00.003-04:00

Today in COMM 140 (Media Criticism) we were talking about sexuality in media. There was a lovely moment when the roles in the classroom were switched and the students got to become the teachers. You see, our professor is gay and he was confused when someone mentioned the "reverse cowgirl" position. After we explained the concept to him, he was able to go home with the satisfaction of having learned something new.

Jump-starts

2008-09-17T22:02:00.001-04:00

As i sit here ignoring my homework, waiting for a friend to come over so that we can finish watching the 2nd season of The West Wing, my favorite television show, i find myself thinking about the many guest performers on the show who go on to have bigger roles in different shows. So i thought i'd take a minute to make a list of all the ones i could think of. Mostly as a cure for my boredom, but hopefully as a cure to yours as well.

Edward James Olmos, Battlestar Galactica (admittedly, he wasn't a nobody - he did get an Oscar nomination back in 1989)
Jorja Fox, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
Lisa Edelstein, House
Reiko Aylesworth, 24
Ian McShane, Deadwood
Emily Procter, CSI: Miami
Terry O'Quinn, Lost
Mark Harmon, NCIS
Felicity Huffman, Desperate Housewives
Mary Louise Parker, Weeds (again, not an unknown - she was already a Tony-winning stage actress)
Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

And i'm sure some others i can't think of right now. Not to mention some already prominent names like Taye Diggs, Matthew Perry, Alan Alda, Jimmy Smits, John Goodman, James Cromwell, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Glenn Close (later on The Shield, currently on Damages), William Fichnter (currently on Prison Break), Philip Baker Hall, and Tom Skerritt, plus Elmo and Big Bird.

It's a really cool show.

Important events

2008-09-11T10:21:00.000-04:00

So i guess i'll do an obligatory 9/11 blog entry now, this being the first 9/11 of this blog.

Someone had the great idea of assigning all the COMM 140 classes readings about 9/11 for today. Because, you know, dwelling on things often helps.

i remember 9/11.

i was in seventh grade. That was a pretty long time ago, i feel like. 9/11 happened before a lot of other important events in my life. It happened before i...

was in any major drama productions
started playing jazz on my saxophone
became a Christian
moved to Germany
started high school
traveled to Israel, Japan, or many of the countries in central Europe
ever thought about college - i was just getting out of that phase where every son wants to be like his dad and i thought i was going to be in the army

And then there's this one, which i think is a pretty big deal. 9/11 happened before i met any single person i am currently in continuous contact with, other than my family. i don't talk to, or even remember, a single person in that 7th grade civics class. When i sat there at Saunders Middle School in Dumfries, VA, calmly thinking, "Hey, i wonder if today was one of the days when my dad had to go to the Pentagon?" i had no idea that years later i would know Jon, Sarah, Bethany, Hatch, Kellie, Sperry, Dan, Lori, Joel, Brittany, Matt, Will, Mereda, Rachel, Wyatt, Kevin, Seth, or Jesus. My life is completely changed from what it was then, and it has nothing to do with those airplanes.

What am i saying? Often i am unsure, but this time i think i'm trying to make some point about how 9/11 is something completely in the past for me. As far as my own personal life is concerned, i've moved on. Was it a big deal? Yes. Did lots of people die unnecessarily? Yes. Are our soldiers still dying overseas? Yes. Unnecessarily? i think maybe so. For the life of me i still can't figure out just what we're doing in Iraq. But that's a different thing altogether and i don't know enough to get into it right now.

So let's call this my conclusion. It was stupid idea to read about 9/11 on 9/11. It doesn't enhance our understanding of media more than it would on any other day, it just combines that understanding of media with a bunch of twisted memories that for all practical purposes no longer have tangible effects on most of our lives.

Maybe i'm way off base. It certainly wouldn't be the first time., and please tell me if you think i'm being an insensitive jerk about this. But right now, this is what i'm feeling. Let's move on as best as we can. i apparently already have without even trying.

The Moral of the Story

2008-09-06T17:31:00.000-04:00

i just took a look at msnbc.com and saw a link that asked, "What can men learn from the tortoise?" My curiosity led me to an article called "Discover the Secret of Slow." This is what i learned:

Apparently, men are impatient. We want quick answers to our problems. If we take our time, slow down a bit, then a lot of things in our lives could be more enjoyable and efficient.

Oh wait, i didn't actually learn that from the article. i learned that from life and, you know, living. But i guess the guy who wrote the article decided he needed to write about it anyway. He gives all sorts of examples from slowing down when you eat (you'll get full off of less food and lose weight!), to not getting angry so quickly (because when you get angry quickly, other people tend to not take it so well!). He even took a moment to let us know that if we slow down while having sex, the woman we're with will enjoy it more - fortunately, he takes the time to remind us that if she enjoys it more, there's a better chance of it happening more often, so don't worry guys! This tip is self-serving too! (So that we're clear, i don't plan on needing this last piece of advice for a good long while - no ding-ding without the wedding ring.)

i'm just a little baffled that someone got paid money to write this article. As if we can't just look around at the world, see how fast everything is moving without benefit, and take that as enough of an indication that we need to back off a bit. We are an inherently selfish race, we want things quickly, we want them now, and we don't want to share. Perhaps that's what baffles me so much about this thing. It says, in effect, that if we don't take our time, our selfishness takes over, gets in the way, and we aren't able to get what we want. It seems to me that the solution to this problem is to be less selfish. But the writer disagrees. He thinks the solution is simply to be as selfish (if not more), but to be slower about it. Because then our selfishness actually pays off!

Wow. The tale of the tortoise and the hare has been around for an awfully long time, and this writer thinks he has finally unlocked the secret moral of the story. People think our problem is our impatience. But i'm pretty sure it's not just all in the timing. If our motivations and desires aren't pure and just and righteous, then it doesn't matter if your actions are fast, slow, or indifferent because the outcome can't possibly be the best available option.

i is just another pronoun.

2008-09-04T09:42:00.000-04:00

For a rather long time now, in my journal writing or my note taking, i have been writing the word "i" without capitalizing it. i am unsure just how this diminished literary self of mine came about, but for whatever reason i quite like it (or i probably would not continue to do it). i noticed a couple days ago, though, that here in the blogosphere i have continued to capitalize the first person singular. i'm gonna stop that too. "i" is not a proper name, it is merely another pronoun and therefore deserves no special treatment as far as i can tell by the rules of grammar. So i'm going to refer to myself the way it makes sense to me. In lowercase. And i guess i thought you should know.

A perfectly normal form of human behavior.

2008-09-02T08:37:00.001-04:00

I like to keep things on the down-low. I don't like to advertise my junk. I like to work my stuff out with a few close friends (my inner circle) and once I've worked through it, perhaps I'll relay the information to some other good friends (my outer circle) if it serves a purpose. (NOTE: these circles are not planned or intentionally structured, so their labels are the result of observation, not design. Don't get all uptight if I include you with or exclude you from a given notion of relationship.) Let's call this whole process the result of my INFJ personality.

Seth and Dack are two UNC members of my inner circle. But on Friday they both went away for a Psalm 100 retreat where they would sing songs and get to know the new members of their a cappella group. But that was okay, my circle was still unbroken.

Until Sunday afternoon, when Joel and Wyatt, who I would describe as the other two UNC members of this inner circle, simultaneously decided to go back to their homes to spend the afternoon and night with their families. Well that was all well and good, and I'm glad they got to see their families, but I had just a little bit of an existential crisis. I didn't know what to. I was a little lost, and more than a little confused. I just wasn't quite sure how to function with all four of them away from the campus at the same time. But that was okay, because I found Kevin. Kevin had been planning on going out to a friend's lake house in Hickory for the night, but did not want to drive out there alone. He extended an invitation, I accepted, and off we went to meet Andy, Joseph, Noah, and Mike. We arrived, played some Smash Bros., had us a good time.

And then on Monday, we went out on the lake. Which brings me to my primary story. We went tubing, which consists of holding on very tightly to an inner tube that is being pulled behind a speedboat that Andy is steering like a madman and (I'm convinced) actually trying his hardest to throw you off the tube. And I noticed myself thinking as I observed Kevin or Joesph or Mike out there on that inner tube, occasionally lifted from the water or swung out to the side of the inner tube, barely recovering their strength in time to climb back on a keep going, that this looks like it could only be act of one lacking mental senses. It looks straight up crazy. Why would someone do this? It wasn't particularly painful, not especially unsafe, but nonetheless, surely it wasn't quite sane. Of course, it's easy to have that opinion from the boat. Once you are actually out there on the inner tube, those thoughts of insanity disappear rather quickly and as the engines rev up, you find yourself thinking instead, "Why, this is a perfectly natural form of human behavior."

Sometimes it's the action that seems least beneficial, least acceptable, least intellectually sound, that is in reality the best action to take. Maybe it's the risk, maybe it's the adrenaline, maybe it's just the company you keep. I don't know what it is, but putting yourself out there in the hands of a crazy man driving a boat, just doing your best to hang on for as long as you can, having no choice but to trust the circumstances and other people, well, that seems like the kind of exhilaration that we don't see enough of nowadays.

Thanks guys. It was a good time.

Unfettered Men

2008-09-02T08:12:00.001-04:00

So this is the first of what I think will be at least a few separate posts about the beginning of the year. The topic of discussion is the small group biblia study I'm leading with Mr. Amazingface, Wyatt Bruton. Although it is considered by some more boring individuals to be the Olde Campus (Upper and Lower Quads) Men's biblia study with InterVarsity, we all know that it is in fact the Unfettered Men of the Hill. It was important to Wyatt and me that that idea remained a solid part of the group. So in our first meeting, we talked a little bit about what we want the group to be, sort of our vision for the guys over the course of the year. Wyatt put it best by putting it simply: we want to be a Community of Men. That capital "M" is important, and even provided the inspiration for the title of my last post, because attempting to define Man, rather than just man, is ultimately what we want to do. What does it mean to be a Godly Man, living in righteousness, following the words of Christ? Now, this may sound like the premise for an IV LifeGroup, a more topical sort of environment, but it isn't! It is a biblia study - this semester we're looking at Mark, and part of our goal is to use Christ's life as an example for how to live as a Man. Hopefully we'll find ample opportunity to create links between Jesus' life and ours, not only in terms of general lifestyle, but also masculinity and brotherhood.

But that's not all we hope to accomplish! See, that was only the "Men" part, but we're also a Community - pay attention here because this is where the Unfettered part becomes important. To be Unfettered is to be completely unbound by anything that might be tripping you up - that means that we want the guys in our group to be completely uninhibited in their love for Christ and unashamed in their love for each other. A guy need guys to talk to, to be vulnerable with. Not all the time, obviously, just when he's got a problem with his self-esteem. It can be extremely important at certain times, and we want to make sure we observe those times so that we can ensure that the members of our Community can be free from bindings and shackles and those things that can eat away at us.

So yeah. Community. Being there for each other, supporting each other, enjoying each other's company, following Jesus' example in brotherhood. Men. Stepping up, being responsible, taking action when action is called for, following Jesus' example in lifestyle and manhood. That's what we'd like to see happen. Maybe it won't happen for everyone, maybe it won't happen on the deepest levels, and that's okay. As long as we are constantly striving to follow Jesus and better understand and help and love our brother, then we'll know that in that striving, we're doing at least one thing right.

Capital "M"

2008-09-02T02:03:00.000-04:00

My goodness, this is rather a difficult thing to keep up with now that i'm back at school. There is so much to write about, I fear my face will quite literally melt with anticipation and/or otherwise excitement.

Consider this post merely a declaration of intent. I intend to relay the events of the past week or so, including Unfettered Men of the Hill, the minor emotional roller coaster that was a cappella auditions (think Busch Gardens, not Carowinds), an enjoyable trip to a lake house (which did not, in fact, involve Keanu Reeves sending me letters from the past), and perhaps a few other goodies. We shall see.

But now the hour grows late and we've tarried here for too long. Fly, you fools.

From the Top

2008-08-20T22:48:00.001-04:00

Whoa. It has most definitely been too long. A lot has been going on, I just haven't found the time to sit down and say something substantial about my own life, let alone think about any topics or issues worthy of commentary.

I moved in about a week ago and got to see most of my friends pretty quickly. I had a birthday. I've been helping out InterVarsity with a bunch of new student welcome sort of stuff, which is so much fun, getting to know the students coming here for the first time, leaving home for the first time, comparing how I was to how they are, answering their questions, and mostly just getting to know them and show them a little bit of love on a campus where it's so easy to feel lost and forgotten in the crowd. Plus, I've been preparing myself mentally and emotionally for co-leading a small group biblia study this year with Wyatt, my friend and brother. Once everything settles down in a few weeks, I think we're gonna have a solid group of guys.

My classes are all gonna be pretty tough - they'll need a lot of concentration and reading - but they're all things that I want to take and that I'm interested in, so hopefully all the work will be worth it. Here's a quick class run-down for anyone interested:

COMM 140 - Media Criticism - basically analyzing media from an intellectual rather than emotional viewpoint (reading text and articles)
COMM 270 - Rhetoric and Social Controversy - I think it's the same idea as 140, but focused more on speeches than on visual formats like film, television, print (reading text and articles).
DRAM 283 - Theatre History/Literature III - focused on drama since 1900, starting with expressionism (lots of reading, plays and text).
RELI 103 - Intro to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament - taking this with Dr. Ehrman, and I'm really looking forward to learning more about this part of the biblia, since the history often gets overlooked or simplified into "Bible stories" (lots of reading, text and basically the whole Old Testament)
RELI 401 - Elementary Biblical Hebrew - self-explanatory title, an intro level language class looking at ancient Hebrew as it appears in the original texts, not modern Hebrew, so I have to learn to read it, but not speak it. (probably the only class with more busy-work than reading)
PHYA 231 - Beginning Social Dance - basics to several ballroom/social dances, waltz, rumba, cha-cha, tango, swing, foxtrot. I think I'm the only non-senior in the class.
MUSC 211 - at the moment I'm in the men's glee club, but I plan on auditioning for some a cappella groups, and if that works out for the better (like, I get in one), I'll drop this.

So yeah, I'm looking at a busy semester, but I really do think there's gonna be good stuff happening in these classes, so I'm doing my best not to get anxious or worried about what they're gonna look like down the road.

Until something in my environment grabs me by the gut and screams out its desire for my action and input, I just don't have any commentary type stuff to write. I mean, there's probably stuff, but nothing that's really drawing me right now. So I'll let someone else do the writing for me. I read a book earlier this summer with some decent thoughts and passages in it, more of an inspirational sort of thing than a theological or lifestyle type book I was looking for, but that's okay. I found this chapter, and it did grab me by the gut, and I knew that I would be sharing these words with you here, because I knew that I wanted these words to motivate me and encourage me and exist in me as I began this year.

"It's quiet. It's early. My coffee is hot. The sky is still black. The world is still asleep. The day is coming.
In a few moments the day will arrive. It will roar down the track with the rising of the sun. The stillness of the dawn will be exchanged for the noise of the day. The calm of solitude will be replaced by the pounding pace of the human race. The refuge of the early morning will be invaded y decision to be made and deadlines to be met.
For the next twelve hours I will be exposed to the day's demands. It is not that I must make a choice. Becuse of Calvary, I'm free to choose. And so I choose.
I choose love...
No occasion justifies hatred; injustice warrants bitterness. I choose love. Today I will love God and what God loves.
I choose joy...
I will invite my God to be the God of circumstance. I will refuse the temptation to be cynical...the tool of the lazy thinker. I will refuse to see people as anything less than human beings, created by God. I will refuse to see any problem as anything less than an opportunity to see God.
I choose peace...
I will live forgiven. I will forgive so that I may live.
I choose patience...
I will overlook the inconveniences of the world. Instead of cursing the one who takes myplace, I'll invite him to do so. Rahter than complain that the wait is too long, I will thank God for a moment to pray. Instead of clinching my fist at new assignment, I will face them with joy and courage.
I choose kindness...
I will be kind to the poor, for they are alone. Kind to the rich, for they are afraid. And kind to the unkind, for such is how God has treated me.
I choose goodness...
I will go without a dollar before I take a dishonest one. I will be overlooked before I will boast. I will confess before I will accuse. I choose goodness.
I choose faithfulness...
Today I will keep my promises. My debtors will not regret their trust. My associates will not question my word. My wife will not question my love. And my children will never fear that their father will not come home.
I choose gentleness...
Nothing is won by force. I choose to be gentle. If i raise my voice may it be only in praise. If i clench my fist, may it be only in prayer. If i make a demand, may it be only of myself.
I choose self-control...
I am a spiritual being. After this body is dead, my spirit will soar. I refuse to let what will rot, rule the eternal. I choose self-control. I will be drunk only by joy. I will be impassioned only by my faith. I will be influenced only by God. I will be taught only by Christ. I choose self-control.
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. To these I commit my day. If I succeed, I will give thanks. If I fail, I will seek his grace. And then, when this day is done, I will place my head on my pillow and rest." -- Max Lucado, When God Whispers Your Name

Much love. Out.

Travelin' Light

2008-08-12T16:31:00.003-04:00

So I’m back in America, after a rather annoying trip. I’ll keep what could be a long story short. My Sunday flight from Frankfurt to Washington, DC was fine. I was enjoying my 3 hour layover at Dulles airport when they announced that my flight to Raleigh was cancelled. I had them put me on a flight to Charlotte (where I could have also been picked up). That flight was also cancelled. So they put me on a flight to Raleigh leaving the next morning, rather than that night, because the flight leaving that night was completely booked and had a long standby list. It was about 10PM when I saw the night flight to Raleigh was delayed, and I, not particularly looking forward to spending the night in the airport, decided I would try my luck with the standby list. I was the next to last person let on the plane, which left around 11PM. Through all of this I spent some of my time praying (that I would work out some form of travel plan that was safe and efficient, that I would have food and money enough, that no one would try to steal my stuff, that I would be patient and peaceful as I waited for this thing to work itself out, that my checked bags which were in some sort of airport baggage limbo would make it to Raleigh when I did, and most of all that I would avoid acting like that crazy lady flipping out at customer service because the airline wouldn’t pay for her hotel. Seriously, she needed to chill.), some of my time laughing (because seriously, what else could I do? I think it was after my second flight cancellation that the ordeal stopped being serious and started being just plain comical to me.), some of my time taking pictures and strolling the concourse, and some of my time playing rummy with this girl Emily who was in Intervarsity at the college in Michigan from which she just graduated. All in all, it was more exciting than bothersome because solving problems and working out bad situations is kind of fun for me. Weird, I know, but I can’t help it. I’ve always loved being wrong, loved making mistakes, loved being put in positions where a solution is needed and needed quickly because those are the time when I get to face challenges and grow and learn. It’s cool for me.

My sincerest thanks go out to Seth who picked me up in Raleigh and gave me a place to stay that night, and had to suffer through the many changes to the plan, never knowing just what it was he would be called upon to do until the final phone call which went something like this: "Hey Seth, I’m getting on an airplane right now. Can you pick me up in about and hour and a half? Great, thanks!" He’s a good friend and brother.

Anyway, after an incredibly deep sleep I got to have lunch with Seth and some other close friends of mine (Daniel, Joel, and Wyatt, in alphabetical order), before getting on a train to my grandma’s house. Then today I went to the mall to grab lunch and catch up with yet another great friend, Rachel White, who is amazing. It’s all been so wonderfully overwhelming to get to be back with my friends again, and it’s not even everyone yet!

As I surf the television channels at my grandma’s house, though, I am recalling a few things I didn’t particularly miss about America. There was a commercial that would allow me to have a baby’s voice singing Daniel Powter’s "Bad Day" as my cell phone ringtone, for instance, which seems to me quite simply masochistic. I also saw one of Ben Stein’s Clear Eyes commercials and I thought to myself, "This man had an Emmy award winning game show on Comedy Central. He was a speech-writer for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. In 1976 Time magazine speculated that he was Deep Throat, the confidential informant in the Watergate scandal. But boy, my eyes sure are itchy, so thank you Ben Stein for offering me this product."

Not to mention Maury. Today’s show was about married men who pay for sex. There was guest on the show who would take his video camera out into his community and catch men with prostitutes and put the videos on the web so that everyone could know what they had done. Part of me says, "Way to help clean up the streets of your community. You obviously care a great deal about the environment in which your children grow up and you’re doing something pro-active about it." Part of me says, "Seriously? You couldn't find a real job? Or, you know, a life?" And another part of me says, "What about forgiveness? What about privacy? What about loving sinners? Does this actually contribute to solving the systemic problems of men unhappy in their marriages, women unable (or unwilling) to obtain legitimate professions, and the decreasing levels of morality in society today? Or is it just a way to embarrass those men and ruin their marital relationships, put these women in jail where they probably receive no counseling or sincere examples of how to better themselves, and eliminate our cultural immorality on a strictly cosmetic, outward level without addressing the true underlying problems in the lives of these people that lead to their poor choices?"

Unfortunately, I don’t have very good answers to any of these questions, but I’m almost finished reading a book that offers the beginnings of answers. It’s called Kingdom Come, by Allen Wakabayashi. It’s basically about Christ’s more socially based goals such as missional outreach, the appropriate image/behavior of the community of Christ, etc. etc., rather than the individually based goals of living without sin, accepting Jesus into your heart, etc. etc. It’s about how we The Church need to be making a greater effort to present God’s Kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven. Once I finish reading it, I’ll be back with some of the things I like and dislike about it, which will hopefully help explain it’s premise and goals a little better than I just did.

Until then, as-salamu alaykum, and rock on in the Olympics, America!

Ameerika Can't Stoppt Me Cuz I'ma Comin Back

2008-08-09T19:14:00.004-04:00

I'm leaving the Fatherland tomorrow. I'm getting on a plane and going back to Ameerika (as it was spelled in one of my favorite graffiti messages, in big red letters on the side of a German building: STOPPT AMEERIKA!!!!!). But today I went downtown and took some pictures of old Heidelberg with my new camera. The album is on facebook.

It has been a week since my last post, which is a bit of a long time, but I couldn't think of anything to write. That is, until yesterday, when MTV Deutschland played a video I haven't seen in an awfully long time. Fatboy Slim's "Praise Him." Please please please go watch it here on youtube.

Since you've now watched it (right?), I won't bother summarizing the joyful experience that it is. It is a tremendous celebration of our freedom of expression, the emotional catharsis of dance and movement, and perhaps best of all, an example of people truly comfortable in their own skin doing their own thing on their own terms. It focuses on individuality without focusing on the individual, and therefore avoids narcissism or self-interest. It is simply the self.

That was the first thing I noticed. The second thing(s) I noticed were the lyrics. They are few, so they weren't difficult to pick out:

We've come a long long way together,
Through the hard times and the good,
I have to celebrate you baby,
I have to praise you like I should

I have to praise you
I have to praise you
I have to praise you
I have to praise you like I should

And that verse and chorus pretty much just repeat themselves a lot. So part of me wondered, hey, why can't this be a praise & worship song? I don't know. But it seems like it should be. Simple, to the point, all about deflecting attention, acknowledging the best of times and the worst of times. Looks like worship to me.

Anyway, I was particularly struck by this video yesterday, and I thought I'd share it with you.

I'm really looking forward to getting back to the States tomorrow. That is, I'm totally completely incredibly jaw-droppingly ecstatically stoked and pumped and crazy wicked awesomely excited about getting back to the States tomorrow. I mean, hey, much love to Germany, but it's been awfully tough being away from meine freunde this summer, and I can't wait to see them again.

I'll probably be here again once I get back for a sort of summer-in-review thing, tell you what books I've read, which movies I've enjoyed, music I've discovered, that sort of thing. I'm anxious to see what this year is going to look like, what relationships will form and change, what God is going to do in my life, in other lives, on the campus. I've got good feelings, and my flight tomorrow just brings me closer. I'll see you all on the flip side. Peace until then.

All children, except one, grow up.

2008-08-02T19:05:00.003-04:00

Peter Pan is a wonderful book. Madly and deeply, it contains incredible truths tucked away in its fantasy because of course, for the child in each of us, fantasy is truth. And good form is the ultimate virtue.

A Sort of a T&A Q&A

2008-07-31T17:20:00.004-04:00

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.

Bartlett/Powell '08

2008-07-27T15:08:00.005-04:00

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.

The Fear of a Name

2008-07-23T17:26:00.001-04:00

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.)

Stuck to my chair, not the floor.

2008-07-18T13:57:00.004-04:00

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.

Love is made complete among us.

2008-07-13T18:02:00.003-04:00

"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.

That Little Flame

2008-07-10T09:30:00.004-04:00

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.

Ready for Love

2008-07-06T14:08:00.004-04:00

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.

Don't Pity the Fool

2008-07-05T19:27:00.000-04:00

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.

Traveling Alone

2008-07-03T17:12:00.004-04:00

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:

"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."

So there's some pretty nifty stuff in there.

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.

The Truth is Truth

2008-07-02T16:00:00.003-04:00

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

Let The Sunshine In

2008-06-27T17:08:00.002-04:00

A little while ago Alex Kirk was blogging about trees.

He had a pretty interesting post about the difference between cutting down a tree and getting rid of its roots, the analogy being about sin – should we change our hearts or our behavior? This stuck with me for a bit so I was thinking through all sorts of questions and ideas about it. Which is more important? Which is more effective? What is the cause and effect relationship, if any? Alex wrote, “…clearly the Lord talks about the essential nature of the internal world and the need for a renovation of the heart…But on the other hand, sometimes I just need to stop sinning.” Obviously, changing our hearts is more important (and permanent), but, as Alex pointed out in his arboreal quandary, what if we can figure out what the problem in our hearts is?

All of this flowed into a conversation I recently had with a friend about habitual sin – those things we know we shouldn’t do, but keep on doing anyway. There is a correlation between sinful behavior and a sinful heart, but which do you focus on when you’re trying to grow and make a strong change in your life? Wouldn’t behavior modification be a quality remedy then? This question can only be answered efficiently on a case by case basis, but I think the solution can be found by looking at motivation for the behavior change.

If I stop sinning just for the sake of it or because my Biblia told me to, then I’m not getting closer to God, not really. My head is in it, but my heart isn’t. But at the same time, if I’m chipping away at my heart without knowing which chunk I need to chip, I could do some serious damage. There must be some sort of balance in the approach, perhaps even beyond our control, if we hope to maintain a successful fight against sin.

In some roundabout way or another, this leads me to the next movie in my little film analysis series: Schindler’s List. In case you’ve been living under a rock since 1993, it’s the true story of a Nazi factory owner named Oskar Schindler who employed Jews out of the ghettos and labor camps and was eventually able to save 1,100 of them from likely death at the hands of the Nazis in Auschwitz or elsewhere. I won’t waste time explaining how brilliant the film is, as many before me have already done that.

I want to talk about it because of the trees.

Initially, Schindler employed Jews because they cost him less money than Poles, and let’s not forget that the only reason he even wanted a factory was for the government contracts. Basically, he was a war profiteer exploiting Jewish labor. But very slowly he stopped seeing laborers and started seeing people – perhaps it was the one armed press operator who was so very grateful for his job. Or maybe the young boy who promised to learn everything he could about enamelware production. Eventually he grew a little protective. They were his Jews. He started working the system so that he could keep the ones he had, and get more. When the war was nearing an end, all of his laborers were going to be sent to Auschwitz, and he was able to open his own camp in Czechoslovakia, but the only way he could get his Jews was to pay for them. He bought them. He bought their lives because he cared for them.

I feel I haven’t been terribly clear in making my point about changing our hearts and changing our actions. Schindler went through a process. He started out by changing his behavior for the wrong reason. He saw the good in this new action, and as a result his heart changed a little. So he continued doing a good thing, but now for the right reason. And his heart became more invested. As his actions became more radically good, his heart was unable to turn away from this thing he was doing. He grew into a state where he was compelled to do the right thing because his conscience and heart would not allow him to do anything else. It was a state of righteousness.

I am not claiming that stopping the behavior is the solution to every sin. There is plenty of argument that after we change our hearts the behavior will change naturally. I agree with that, too, in certain situations. I am only saying that we can see more clearly without sin, and an environment in which we keep a steady fight against habitual sin makes it easier for us to truly change our hearts in the long run.

Roger Ebert wrote, “The power of Spielberg's film is not that it explains evil, but that it insists that men can be good in the face of it, and that good can prevail.” We have to stand in evil’s face and reject it. Whether our hearts are in it before or after ultimately doesn’t matter. As long as they get there eventually, we’ll keep standing. And in the meantime, God will hold us up.

Let me clarify that I do not intend to use Schindler to show him standing up against the Nazis or even as a savior to the Jews. I only wanted to bring this man and this story up as an example of a man faced with two choices: one potentially righteous, one potentially wicked. Which one did he pick? Which one do we?

So do we cut down the trunk of our sinful actions or pull up the roots in our sinful hearts? How much does it matter as long as nothing is blocking the sunlight?

If anyone has not seen this movie, please go out and rent it, or even better, read the book. I’d love to hear thoughts and questions from anyone reading this. As usual, I’m really asking more questions that giving answers. And when a topic is as case-specific as I believe this one is, there are bound to be plenty of valid approaches from which we can learn.

Treading Water

2008-06-24T16:22:00.004-04:00

Over the next week or so, there are several movies I plan on watching and then writing about. I'm not sure why, but there are couple that have been on my mind lately, and I feel like there is a lot that can be said about and learned from their stories.

So I'm going to start out tonight with Titanic.

I recently watched Titanic for the first time in a long while. I first saw it sometime in high school, I think in 10th grade. I was not allowed to see it when it came out, unlike nearly everyone else in my 3rd grade class, because my parents are from an extremist over-protective sect of parents who irrationally believe it is not okay for an 8 year old to see breasts and floating human popsicles on a giant screen. What's up with that? It doesn't matter, though, because I have seen it now. And you know what? It's a really good movie. It bugs me that it has such a bad reputation nowadays. Of course, I understand why it does. I mean, not many people remember much other than the drawing scene and Leo screaming "I'm king of the world!" But that's a shame. I was recently talking to a friend about this movie, so I'm gonna relay some of my comments from that, but first I need to explain something else.

I have always been drawn to depressing movies. I think this is partly because I have a high tolerance for depressing events in cinema. Death does not scare me or bother me, and it never has. Violence on screen doesn't make me cringe because half of my mind is thinking about the make-up involved. I just don't get as uncomfortable during sad things as other people, and I certainly never cry during movies, with one exception, which some of you already know is The Fox and the Hound (and I challenge anyone and everyone right here and now to try watching that old woman leave the fox in the woods, saying, "Goodbye may seem forever, farewell is like the end. But in my heart's a memory, and there you'll always be," without crying just a little bit).

But I digress.

That's why I dont' have a problem with depressing movies. But that's not why I'm drawn to them. I believe that learning by example works best when the example is of how not to behave. In a sad/traumatic/depressing movie, usually there is a string of events leading to some tragic conclusion, except we (the audience) see the ignorance of those events and the human choices behind them. We see just how avoidable those tragic consequences are. And then it drives us crazy that such horrible things can grow from such simple mistakes. I believe it is fair to say that the greatest sin is Pride, or, because technically no sin is greater than another, it is at least accurate to say that nearly every other sin is rooted in Pride. Pride says that we can do things better than God, and it makes us want to try things on our own just to prove that we can do it better than God. It spurs competition among brothers, wars between nations, arrogance, greed, and condescending hatred. Pride leads us to reject God and his ways. And when you take Jack and Rose out of the picture, Titanic is a tremendous example of human pride leading to a devastating end.

The little hints of Pride are dropped all throughout the film, from Rose's comment about the male preoccupation with size, to the importance of making headlines with the speed of the ship, to the assumption that an iceberg will be noticeable enough to avoid. We see the pride growing as we see the fall coming. And then the fall comes, and you say, "You fools, you could have stopped that crash." And then the movie continues, and only at the end of the sinking do we see that even we were premature because those bodies are out there floating, most of them half-frozen. And we say to ourselves,"We fools, we thought we learned the lesson already, that pride leads to the fall. But even we couldn't see past that. We couldn't see the consequences." But there they are, the consequences, all 1,600 of them. And the toll that pride took is clear.

There is, I think, an image from a single shot that sums up my point. It comes when about 1/3 of the ship has dipped into the water, and for just a couple seconds, the camera steps completely away from the action. We see a wide shot not of the people, or the ship, but of the Atlantic Ocean. We see the black sky at the top of the screen, just below it the wide horizon, and in the middle of the screen, rather small, there's this thing that looks kind of like a rowboat. It's just sitting there, a little crooked, and some of the lights are on. Then it looks like a spark flew out, like an ember popping from a fire, and you realize that it's a flare. And for a few brief moments all we see is this boat surrounded by a blackness that stretches out in all directions. We see now that however titanic that ship Titanic looked when it was docked, out there it's barely a canoe.

You see? We think we build unsinkable ships all by ourselves, but as soon as we try to take that out on the water, the darkness takes over, the ship starts rocking like a catamaran in a thunderstorm, we're tossed out, and that water is so cold. We could swim for a lifeboat, except in our pride, we forgot to build enough, and now we have to use all of our energy to tread water for hours on end. And so we are alone, cold and growing weak in the dark.

That's what Pride does. I think that's what the story of this event has to teach us, and I think that's what truly makes the movie so heart-wrenching. Sure the love story is romantic and tragic, but we've seen the Lady fall for the Tramp before. What breaks our hearts is seeing all those Ladies leaving all those Tramps out in the water to die because they're afraid of getting their own boats rocked a little.

If you haven't watched this movie in a while, try checking it out again sometime. Try keeping a few of these things in mind, not as any sort of authority on the film's analysis, but as a different outlook, a new perspective. And remember, depressing movies aren't made only to make us cry, they can make us learn, too, but only if we can see through the tears and find out what's really causing them.

I'm gonna leave you with some of Jesus' words about who should be building our ship:

"They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (Matthew 23:5-12, ESV)

Happy sailing.

Tomorrow

2008-06-22T14:46:00.003-04:00

I got that job I was hoping for. I prayed on it, and God, with the help of some people working the phones, delivered for me.

I finished Mere Christianity. I actually had trouble putting it down. Several passages really stuck out to me, but I'm not going to put them up here - read it for yourself and find your own passages. I will say that his explanation of the Trinity by explaining the process of prayer is simple, elegant, and among the finest explanations of the Trinity I've heard or read. I am still going through American Pastoral, and started When God Whispers Your Name by Max Lucado (seriously, how do you pronounce that guy's name?). It's designed as more of an inspirational read, I would say, rather than a theological one, but that's totally fine with me, and he has been saying some good stuff - more like healthy reminders than some intense study. We never know how God is going to talk to us, our temporary life, things like that, and emphasizing the personal nature of our relationship with God and Christ, so that we don't get lost in with the crowd. It's worth picking up if you want something a little more low-maintenance.

I have now seen every episode of The West Wing, my favorite television show ever. Please do yourselves a favor and follow these instructions:

1) Find a copy of Season 1 at your local library or entertainment store
2) Watch.
3) Upon completion, find next season and repeat step 2.
4) After 7 seasons, repeat process in full.

I promise you won't regret it.

What's next?

Someone buy me a short plaid skirt and knee-high socks.

2008-06-19T18:01:00.003-04:00

I have been giggling like a young schoolgirl periodically throughout the day.

Do you want to know why I've been giggling like a young schoolgirl?

Well, I'll tell you. It's because I got the 7th season of The West Wing from my community library today, and I've been watching it. Hee hee hee hee hee!

So the other day I overheard a conversation among some Christian high schoolers I know:

High Schooler #1: If you were a professional photographer and a gay couple asked you to photograph their wedding, would you do it?
High Schooler #2: Probably not.
High Schooler #4: Yeah. Because you don't wanna look like you're supporting gay marriage.
High Schooler #1: Well, but it's not really supporting it. I mean, supporting it would be like making the cake or something. You'd just be photographing it.
High Schooler #2: But still, we shouldn't support gay marriage.
High Schooler #1: I don't really understand how you could be showing God's love, though, if you said no.

(High Schooler #3 was silent on this issue.) I believe #1 redeemed herself for the ridiculous cake-making comment with her observation about God's love. I fought the urge to insert myself into the conversation, but from what I could tell, the deeper question (which I'm sure none of these students quite grasped immediately...except for maybe #3 in his silence) is whether/when/how we show God's love, and whether/when/how we show God's judgment.

For me, the answer is simply that God does not empower us to show his divine and perfect judgment and it is therefore only his to show. We would surely only muck it up. However, God does empower us - indeed, he commands us - to show his love. So though I may agree or disagree with the event itself, I would not run a straight-weddings-only photography studio.

I might even open up a bakery next door.

Much love.

Fruit flies like a banana.

2008-06-18T18:59:00.006-04:00

Sadly, I have very little to say which is deeply profound tonight. Actually, probably nothing of that nature at all. Just a brief update, mostly about some movies and books.

Earlier today I watched a film from Senegal called Moolaadé. It is about a woman who refused to allow her daughter to go through the tribal "purification" ceremony. That is, female circumcision. As a result, a few years later 4 young girls come to her home seeking protection, or a sanctuary, invoking the right of moolaadé. The woman does not refuse the girls, and must stand up to the tribal leaders, both the men in charge and the women who perform the ceremony, in order to protect them.

Please understand that I generally hate using clichés (and seeing them used), but this really is a powerful and moving film. Yes, it goes a little turbo-feminist at the end, making it's point very (very) clear. And usually I hate it when movies or books get obvious (this is the reason I continue to put off reading Orwell's Animal Farm). But there are exceptions to every rule, and sometimes a point simply needs to be obvious, for although no counterpoint truly holds any validity, that counterpoint is so often the standard. For more information about female genital mutilation and the efforts to stop it, check out http://www.equalitynow.org/.

Also, I strongly recommend checking out The Triplets of Belleville (that's a link to the trailer), an insanely quirky French animated movie. Don't worry about the language barrier, though, because there's almost no dialoque in the entire 80 minutes. I can't really explain why it's so cool or appealing, only that it is. The only thing more I can do, I think, is refer you to Roger Ebert's review of it, which also recommends without explaining why, but does so more eloquently than I can.

I finished reading Pride and Prejudice, which was enjoyable in spite of my Y chromosome. I then backtracked to American Pastoral (I posted a passage from it here), and I'm going to finish it this time. It's kind of like Pride and Prejudice on a really bad acid trip - everyone's dysfunctional, no one listens to anyone else, and just for fun, there's a little bit of radical youth terrorism thrown in. I'm also into Mere Christianity, which is so far much easier than I expected it to be - I thank J.I. Packer and Knowing God for what I believe was a very good preparation for this and whatever other more dense works I read in the future.

By the way, at the moment it's looking like that job I was hoping for at my community theater isn't gonna work out, due to system errors I don't feel like getting into. There is still hope, but there's a good chance I could end up bagging groceries for tips this summer. Which, given my desire to do something actually productive with myself this summer, will be absolutely *insert sarcastically optimistic adjective here.*

That's it for now. Thank you Dack, Jon, Ian, and K-Barge for being online (and just for being cool).

Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

2008-06-15T15:30:00.007-04:00

I finished watching the TNT miniseries Into the West today. It's about the American conquest and colonization of the western territories from 1825-1890, focusing on two fictional families, one white and one Native American, over their generations.

And do you know what? We screwed the Native Americans...monumentally.
We never viewed them as people or human beings, only savages. I'm not entirely sure what I mean when I say "we." I'm fairly certain I don't mean "the white man," even though it was mostly white men doing the screwing. I mean, the whole situation was due in large part to the notion of manifest destiny and the expansionist campaigns of the government and military. But the problem was more deeply rooted than policy.

When arrogance and ignorance are combined as the driving force behind an entire nation's skewed sense of destiny, what hope can there possibly be for the ones who stand in the way?

Tonight I also watched Bobby, the movie about the people in and around the Ambassador Hotel the night Robert Kennedy was assassinated. At the end, over the images of people's immediate reactions to Kennedy being taken away in an ambulance, plays the recording of one of Kennedy's final speeches, delivered in Cleveland, Ohio, on April 5, 1968, the day after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination. I've put the text below, or you can watch the scene from the movie here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On the Mindless Menace of Violence

This is a time of shame and sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity, my only event of today, to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.

It is not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one - no matter where he lives or what he does - can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.

Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by an assassin's bullet.

No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of reason.

Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence - whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded.

"Among free men," said Abraham Lincoln, "there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their cause and pay the costs."

Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far-off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire whatever weapons and ammunition they desire.

Too often we honor swagger and bluster and wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others. Some Americans who preach non-violence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of inciting riots have by their own conduct invited them.

Some look for scapegoats, others look for conspiracies, but this much is clear: violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation, and only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul.

For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is the slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.

This is the breaking of a man's spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man among other men. And this too afflicts us all.

I have not come here to propose a set of specific remedies nor is there a single set. For a broad and adequate outline we know what must be done. When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies, to be met not with cooperation but with conquest; to be subjugated and mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community; men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear, only a common desire to retreat from each other, only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force. For all this, there are no final answers.

Yet we know what we must do. It is to achieve true justice among our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.

We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of others. We must admit in ourselves that our own children's future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge.

Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we cannot vanquish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

But we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't think of a better conclusion to this whole violence discussion I've been having on and off this slate than with these words, surely among the finest ever spoken. Although Kennedy does keep his message mildly restrained within the American borders, I believe his sentiments are universal nonetheless. I am sure this conversation is not done for good (indeed, I do not wish it to be), but I hope that if anyone wants to keep it going, they can perhaps look to this speech for a "broad and adequate outline" of what we should look like, a foundation of basic human dignity.

Now, moving on.

Today in church a woman introduced her husband and son, explaining they don't often join her because they "are a mixed religion family: Protestant and Catholic." I found this amusing. I won't explain why, just in case you don't get it. I wouldn't want to spoil it for you.

When we sang the Doxology, an ambulance drove by. It is very difficult to sing the lyrics "praise God from whom all blessings flow" as an ambulance is rushing someone to the ER. For my musically inclined readers, know also that it was made more awkward by the fact that German ambulance sirens are based on a tritone - they alternate the notes of an augmented 4th. Imagine that playing over the oh-so-consonant Doxology. It was difficult on my ears and my heart, but it was definitely an interesting way to put the lyrics and just what God's blessings are into perspective. My vocal muscle memory kicked in, so I was able to sing along and think a prayer for whoever was in that ambulance at the same time. It was an interesting conflict of interests thing, but I'm sort of glad it happened. Like I said, a little perspective is good. We don't have to put ourselves in danger in order to not be safe.

Then the chaplain gave his sermon. Which was awful. Seriously, it was terrible. His central message was that Jesus wants us to go out and witness to people. Really. That was about all he was trying to say. He took 30 minutes trying just trying to explain that, and in the process, I'm pretty sure he said that the people who followed Jesus were "caught up in the moment," which to me makes it sounds like Jesus was some sort of fad. He also made it seem as though Jesus did not have compassion for anyone until later in his minstry. Earlier on, you see, Jesus enjoyed his solitude, until one day he suddenly saw the multitudes and was overcome with compassion for the harrassed and helpless, so he sent his disciples out. And let's not forget he was able to mention both John 3:16 and the armor of God, which, despite their importance which I do not deny, are probably the two biggest cop-out preaching references in the Biblia. It just wasn't very good, and I'm not sure I can keep going on Sunday mornings. What's the point of going to church if you don't get anything out of it?

Anyway, that's been me lately. By the way, I finished Knowing God. It was an intense study, but I definitely want to go back to it sometime. I jotted down a few of its basic foundational ideas, but I don't have that paper on me. Just check it out if you get a chance, you won't regret it. Once I finish Pride and Prejudice (hopefully sometime tomorrow), I'll be back into American Pastoral so I can maybe finally finish it, and I'll start Mere Christianity. I also want to get a hold of some foreign films at the library I haven't seen. Moolaade, The Lives of Others, Nowhere in Africa, The Triplets of Belleville, Joyeux Noel, Pan's Labyrinth (which I have already seen, but want to see again), The 400 Blows, and maybe some Akira Kurosawa stuff that I really should get around to.

That's it for now. As always, send me your feedback if you have any.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

Eternity in the hearts of men.

2008-06-12T11:24:00.008-04:00

This is long, but I’m not apologizing for that this time. Please stick with it because I would love your help.

I have been reading through several Old Testament books over the past week or so, the short ones near the end, starting around Joel. For the most part, they offer similar messages about God’s frustration with Israel, who rejects him in favor of their own pleasure or idols (I’ll get to that very briefly in a bit). In these books there is a massive amount of violent imagery, nations conquering nations, God conquering nations (many times with the sword), etc. Much of this is presented in reference to a “day of the Lord” (variations could be the day of the Lord’s wrath, the great day of the Lord, or simply the day of Judgment). Now, it is about this “day” that I have been thinking about a lot lately. Which day does it refer to? Does it mean simply and solely the Rapture, the Judgment? The Finale Ultimo? Or could it mean other days? Before I elaborate, let me give you some background into my thoughts on this Godly violence, as briefly as I know how. (As you read, keep in mind that when I say violence, I am typically implying a fatal violence, or killing.)

A few weeks ago I started talking with Dack about his blog entry about redemptive violence – how societies often justify violence or war by explaining how it leads to a greater good. Societies today often respond to violence against them with violence against their offenders because that will ultimately prevent future violence. (After several millennia, the world still has violence, and this apparently isn’t a good enough indicator that this policy of redemptive violence probably doesn’t work.) Well, Dack also mentioned some things about why Christians should carefully consider military service because it may require them to kill, and Jesus tells us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. And how can we love people by killing them? I agree with this from the perspective of an individual Christian, but because my father serves in the military and I have grown up around it, I have a slightly different outlook on this particular subject than Dack does, so in response to his statement, “I would die for Jesus, but I wouldn’t kill for him,” I pointed out that service members join the armed forces to die for a cause, and not to kill for it, even though killing sometimes is involved, but the bigger issue is really how states use their militaries. Clearly, as America is officially a secular state, we cannot disassemble our military (particularly not on religious grounds), for it does provide protective services for us, whether we believe in Jesus or not. So my opinion is that if our government uses our military as a predominantly defensive force, whose only outwardly directed actions were based in aid efforts of a largely non-violent manner (it is simply irrational to tell a soldier that if he is shot it, he should turn the other cheek, which I why I say largely non-violent), and if we did not put our troops in a position where they would have to be aggressors applying needless violence, then perhaps we would have less trouble grappling with this subject as Christians. And this is unfortunately the best point I could come to in terms of how a state should act in light of Jesus’ teachings.

Most of that discussion took place before I started reading through the end of the Old Testament. Now, these books all have essentially the same message: Israel rejected God, God threatened them with punishment/God punished them, Israel repented, God blessed them again. (I apologize for that very simplistic summary of pretty much the entire tail end of the Old Testament.) Now, God did use violent forces here, and he allowed Israel to use violence against their oppressors when they were again in God’s favor. But through all of this, God emphasizes the first person, constantly explaining that he is the one running the show, he is the one dishing out the punishment, and that man is only an instrument of his wrath (and even this is rare).

But whenever God threatens punishment, he does so in extremes, and in the context of what is called “the day of the Lord.” Here is an example of this day (God is speaking in quotation marks):

“The great day of the Lord is near – near and coming quickly. Listen! The cry on the day of the Lord will be bitter, the shouting of the warrior there. That day will be a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day or darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness, a day of trumpet and battle cry against the fortified cities and against the corner towers. I will bring distress on the people and they will walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord. Their blood will be poured out like dust and their entrails like filth. Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the Lord’s wrath. In the fire of his jealousy the whole world will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live in the earth.”

Gather together, gather together, O shameful nation, before the appointed time arrives and that day sweeps on like chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord comes upon you, before the day of the Lord’s wrath comes upon you. Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility, perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the Lord’s anger. (Zephaniah 1:14-2:3)

Pretty intense, right? And even if they do seek righteousness, there is still only a chance that perhaps they will be sheltered. But Zephaniah in particular really got me thinking about this stuff, trying to join all of my idea bubbles into a single thought. The most obvious thing this day could be is the day of Judgment, the Rapture, the Second Coming, etc. Except, well, that day hasn’t come yet. Plus, it’s a little weird for God to be talking about the final judgment around the time of the second coming, when there hadn’t even been a first coming yet. Then I started thinking about all the people who have already died – what is the “day of the Lord” for them? Have they already experienced it? (The idea that perhaps they had not is the first thing which has ever made me take the notion of purgatory and its existence seriously.) So my mind is going crazy with a bunch of winged keys flying around inside it, and I can’t find the one that’s gonna help me open the lock.

I thought more about Jesus, and what his life and death meant, and I put it in terms of what he brought the world that it had not had previously, and what came to me was that with Jesus we are offered eternal salvation, and without him we are condemned to eternal damnation. This sense of the eternal, the afterlife, judgment after death despite your life, rather than in death because of your life, is really amazing to me. I find it so wonderful to search my heart and know that I believe that God’s Kingdom is waiting for me, not because I think about it but because I can simply feel it; it is true that God has set eternity on our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11). But I’m not sure that inner-knowledge was always naturally part of the human condition – at some point there was a human mindset of living for God’s blessing on your life, and then there was a mindset of living for God’s blessing on your death. And when was the day that this change occurred? Well, I think there are kind of three of them, all interconnected, and which one to put the most weight on, I am not sure.

First, there is the day Christ died for our sins. This is when the change actually happened, when the offer of salvation became present.

Second, the day when we realize that we have that offer and choose to accept – the day of our own conversion is surely the day of the Lord in our individual lives, right?

Third, the day of our death, when we as Christians are accepted into the God’s Kingdom, or we as shameless sinners are cast out of God’s presence forever. For those who do not live to see the final judgment, isn’t this judgment what takes its place?

This was all ringing strongly in heart. So where I’m kind of at in my thinking at the moment is here: Because we have an offer of salvation that the people of the Old Testament did not, we no longer need to look at our life on earth in terms of God’s blessings or curses, but instead look at our afterlife in those terms. (Note: I do not mean to diminish the importance of our deeds or God's blessings in this life.) Therefore, violence is no longer - or should no longer be - an issue. God does not need to take out his anger in violence, or at least not physical violence among men, for there is a great punishment awaiting those who reject him, whereas in the Old Testament, God’s people were a smaller population, and they were physically threatened from all sides, and God had to protect them in ways necessary for the times.

But faith after Jesus is no longer about states, it is about people, individuals, disciples, kings, peasants, brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers, lovers, soldiers, men, women, children. It’s about sinners. And the shift in the focus of faith to be about people is what Jesus was all about - it was also part of the change he made. Love one another.

I know I haven’t been wonderfully clear in why or how I perceive a shift in violence between the Old and New Testaments, not as clear as I meant to be, anyway, but probably about as clear as I expected I would be. But let me be clear about this: I do not believe there was ever a day in which God was comfortable with humans exerting violence upon other humans. I believe there were times when he accepted it as a necessary function for the survival of his people in the world he created, but from the day Cain slew Abel, I believe God has hated murder. I think that this leads to at least part of the reason he sent us Jesus. This was the beginning of his effort to change the world he created so that violence on our part no longer would be necessary for survival in it. Jesus taught us about love and encouraged us to show it, so that the 6th Commandment would be merely a redundancy in our hearts and minds. If violence was ever an acceptable tool for the use of mankind, it ceased to be so, and I doubt very much that God would choose any more to use mankind as an instrument in his own forms of holy judgment, whatever those may be.

Please to not misunderstand me to be a total pacifist, as I am referring mostly to killing in this writing. There are, I believe, understandable examples of ‘”tough love.” For instance, if I discovered that a friend of mine enjoys recreationally smoking crack on the weekends, I would very likely punch him or her in the face if it would help him or her better see his or her stupidity. Please, also, do not take me to be against the military, its existence, its members, or its functions, as I am the complete opposite. I feel that when it is used responsibly and appropriately, good things come of it and the use of needless and impractical violence or killing would be diminished greatly. Sadly, I am not sure we have seen this done on a large scale since WWII (that is, the part of WWII before that whole nuclear bombing thing). I completely comprehend why many feel the desire or calling to join the armed services, Christians included, but I cannot help but find it unfortunate that they are subject to being used irresponsibly and inappropriately, and therefore become tools for needless violence, rather than against it, and it is this danger that I think that Christians must take into account in their consideration of military service. That for them, in some circumstances, sin would not be the result of a choice, but of following an order, and that their job itself requires the asking of God’s forgiveness. (I do not wish to put words in his mouth, but I believe this is essentially the point Dack was trying to make in his original statement about Christians joining the military. Is that fair, Dack?)

Mostly, I think we need to ask ourselves an important question. Do we truly believe that God has the authority over the world? Because if we do, we should also realize that he does not need our help in running it. We are only the caretakers, and our job therefore is to do what he tells us, to take care of the earth and its people, not destroy them.

Now, this has all come out with a far more liberal and overall political slant to it than I had intended, and I fear that readers may read incorrectly between the lines and end up making untrue inferences or assumptions about me and/or my other beliefs and/or opinions on matters. I encourage those of you who have gotten this far to please contact me with responses, questions, requests for clarification, comments, concerns, etc. I would seriously love and appreciate any and all input (especially from scripture!). I am working through all of this in my head still, and when I say something like, “I believe…,” please understand that that belief may change quickly and easily depending on the argument against it. If I ever sound as though I am trying to provide you with an answer to a question, I ask you to read that “answer” only as a new question. Pretty much all I’m trying to do here is ask questions, get feedback, start discussion, and maybe figure some stuff out down the road.

A lot of this is based in an argument between my head and my heart, between my views on the state and my views on the individual, between my views on America and my views on the rest of the world, between my views on Christians and my views on other religions. There are several layers going on here. It’s like an onion. Or a cake. Or a parfait. But mostly I think it’s like an onion, if for no other reason than the rotten smell.

The hills were alive

2008-06-07T15:15:00.024-04:00

I got back today from a week travelling with my parents, an aunt, and an uncle. It was plenty of fun, and I love getting around Europe, but by the end of the week, I was definitely missing facebook, as I had no internet access all week. I want you to know what I was up to, so here is a day-by-day summary of what we did with a few pictures. I’ll strive to keep them brief.

Saturday

We started by driving down to Dachau, the first of Nazi Germany’s concentration camps. Now, this was not a death camp like Auschwitz, so people were not sent here specifically to be killed in the gas chambers or otherwise. It was a labor camp, so people were sent here to be separated from society and to work. There are furnaces for body disposal, but as I said, they were used in quite the extreme manner as at other camps.

Above Top: One of the infamous "Arbeit Macht Frei" gates - translates as "Work Makes Freedom" or more practically as "Work Will Set You Free"
Above Bottom: Stones laid on the marker of the location of one of the prisoner barracks and on an Israeli flag. The stones are a Jewish form of memorial - remember the end of Schindler's List? The stones on Schindler's grave are still there, as I'm sure these will be at Dachau for a long time as well.

Below: Some of the furnaces used to cremate dead bodies.

We then progressed to Munich, home of Oktoberfest and a very large, very old beer hall, the Munich Hofbrauhaus. The smallest beers they serve are 1 liter. I finished mine, a dunkelbier (dark beer – tends to be heavy and a tad bitter), and I was proud.

Above: Before, Below: After

The Hofbrauhaus was just a stop, and after finishing our drinks, we drove on to Berchtesgaden in old Bavaria, right near the Austrian border. For those of you who may not know, Berchtesgaden was a sort of domestic capital city for the Hitler and the Third Reich. I suppose Munich is the political capital, Nuremberg is the propaganda capital, and Berchtesgaden is where the Nazi Party’s upper echelon got together to talk Jewish problems, final solutions, and the crisp Alpine weather over drinks.

We got to the hotel, ate dinner, and called it a day.

Sunday

We started the day by walking around a bit in the center of Berchtesgaden, checking out the beautiful Bavarian buildings, and enjoying the view of the mountains. That’s thing about the German countryside. It’s not just like that in tourist towns. It’s like that everywhere. Be it the Alps, the Black Forest, or just any agricultural region with farms and fields as far as you can see, it’s not just like that for postcards. These people live in it every day. We also went through an old Catholic cemetery. There were memorials for soldiers from WWI. They treat their dead so much differently here. It's not like an American graveyard with flat stones, names and dates, and plastic flowers to keep it presentable since it's gonna be a while until we visit them again. These are beautiful, solemn places, with green grass, fresh flowers and candles. There is love and respect, a sense of history and family and bloodlines. There is peace.

Above: the cemetery, Below: a more recent burial

Then we went on a tour up the Obersalzberg, the mountain where Hitler and other top Nazi officials such as Hermann Göring and Martin Bormann all kept their homes and underground bunkers, and on top of which sits The Eagle’s Nest. The Eagle’s Nest was a sort of getaway for Hitler, except he only ever went there about a dozen times and only for meetings. Plus he was afraid of heights. We went to the Eagle’s Nest, which was definitely cool, but a little eerie. To know that you walked around the exact same floor as Hitler, rode in the exact same elevator (because it is the original elevator). It’s the same feeling I got when I went to the Nazi parade stadium in Nuremberg and stood exactly where Hitler did when he led rallies. It’s a little weird.

Above Top: The Eagle's Nest, Above Bottom: Hitler's Eagle's Nest dining room

Below: view from the top of the mountain

Monday

Went to Salzburg, Austria, where Mozart wrote a bunch of music, and where The Sound of Music took place. At my mother insistence, we went on The Sound of Music Tour, which shows you sites where they filmed, and fills you in on some of the actual history of the Trapp family. It was cheesy, yes, but enjoyable nonetheless.

Above: Shots from Salzberg's Mirabel gardens where the cast and crew shot the final scenes of "Do-Re-Mi"

Then we wandered around some, and looked at some old buildings, but nothing that really got me all that excited.

Tuesday

Woke up and drove to Venice.

In many major European cities, they have officers clubs/hotels where their military officers can stay when they’re in town. London, Paris, Rome, they all have them, and so does Venice. And because my dad is an officer in the U.S. Army, we stayed there. (Thank you, NATO agreements.)

We wandered around a bit that day and window-shopped a bit, but not much more. We were just taking it in. (Though I have been there once before, it’s still cool.)

That night, near the end of our wandering, I saw a gull kill and eat and pigeon.

It was cool.

Wednesday

This is when we actually checked out the churches (lovely, as always), did a bit of shopping for Murano glass, and got lost a bit (because that’s what’s fun to do in Venice, or anywhere in Europe, for that matter. Seriously, if you ever go to Europe, plan an extra day or half-day in a new place for the purpose of getting lost and finding your way again. It’s totally fun and totally worth the adventure.)

Above Top: some random canal, Above Bottom: some random alley

Below: San Marco Square

Now, Murano is an island near Venice, where they make pretty colored glass. They make it in figurines, chandeliers, and other stuff, but most importantly, jewelry. This is what most people focus on.

Also important to look at in near every Italian city or town is leather. Italian leather is really nice. I got a leather-bound notebook for me to journal in once I fill up my moleskine.

After dinner, I wanted to feed the pigeons, I suppose as a way to apologize for standing idly by, admiring the gull as it devoured one of the pigeons’ own. They liked me. They ate out of my hands and perched atop my head. I was the glorious pigeon-master. I giveth pastry crumbs, I taketh pastry crumbs away, and I was both feared and loved. These two American kids nearby were in awe of my skillz. And in an act of humility and kindness, I gave them the remainder of my pastry, so that they too may experience the wonder and power of feeding the pigeons.

And then I thought I'd dance with my mama a bit.

Thursday

Woke up and drove to Garmisch, home of the 1936 Winter Olympic games. Also home to some beautiful mountains, which we unfortunately could not see due to the weather.

Our hotel was a building that is 300 years old, and the hotel business has been in one family for over 100 years. Seriously, the buildings are older than our country. You can’t understand how cool it is to be sleeping in a place that is older than George Washington.

Friday

Would have caught the cable-car to the top of the Zugspitze (Germany's tallest mountain), but it was still cloudy, and would have been pointless. Instead we went to Oberammergau, where they put on a Passion play every ten years, and have a lot of highly trained wood-carving artisans.

Then we went to the Ettal monastery, where they have yet another breathtaking church and their own brewery. Oh, those monks, they’re such a happy folk.

Then we went back to Garmisch and did more window shopping. This was the time of the week when I really started to feel my lack of facebook and therefore lack of interaction with my friends. It was tough, but I stuck it out through…

…Saturday

When we came back home and I get to tell you all about my week.

It was a good week, and I saw some cool stuff. I also spent some time in the Biblia and read Micah. I read John Eldredge’s Epic, and made more progress in Pride and Prejudice. I mentioned that I would be looking through Deepak Chopra’s The Third Jesus, but I couldn’t keep reading it because the man is foolish and doesn’t understand Christianity. I expected him to be providing an interesting perspective on Jesus, when in fact he was only trying to support his own free-for-all sense of spirituality with Jesus. I won’t go in to details right now, but it was pretty silly.

So yeah, I’m doing well, and I’m glad to be back. I’ll be getting back into Knowing God, and hopefully Exodus, Nahum, and some other short Old Testament books within the next week, as well as getting back to the gym - beer and schnitzel and apple strudel are good things, but not when they take up practically half of your diet for a week.

I feel that my blog has been a bit weak on scripture and focusing on Christ lately, and I wish I could do something about that, but I'm not sure what right now. I can't just force it, and I'm not going to try. But I'll be in the Biblia more and looking around me more, and maybe something will move me to write something worthwhile.

I’ll be back soonish, but until then, enjoy the pictures, and there will hopefully be more complete albums on facebook.

Shalom.

I'm Losing Touch With (Virtual) Reality

2008-05-30T18:37:00.006-04:00

(Note: This post is more of an announcement. Further below is today's actual entry.)

For the next week I will be out of contact with all of you. I am going to travel around with my parents, and an aunt and uncle. We'll be going to Venice, Salzburg, Berchtesgaden, Munich, and maybe some other places that I don't know about yet. I won't have internet access. I will be keeping my journal and will probably write up some sort of day-by-day review when I get back. (If I see an internet cafe, I might give a mid-week update.)

In the meantime, I would love it if you would catch up on blogs you haven't gotten a chance to read and make comments. Start conversations with your friends about them, even if those conversations are only to say how big of a moron I am. I'm fine with that.

This also gives some of you the opportunity to catch up on some facebook messages that need answering. (You know who you are.) I really do love getting facebook messages, so if you want to make my day, fill my inbox 'til it runneth over.

So yes, keep us in your prayers as we travel. And keep me in your prayers specifically - I will be needing strength and patience this week.

I'll be back soon.

(Keep reading, there's actual content down below.)

Giving away my rose-tinted glasses; or, God's Wrath - for you, for me, or for everyone else?

2008-05-30T18:28:00.004-04:00

I watched La Vie en Rose yesterday, the Edith Piaf biopic. It was really wonderful, and Marion Cotillard is absolutely stunning, so if you don’t mind foreign films (it’s in French), check it out. (If anyone is interested in the more technical aspects of film, the make-up was great, and it isn’t as easy to age women as it is to age men. Also, there’s a great tracking shot, probably a couple minutes long, when Edith receives some tragic news and doesn’t take it so well.)

I finished reading Hermann Hesse’s Demian, which was pretty interesting. It’s about this kid, Sinclair, who meets this other kid, Demian, who talks about how you can look at the Bible in ways other than literally, which leads Sinclair to deep questioning of himself and his purpose in life, etc etc. I would have found it more challenging if Demian’s initial arguments (which could border on sacrilegious, if the reader chooses to read them that way) were not very poor in their logic and interpretation. Eventually, Sinclair reaches a point of looking to some god that is the god of good and evil (I guess if Yahweh and Satan were the same being?) in order to bring balance to his life, and find purpose and meaning. Ultimately, his goals are not much different than those of Christianity, he just tries to get there without Christ. I would need to reread it to pick up some of the more nuanced details, but as far as I can tell, he doesn’t quite get there, until WWI starts up and he starts talking about an the entire German people as having purpose and dignity. So yeah, it’s interesting, but not amazing, unless I reread and get something new and exciting out of it down the road.

Then I started reading Pride and Prejudice, which is going well. I also enjoyed my next Hitchcock adventure, North by Northwest, though not as much as Vertigo or Psycho.

Now, about my actual life, and not the lives of characters that I’ve been reading or watching.

The other day when I was walking back home from the gym, I saw this old man carrying a couple of grocery bags, sort of waddling across the street. I immediately started debating with myself about whether or not I should help him. Would it be really awkward? What if he’s already at his car? What if he’s offended because he can do it himself? I eventually decided not to help him, which is to say that I decided not to even offer to help him by carrying his bags. Afterwards, I felt like a total jerk. Anyway, I’ve since been making a more conscious effort to make myself helpful, and not refuse to help when asked. It’s been working, but in all honesty, it shouldn’t require that much effort, it should just come naturally. Which basically leads back to an inherent selfishness that we all have on some level – if it doesn’t benefit us/me directly, we/I am not going to be as willing to do it. I remember how Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz made the fact of our selfishness extremely evident, at least to me. I’m just saying that I go through ruts sometimes of being completely unhelpful, and I’m working on that. I have found ways to be successful at that, but don’t want to elaborate – I can’t help thinking of it like tithing in private, not boasting, that sort of thing. Just know that I’m trying to be helpful, and if you see me failing, let me know.

I was recently offered the pretty cool opportunity to help lead some middle school kids on a retreat in Italy for a week (I've done this trip as a leader once before, but it didn't work out too well - I wasn't quite ready). I can’t do it this time either, but for different reasons, which sucks. It interferes with the first week of my summer job, and even though I’m fine with missing that, my parents are not. So yes, I’m blaming them, but I understand where they’re coming from and will accept it. It just bothers be because, as many of you know, I’ve been looking for a chance to lead, and I feel like this would be great way to do that, plus it’s sort of like practice for the Unfettered Men next year, just in a younger, less mature, more theologically simplistic way. (For those of you who do not know, Unfettered Men of the Hill is the name of the Biblia study I’ll be leading with my brother Wyatt next year. And when I say brother, I don't mean, like, an actual brother, but I mean it like the way black people use it, which is more meaningful I think.) So yes, it’s unfortunate that I won’t get to do that, but I’ll get over it.

Let’s see, I was reading Knowing God (J.I. Packer) the other day, and read a chapter about God’s wrath, which was interesting, given that I’ve been talking to some people the past few weeks about Christianity and the military, and how we can tell if and when a nation is ever used as an instrument of God’s will. I’m still not sure about it all, but one of the things that stood out was Packer’s description of God’s motivations in wrath vs. man’s motivations. “…God’s love, as the Bible views it, never leads him to foolish, impulsive, immoral actions in the way that its human counterpart too often leads us. And in the same way, God’s wrath in the Bible is never the capricious, self-indulgent, irritable, morally ignoble thing that human anger so often is.” He also talks about the wrath of God in terms of free will, and our punishment ultimately being our own choice: “The essence of God’s action in wrath is to give men what they choose, in all its implications: nothing more, and equally nothing less. God’s readiness to respect human choice to this extent may appear disconcerting and even terrifying, but it is plain that his attitude here is supremely just – and is poles apart from the wanton and irresponsible inflicting of pain which is what we mean by cruelty . . . what God is hereby doing is no more than to ratify and confirm judgments which those whom he ‘visits’ have already passed on themselves by the course they have chosen to follow.”

A big part of the discussions I’ve been having deals with distinguishing between the individual and the state in terms of God’s judgment. Packer uses a lot of scripture that I noticed deals primarily in the singular form. Take Luke 12:47-48: "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” Or Paul in Romans, quoting Psalm 62:12 and Proverbs 24:12, “God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done’” (Romans 2:6). There seems to be a lot of evidence to show judgment and wrath is on a personal level, and therefore states’ involvement in “God’s wrath” (particularly when this connection is implied by the state itself) carries less credibility. I am certain that there is plenty of evidence to support other opinions, but this is what I’m taking away from the book and the Biblia at the moment (which, when applied, is basically no more than saying that Crusades are bad). If you feel differently or simply have opinions on this matter that you wish to share, please feel free to leave a comment or contact me on facebook.

I’m sure there is more that I could be writing right now, but I’ve taken up a lot of space already, and I need to be going. I will be taking a short break from Knowing God in order to read/skim/check out a book I just found at the library, The Third Jesus by Deepak Chopra. You can read the book jacket summary here. Chopra’s basic premise is that there is the historical man and figure, the Son of God who represent a religion, and then a sort of general “spiritual guide whose teaching embraces all humanity, not just the church built in his name.” I’m trying very hard to approach this book with an open mind, but it appears that this “third” Jesus might just be the Jesus that Jesus wants us to follow in the first place. I’m not exactly sure where the guy is coming from, but I’ll let you know when I figure it out.

That’s it for now.

Peace and love, strength and honor.

It's All Happening

2008-05-27T10:36:00.003-04:00

So I was watching The Simpsons, and Lisa walked into the kitchen while Marge was squeezing ketchup out of packets and into a bottle. She said, “This is how I save money on ketchup and mustard.” Lisa asked, “Do you do it with relish?” and Marge responded, “No, I’m actually kind of embarrassed about it.” It was amazing, and I wanted to share it with you.

I also watched Amistad today. I love that movie. A lot of people complain about how it distorts the historical accuracy (my response: watch a documentary) or point out that the characters are a bit one-dimensional (my response: the characters are passionate – they are dealing with controversial issues about which they have strong opinions. How do you behave when you have a true passion? Are you not a little one-dimensional, seeking only your goal, to put your point across regardless of what anyone else may say, however reasoned or not they may be? Not one-dimensional. Impassioned.) I don’t wholly disagree with these arguments, I just don’t really care about them. Emotional reaction is far more important than depth, though I feel this movie has both. Anyway, all I really want to bring up is the scene when one of the African prisoners explains to Cinque, the sort of leader of the prisoners, about Jesus’ story based on pictures in a Bible. He explained that he was put on trial and put to death. Cinque said, “He must have done something.” But the one with the Bible asked, “Why? What have we done?” This is a good point given the circumstances, but this is what it made me think: Christ was innocent, but he lost his trial (as the prisoners’ lawyer, Baldwin, pointed out earlier in the film). We are guilty, but we win ours. He was punished for no reason; we are rewarded for no reason. It doesn’t make sense, but it’s true. Not a particularly original thought or realization, I know, but I like the legal imagery.

Anyway, while I’m talking about movies, I want to talk about some others. I watch Psycho for the first time last night. It was amazing. It takes just a few minutes to get into the movie, but once you’re in it, you can’t get out, and when the woman, Marion Crane, gets to the Bates Motel and we get to see Norman Bates, you just can’t take your eyes off him. He’s absolutely fascinating, as is Marion. The way his hand hesitates over the keys, wondering whether he should give her a normal cabin, or the one with the peephole from his office. The way she reacts so normally to his hobby – taxidermy. The way he smiles through his stuttering. The way she smiles when she steps into the shower. It’s all so utterly enthralling - brilliant performances, and a patience in the direction that keeps the tension building until you find yourself begging for some kind of release, something to tell us what’s going on (if you think Lost teases and taunts you, just wait until you see this). I won’t spoil the movie for you, because it is a Hitchcock thriller, and that means there are some twists involved. My only question is whether this film, given it’s thriller/mystery nature, will be as good the second time around. A movie’s watchability is a big deal to me – if it’s not as good the second or third time around, odds are it won’t remain a favorite of mine for long, and that is a major problem with thrillers. Once you know what’s going to happen, is it as good the next time it occurs. This is my problem with movies like The Usual Suspects, The Sixth Sense, Memento. Watch it once to see what happens, watch it again to see how it happened (and why you didn’t see it coming). Watch it a third time, and well, what’s the point? I have a feeling, though, that this one will stick with me for a good long while. I don’t know why I’ve waited this long to start watching Hitchcock, but I’m looking forward to whatever I see next (probably North by Northwest).

I love movies. Scratch that. I love good movies, captivating movies, enthralling movies, intriquing movies. Movies that demand something from you, some kind of personal investment, be it simply your eyes so that you can’t move them from the screen, or your mind, challenging your thoughts, forcing you to reason and form opinions about the actions, or perhaps even issues outside the realm of the film. Or be it your heart so that you want so sincerely and passionately for something good to happen to a character that, odd as it sounds, you come to love. I want to give you some more examples of movies that do this for me. (Note: I am not necessarily saying that these are the best films ever, or even that they would make a list of my favorite movies ever, only that they illicit strong emotions and reactions, at least from me.)

Cinderella Man – Okay, this movie is a little predictable. It’s about a boxer during the Great Depression who needs to make a comeback so that his family can eat. You know what is going to happen, you know what has to happen in order for the world to keep revolving. But for some reason, you convince yourself that it might not. I found myself cheering for the main character at least as hard as I cheer for our Tar Heels, though less vocally, because I wanted so much for him to win, for the bad guy to lose, and for his family to be alright. And the silence before the announcement was so unbearable I wanted to jump up and yell, “Just tell us already!” (Fortunately, I was able to restrain myself.) My point is that this movie is so delicately put together, and the performance by Russell Crowe so sincere, that I came to love him and his family and his trainer (Paul Giamatti, the guy who should have won George Clooney’s Oscar), and I simply couldn’t imagine what would happen if things didn’t turn out okay for them. Really powerful stuff.

The Talented Mr. Ripley – What a fascinating character portrait. Matt Damon, who never fails to impress me, play Tom Ripley, a sociopathic, (possibly homosexual?), identity-stealing murderer. But he’s kind of sweet. You know, in a kind of an endearing, albeit creepy, way. Conflicted emotions on the part of the viewer. You know he’s bad, possibly evil, probably mentally insane, and guilty. But when he’s almost caught, I didn’t want him to get caught. The movie sets him up as the protagonist (or at least not the antagonist). He’s the main character, and you can understand where he’s coming from. You can almost relate with him. Almost. Anyway, I won’t forget when I realized that I was pulling for him to get away with it and I stopped myself and said, “Wait, you fool! He’s not right in the head and he’s done bad things! He should get caught so that justice can be served!” But then I stopped myself again and retorted (to myself), “Aw, come on. He’s just lonely, he wanted to be somebody. Can’t we all comprehend that a little bit? He messed up, sure, but maybe now he’ll leave everyone alone.” It was totally bizarre. Check it out, it’s totally captivating.

Nashville – An 1975 Robert Altman movie that is basically about a bunch of people trying to make it big in Nashville. I doubt that many people in my generation would enjoy this movie, although it is widely considered to be among the greatest American films. I don’t think there are many aspects of American life that are not represented here. There is one scene that totally messes with my mind. A singer, Tom, is performing a song in a club. There are three women in the club who all think he is singing specifically to her. One, Mary, is in a music group with him (except he recently quit the band without notice). Another, Opal, is a strange bird from the BBC doing a piece on Nashville who shared a night with Tom and thinks he may be “the one.” The third is Linnea (magnificent nuance from Lily Tomlin). This is the woman he is actually singing to (or so we are led to believe). She is married, and against better judgment decided to come to see him at the club after he called her house a few times. It is implied, but never made certain that they have a history. Before she goes to see him, and before he starts singing, she is unsure of why she is there, why she is giving in, perhaps doesn’t even truly want to be there. But then he starts his song, and she gives in (this would be the nuance I mentioned). Her face, her eyes, her breathing, it all changes, but only slightly, and she prepares herself to enter his world, however sinful, however much she may regret it.

Watching this scene creates more of the conflicting emotions I mentioned in The Talented Mr. Ripley. You know that everything about Tom is wrong – his lifestyle, the way he is using these women, the way he ignores people – he’s totally selfish. But man, his music and his passion, it’s not hard to see why the women are after him, why they want to believe he loves only them. And as a guy, honestly, it’s hard not to feel just a tinge of jealousy and awe. I mean, it’s kind of impressive to be able to do that to women without really even trying. So yeah. Why do I like this movie? Part of it is the whole movie, and I can’t really explain that. Part of it is in the scenes like this, where there is just so much more going on than a guy on stage singing a song and people in seats listening. So much more.

Almost Famous – This one would go on a list of my favorite movies ever because it is my favorite movie ever. I’m not sure why, but it is. It never bores you – it is constantly entertaining. In case you don’t know, it’s about a 15-year-old kid who gets a job writing for Rolling Stone magazine (by lying to them over the phone about his age) – his assignment is to write about his favorite band, Stillwater (modeled primarily after The Allman Brothers Band). He’s basically just a sweet kid who is in no way prepared to enter the rock and roll world of “compromised values and diminished brain cells.” But he makes it work with the help of some good folks along the way, namely Penny Lane (Kate Hudson, who finds a way to be freaking hot and stunningly beautiful at the same time – not an easy task). Something about the music, the relationships, the band antics, it’s all so cool! And watching the kid find a way to stay objective in his writing about people he grows to love is at times heart-warming and at other times heart-breaking. It’s a crazy cool fun wild ride, and they take you right along with them. It’s a great adventure.

Anyway, I’m not sure why these particular movies have been on my mind lately, but I love them and many more. Please let me know what you think of them, any of the ones I mentioned. I am hoping to have a few mass screening of some movies next year, though not necessarily the ones I mentioned. At least Almost Famous, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, Schindler’s List, and Gandhi (these other four are equally, and truthfully even more amazing, and even more impressive due to their epic nature) will be among them, I hope.

That’s it for now.

(Thanks Jonathan.)

Peace. Much love. It’s all happening.

I am not, but I am not afraid.

2008-05-25T17:24:00.004-04:00

Short entry tonight.

First, I just want to thank all of you who actually read this thing. I've realized lately that there may be more of you than I thought. I mean, when I put up a new post, I'll put the link in my facebook status for a little while, but I never imagined that people looked it up. I could say more, but I'd rather keep this brief, and I don't know what else to say but Thank You.

As for recent developments, well, I watched the entire 6th season of The West Wing, because I have an addiction. It's not a problem. I can quit whenever I want to. It's just that I don't want to.

I finally finished my re-reading of Life of Pi. I loved it even more this time, and I've decided that if you've read the book and accept anything other than Pi's story including the animals and Richard Parker as the absolute truth - that is to say, if you believe the story at the end involving the cook and his mother, or any variation between the two - then you've missed the point of the book. Just my opinion.

That's it for now. Prayers with Dan who is on his way to Singapore as I type, and with everyone else who's on their own right now. Peace.

Strength to the weary, power to the faint

2008-05-23T19:55:00.005-04:00

I've been thinking about some stuff lately, some stuff about myself, trying to get some things worked out, and I've really not been enjoying it. So now I'm going to get some of it off my chest, be "vulnerable," or be what it really feels like I'm being: weak. But whatever. If anyone doesn't feel like wallowing in my self-pity and confusion with me, feel free to leave now. But if anyone is interested in getting to know me a lot better, stick around and you might learn something.

I truly believe that I have been gifted with strong leadership skills. I believe I am a leader. But I've got a feeling that a lot of you out there don't believe that. I've got a feeling that the incredibly small number of you actually reading this is a testament to how much you disagree that I am a leader. That's because you probably haven't seen me leading anything this year. I'm not even sure I can think of the last time I led anything or anyone in anything this year. But that's my point. I've been so inwardly focused during this past semester. (Please, go back and see how many times I've used the word "I" so far this entry as proof.) Now, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, to be inwardly focused. I think I've really gotten a lot of things right with God, I've made stronger commitments to my faith, and my spiritual life has been growing in good ways. But I've had to force myself to be extremely vulnerable with some people in order to work through some it all.

I don't mind being vulnerable. I mind being weak. And at some point I think I crossed that line. I don't know when or how, but for some reason I feel like crap about it as I look back, and I can't explain it.

Oh jeez, I'm just looking up and down at what I've written so far and none of it makes sense, I'm just rambling. I don't know what I'm doing or what I'm trying to say.

Okay, I'm just gonna start with some thoughts that have been bugging me lately.

I hope this is ludicrous and all in my head, but I don't always feel like I fit in with my friends. The only comparison I can think of is me as Peter Pettigrew, tagging along with all the cool kids at Hogwarts, only pretending to fit in. Something inside is nagging away at me, "What are you doing here? You don't belong here," and it drives me crazy.

It bugs me that most of my friends will be able to drink legally by the end of our junior year and I'll have to wait until senior year because I have an August birthday.

It bugs me that I'm 5'6''. I hate seeing pictures people post on facebook where I'm a head shorter than everyone around me, and it seems like that's the case in pretty much all the pictures people post on facebook, though I'm probably only saying that because those are the ones I remember. It bugs me that this particular point bugs me, because I should know better than to care about something I can't control and that ultimately doesn't matter, but apparently I don't know better.

Back to leadership. I have retreated this past semester in order to take my spiritual life more seriously - I needed to rework some things with myself. And I figured that when I had done that, I would be ready to hopefully start taking a leadership position in my everyday life and relationships. The problem is that by the time I was ready to do that, the year was over. In high school, I knew who depended on me for guidance and trusted me for leadership. And I loved helping them because it seemed like something I was put there for, I felt like I was fulfilling a purpose. I can now see that I would occasionally act selflessly, only so that I could selfishly tell myself how selfless I was. I do regret that now that I see it, but that doesn't change the fact that I was able to lead. But now? I've missed opportunities to put myself in those positions, and I have an overwhelming fear that my chance is gone and I'll be stuck in a place of complaining and trying to work through my own problems (much like I am wasting time and energy doing right now). Because I have shown practically no strength whatsoever this year, no one has had the chance to see me strong, so next year, who will trust me to deliver? I can feel and see that no one truly expects strength from me, and I will never again get the opportunity to focus outwardly. At least, that is what my fear is telling me.

I have relied on others during this past year more than I ever have before, and now I can see the affects that has had on my life. No one any longer relies on me, and I can no longer rely on myself. And that is not a fun place to be. Even in writing this, I am putting all of my doubts and self-pity out there for anyone to see, and I can only pray that it comes across as vulnerability, which is what I intend it as, and not as weakness, which is what I fear it is. I do not regret this recent vulnerability (although I do sometimes wish it were reciprocated so I could return the enormous favors others have done for me), but I wish it wouldn't bother me so much now. And I can't figure out just why exactly it does bother me.

Change of subject. Girls. Let's talk about fear. This one really bugs me, but I know that that is probably mostly my fault. All throughout high school, girls kept on telling me, "You're just not the kind of guy that high school girls are looking for." This was a polite way of saying I was too short, not at all attractive, and despite being smart, funny, sweet, and mature, I would constantly be overshadowed by the football players and such with their popped collars and ribbed condoms (for her pleasure). I was always comforted, though, by the follow up, "But in college, you'll be exactly the kind of guy that girls are looking for." Thus far, this has proved untrue. I'm actually okay with that. What I'm not okay with is my inability to determine why it is untrue. Is it that the girls have not changed, or that I have? Has the apparent weakness I described earlier actually infilitrated the minds of the opposite sex and made me even less appealing than I already was, even though my retreat from extroversion was primarily an effort to strengthen my relationship with God? Please don't tell me I got cockblocked by God without His even making an effort. I mean, this is serious stuff here! I haven't been pro-active because it scares me. Rejection scares me. I don't know how to date. I don't know how to be a boyfriend. This scares me. I don't get "crushes" in the typical sense of the word, and that really scares me because half the time I don't even know where my emotions lie.

I have so much fear in me right now. I can see it all happening. My friends will realize that I don't fit in with them, and they will abandon me, and once they cast me out of their circle, I won't be able to form new relationships elsewhere because everyone else will already be established within themselves. So then I won't be able to use the strength I feel I finally re-established at the end of my semester-long personal retreat, and I'll be forced back into weakness (which may manifest itself in the form of long and seemingly pointless self-pitying blog entries). Not to mention, of course, that I will never find a girl I like, nor a girl who likes me, and I will die a virgin. I can see it all happening.

Fortunately, I know that God is on my side (even though I'm pretty sure if we went to a party together, he would be the one who walks away with the girl). I do have faith in his wisdom, and I know that this is all probably just in my head and it will work out for the best next year. I'll be co-leading a Biblia study where I hope good things will be happening both in personal relationships and for the community. I'll be pursuing stronger friendships with my brothers and sisters. And I'll get the chance to lead the way I know I can. I just don't know how.

Look, this little rant is not depression or low self-esteem or anything weird like that. I'm not having an existential crisis or grave spiritual doubts. I don't want you all to try to cheer me up. If you have something you want to say about how crazy I am acting, feel free. You know if you're someone I'd want or need to hear that from (and if you think you're someone I need to hear from, make sure I hear from you, it would be helpful), and you know that facebook messages tend to make me marginally happier anyway.

I don't know why I felt the need to put so much of this out in the open, but it was eating me up a little bit, and now hopefully I can start focusing on strength because of the one who is my strength.

"Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power, not one is missing." -- Isaiah 40:26

Peace be upon you.

Just Passing the Time

2008-05-21T11:35:00.004-04:00

Okay, I have nothing particularly profound to share with you today, but I felt like writing something, so here I am updating all of you on what I've been up to lately.

Watching:
Entourage - Season 3, Part 1
Curb Your Enthusiasm - Season 2
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip - the first and only season :(
Keeping up with the Hitchcock this summer, I watched Vertigo, and Psycho is next.

Reading:
Slowly getting through Life of Pi, I need to work harder on that.
Haven't picked up American Pastoral in a while, but I plan to tomorrow.
Gonna start trying to get through 2 chapters of Knowing God each day. It's really good, even if it is a little dense. But from what I've heard about how dense Mere Christianity is (which I also plan to read this summer), it should be a good preparation.
And in the Biblia, I finished Isaiah, and both Peters; next are Exodus and Matthew.

Listening to:
Acoustic Soul, India Arie
The Emancipation of Mimi, Mariah Carey
The College Dropout, Kanye West
Worship, Michael W. Smith
and I just started looking for some Derek Webb, since a bunch of my friends have a mild (and what I'm certain is a very healthy) obsession with him, and I wanna know what the deal is.

And that's what's happening in my world.

A good friend of mine who I love and respect enormously recently started up his own blog and wrote his first entry about "redemptive violence" - using violence as a means to create good, and why he doesn't feel this is a solid Christian notion given Jesus' words on loving our enemies and turning the other cheek. I agree, but I had a few questions, and hopefully we're gonna talk on it and figure some stuff out. I might let you know how it goes, if he doesn't do something similar on his own page.

I really liked a chapter I read in Knowing God about to what extent and how we should use images of Christ in daily life and in terms of worship. I would tell you about it, but it would just end up as me telling you what J.I. Packer said, so I'll just mention the main ideas. Basically, he says that we need to make sure we have a balance between symbolic representational images. Representational images are what we need to avoid because they attempt to show what God or Jesus actually look like, which is something we cannot comprehend, and in trying to show it, we diminish the glory and power of God. Also, because they give us mental images of God, we can pray to or worship God as if he were synonymous with those images (even if we don't realize we're doing it), and therefore violate the second commandment. Symbolic images (usually coming from artistic expression) are okay, as long as we do not let them become representational in our hearts or minds. So that's basically what Packer had to say on that, and for the most part, I agree. Feel free to contest it or ask questions, but know that Packer made his argument a lot better than I can, and I really recommend looking it up to see for yourself.

Other than that, though, not much going on (except I've been getting to the gym more).

I definitely know what I plan on writing about sometime soon, but I'm still working it out in my head, so check back. Peace be with you until then.

Summertime, and the livin' is easy; or, Election '08 - You Decide!

2008-05-16T16:49:00.004-04:00

Ah, summertime.

Has the boredome hit you yet? It's hit me in some ways, not in others. I don't feel like I have nothing to do with myself, so I suppose that's good. However, I don't always want to do the things that are available. I'm in the middle of 4 books right now, and I rarely seem to feel like reading them. There's a good workout room on post, but I can't spend all day there, right? Perhaps there are myriad other ways for me to spend my time and I simply haven't found them yet...perhaps I accidentally or subconsciously found them but already wrote them off in my mind without actually giving them a chance...hmm, that's a thought that could really mess me up later.

Anyway, how about a few updates?

Currently Reading:
Life of Pi by Yann Martel
American Pastoral by Philip Roth
Forrest Gump by Winston Groom
Knowing God by J.I. Packer
and in the Biblia - Isaiah and 1 Peter

Currently Watching:
MASH, Season 1
Entourage, Season 2
and watching some old Hitchcock - Vertigo, North by Northwest, Rebecca, Psycho...

Currently Listening To:
Christina Aguilera - Back to Basics
the soundtrack to Aladdin
and, as always, Jars of Clay, Norah Jones, and Nickel Creek

So yeah, that's happening.

By the way, I stumbled upon a great passage from Life of Pi the other day. It looks like it could be based in or inspired by a passage in James, but I'm not entirely sure that was the author's source. See what you think:

"There are always those who take it upon themselves to defend God, as if Ultimate Reality, as if the sustaining frame of existence, were something weak and helpless. These people walk by a widow deformed by leprosy begging for a few paise, walk by children dressed in rags living in the street, and they think, 'Business as usual.' But if they perceive a slight against God, it is a different story. Their faces go red, their chests heave mightily, they sputter angry words. The degree of their indignation is astonishing. Their resolve is frightening.
These people fail to realize that it is on the inside that God must be defended, not on the outside. They should direct their anger at themselves. For evil in the open is but evil from within that has been let out. The main battlefield for good is not the open ground of the public arena but the small clearing of each heart. Meanwhile, the lot of widows and homeless children is very hard, and it is to their defence, not God's, that the self-righteous should rush." -- Yann Martell, Life of Pi

"22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." -- James 1:22-27

Scriptural precedence, or just plain common sense? You decide! Election '08.

Anyway, um, um, where was I? Kinda lost my train of thought. Uh, well, uh, okay. Anyway I, I know it's kinda been a roundabout way of saying it, but I guess the whole point I'm tryin' to make here is: I. Hate. Sauerkraut! That's all I'm really tryin' to say, and, by the way, if one day you happen to wake up and find yourself in an existential quandry, full of loathing and self-doubt, and wracked with the pain and isolation of your pitiful meaningless existence, at least you can take a small bit of comfort in knowing that somewhere out there in this crazy mixed-up universe of ours, there's still a little place called Albuquerque (or, Seventeenth Slate).

Whoa, where did that come from?

I suppose I'm going to go quench my boredom elsewhere, now. If anyone is out there reading this (ha, yeah right), and has any questions, or recommendations for entry topics, or anything like that, please please please let me know. Leave a comment, or message me on facebook. It's a good way to keep in touch and a great way to keep this blog going over the summer. Seriously, I wasn't joking with that "Election '08" joke. You decide.

Let me know, yo. Peace and much love. Slater out.

Leaving on a jet plane.

2008-05-12T14:02:00.004-04:00

So the year is over. Like, totally over. My bags are packed, I'm ready to go. Grades are in and goodbyes have been said. So there are just a few more things I want to write while I'm still on this side of the Atlantic.

Rockbridge was a fantastic way to end the year, and I am incredibly excited about leading the Olde Campus guys' small group next year with Wyatt (love that guy). Over the last year, I've been seeing more and more just how strong sin truly is in our lives and the extent to which it controls and guides us, and unfortunately not the other way around. A lot of the things I've seen and heard this past week (and year) really cement that. But that's why we have to fight back. Of course, that could be part of the problem. We view this struggle as something we have to do instead of something we get to do as a way of glorifying and worshiping God. After all, what higher praise can we give God except by battling against something he hates so intensely as sin? That fight is a privilege, and is ultimately the only way we can receive true freedom. Which brings us back to an ever-present theme in the minds and hearts of men (and women) everywhere: Braveheart. Our fight against sin is about more than just getting through the day - it's about brotherhood, strength, and purity. It's about the idea that there is something more sovereign than we could ever be, and that something desires our freedom even more than we do. I want to thank everyone who fought that good fight with me this year, and I can't wait to keep it going next year.

That brings me to my next subject. What happens this summer? We won't have nearly as many people to help us in our struggles. But that can't mean that we just stop. It's going to be tough and it's going to be lonely, but with the help of facebook, skype, and the Biblia, I believe we'll all make it three months relatively unscathed.

I'm so glad I got back into my journaling/note-taking after a month long hiatus in April. I still refuse to let it become a woe-is-me pity party, or a "look what happened to me today" kind of thing (the same attitude I take toward this blog), but it is a place where I can be completely honest with myself and really work through stuff in words, and not just vacant thoughts.

Now, I have a lot I want to read this summer and I'm sure I won't get to it all, but I will try, and I will keep all of you updated on what I'm reading and when. At the moment I'm re-reading Yann Martel's Life of Pi, which I highly recommend to everyone out there, and I'm going to actually start making progress on American Pastoral by Philip Roth, which I mentioned a few entries ago, perhaps on the plane.

Other than that, not a lot going on, not many more thoughts on serious subjects, so I'll start to close this out. I want to send out a few personal thanks to Seth, Jon, Dan, Joel, Wyatt, Matt, Will, and Joseph for being such tremendous brothers all in your own ways, and you know what those ways are (I hope - if not, ask). If I didn't mention you by name, get over it, it doesn't mean I don't love you.

And with that, I leave you. I will be updating this over the summer. Please keep in touch - that will be terribly important for me. Keep fighting, and don't be afraid to show your battle wounds sometimes.

A Moderately Serious Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

2008-04-28T17:15:00.004-04:00

(Note: The following was written on Saturday, April 26, when I lacked internet access sufficient enough to just post it here.)

I want to thank everyone who came to see A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. It is impossible for me to explain how much it means to me. But of course that will not stop me from trying.

I do not perform for my own benefit. I don’t do it for recognition or congratulation. I am on stage for the audience, I’m there to entertain. I believe that God gave me a gift for entertaining people – I like doing it more than anything else, and other people seem to like me best when I am doing it (though perhaps I should wonder why people like me more when I am pretending to be other people…).

I love being able to make people laugh, make people cry, make people think. I love being able to take people away from their own lives for just a few hours and let them experience a different environment and atmosphere. I love offering that kind of escape because when I do, there is a degree to which I feel that I am fulfilling God’s purpose for me. When my friends come to see my performances, it gives me tremendous joy. It is the people I care most about telling me that how I am spending my time and energy is worthwhile, that it isn’t all pointless, which it sometimes feels like it is, frankly. So again, thank you all so very much, I love you all lots and lots.

Now, this show was a fantastic way to end my freshman year here at UNC, but the year isn’t quite over. We’ve finished classes, but we still have exams to get through, but then I (and plenty of others) will go to Rockbridge, Intervarsity’s leadership training camp, and I know that is going to awesome.

I have more to say about the closing of the year, various musings, ponderings, and thanks to make, but that is for a different entry because I haven’t quite figured out what I want to say yet. Until then, rock on with your bad self.

Recognition

2008-04-15T00:02:00.004-04:00

I finished reading the second chapter of Brennan Manning's The Ragamuffin Gospel today (thanks Dack). The chapter is called "Magnificent Monotony" - it's about God's unceasing, monotonous love of us, regardless of our behaviors or sins. It's a simple idea, but one of the most difficult to grasp; at least it seems to be, judging by the attitudes of so many modern Christians. We spend so much time trying to get God to love us, forgetting that he always has and always will.

That said, I wonder about one of Manning's word choices near the end of the chapter - after I finished reading, I jotted down some notes that I'm gonna elaborate on a bit here. Basically, he says it is important to establish a self-acceptance, accepting that you are the way you are, the way God made you, and once you accept that, you can truly begin to grow as a Christian. I agree with the concept - it is only when we face our sins that we can confront them; we cannot fight battles with our backs turned to the enemy. However, I do not believe that "accepting" the way we are is the best term to use. Think back to all those standardized tests we took in high school - our job is to find the best answer from the given options. I would say that it is important to recognize our sinfulness, or perhaps acknowledge the way God made us (or Satan has molded us, whichever the case may be). Declaring the need for self-acceptance, at least to me, implies a stoppage of growth. So even though the action may be essentially the same, and the outcome basically equivalent, I felt that a different word might be better. We must never accept our sin because that makes it sound like we've given up the fight. But recognition of sin is recognition of the battle, and can being about the will necessary to fight it.

All of this thinking made me want to think some more, so that's what I did. And what I came up with was this. Ultimately, we must choose to change. God will not force us to change, nor should he. If he forced us to adapt to his ways, what would be the point of his love for us, or ours for him? It would me a meaningless show void of true emotion or sacrifice. We are made in a raw form, like clay, and we are molded into something more, like a jar, for instance (I'm going back a few entries, here). God teaches us how to make a jar, but he doesn't make it for us - then we wouldn't learn anything. We just be stuck here with a jar and nothing to do with it (so we'd probably just end up breaking it because it lacked use or practicality). We are shaped like clay only after we recognize the rawness of our lives, like the rawness of a clump of clay.

Are you following? Because if so, you're doing slight better than me...

Anyway, we recognize our rawness, and God teaches us how to turn that lump of muddy, dirty goop into something arty and/or crafty. He shapes us, but only by acting through us, or someone else. At least, most of the time. I'm talking about internal changes, not, you know, bigger stuff, like, you know, earthquakes, and like, you know, stuff like that. Which is why I say we have to choose change - God gives us sculpting lessons, but we have to do the sculpting, and we have to see the glory of the final masterpiece that God wants us to be. Right? Maybe not, but it seems like it at the moment?

It's like this Bible study I did with some people on a service project in D.C. - the woman leading the study that day was talking about all the worries we have, and how we should give them up to God and not worry so much. Fair enough. But then she has us write down those things we worry too much about, and said "If you're ready to give those things to God and not let them get to you anymore, throw that piece of paper in the trash." That was frustrating. First off, I didn't get how some meaningless physical representation of a decision to change would actually help me change. I also didn't get the idea of giving something completely to God, or not the way she was putting it. Because at the end of the day, even if God is the one in control of our material worries and issues, we are still the ones who have to deal with them. So God can guide us, but we still have to take that guidance, and in that sense, it is never entirely God's to deal with.

I know that if you take out quotes from this here and there, it's gonna seem like I'm very fragmented in my faith (and thought processes), but I feel like I'm making some sense. Let me try to recapitulate briefly:
We have to recognize our sinfulness, the raw form in which we were created by God and corrupted by Satan, but we must not accept it. Once we recognize it, we can fight our sinfulness, and create something meaningful out of our rawness, but only with guidance and teaching from God.

See, when I say it like that, it doesn't seem quite so strange. Perhaps I should have started with that. It would have been a nice thesis. But unfortunately for you, that's not how I roll. Deal with it. Also, I didn't proof this before I published it, for that, also, is not how I roll. Deal with that, too, while you're busy dealing with that first thing. Yeah.

What is music? (or, Thank you, Duke Ellington)

2008-04-12T15:40:00.009-04:00

Last night I went out to dinner with a bunch of people. I ate barbeque, I got involved in bizarre wrestling matches.

It was a good time.

But somewhere on the road back to campus, something very strange happened. I completely and totally mellowed out. I didn't want to do anything, anything whatsoever. I'm not sure what happened, or why, but it hit me hard and didn't go away for the rest of the evening. For some reason, I'm inclined to say it was just strange form of loneliness, but that cannot possibly be the right word (can it?) because I was hanging out with a bunch of other people.

For the last two weeks or so, I have been making every effort I can to make sure that I am around people - I simply haven't wanted to be alone - so perhaps that ended last night? I don't think so. I didn't want to not be with people. And I woke up this morning looking forward to spending time with friends. But something was weird. And I guess that's just how it goes sometimes.

Music tends to make things better for me. There are a few songs I go to just to cheer me up ("Eskimo" by Damien Rice, for instance). There are other songs that get me moving, wake me up, that I can't help tapping my toe to, rocking out to, and make me want to dance to my class (such as Michael Jackson's "Beat It" - you know you love it). Then there are those songs that I just love. Simply love. They make me stop what I'm doing, sit back, and be washed in the chords, the riffs, the words, all of it creating true music. "Brothers In Arms" by Dire Straits. Something about the thunder rolling intro, that guitar lick that makes you feel like you could do battle with that thunderstorm. The frail voice, singing despite despair. (Of course, I will occasionally also see The West Wing's President Bartlett traveling in his motorcade to a press conference, deciding whether or not he will run for a second term after revealing he has multiple sclerosis and hid it from America - he drives past the National Cathedral where he had cursed God just that morning, where a janitor picks up the cigarette Barlett stomped out right in the middle of the cathedral floor. Amazing sequence, amazing television, amazing display of a man actually dealing with his struggles instead of brushing them aside, fighting over what is right and wrong, what needs to be done in a situation that goes far beyond mundane personal trials.)

Part of me wants to put up the lyrics for you to read, as the lyrics have power in themselves - the title implies a bit of that. But I'm not going to put up the lyrics. It won't be the same. Ask me to hear that song sometime. Maybe it won't affect you the same way, but there is power in it nonetheless. I will, however, leave you with a poem written by Duke Ellington. These words always move me. They say so much, and they explain a lot of my philosophies on life and music and their interconnectedness.

What Is Music? by Duke Ellington

What is music to you?
What would you be without music?

Music is everything.
Nature is music (cicadas in the tropical night).

The sea is music,
The wind is music,
Primitive elements are music, agreeable or discordant.

The rain drumming on the roof,
And the storm raging in the sky are music.

Every country in the world has its own music,
And the music becomes an ambassador;
The rango in Argentina and calypso in Antilles.

Music is the oldest entity.

A baby is born, and music puts him to sleep.
He can't read, he can't understand a picture,
But he will listen to music.

Music is marriage.

Music is death.

The scope of music is immense and infinite.
It is the "esperanto" of the world.

Music arouses courage and leads you to war.
The Romans used to have drums rolling before they attacked.
We have the bugle to sound reveille and pay homage to the brave warrior.

The Marseillaise has led many generations to victories or revolutions;
It is a chant of wild excitement, and delirium, and pride.

Music is eternal,
Music is divine.

You pray to your God with music.

Music can dictate moods,
It can ennerve or subdue,
Subjegate, exhaust, astound the heart.

Music is a cedar,
An evergreen tree of fragrant, durable wood.

Music is like honor and pride,
Free from defect, damage, or decay.

Without music I may feel blind, atrophie, incomplete, inexistent.

Thank you, Philip Roth

2008-04-07T22:43:00.005-04:00

Okay, so I recently started reading Philip Roth's American Pastoral. I came across this passage today, and it kind of floored me. I'm not sure entirely what I think about it yet, if I agree with it or not, or what, but there's definitely something special about it, and I wanted to share it with you.

"You fight your superficiality, your shallowness, so as to try to come at people without unreal expectations, without an overload of bias or hope or arrogance, as untanklike as you can be, sans cannon and machine guns and steel plating half a foot thick; you come at them unmenacingly on your own ten toes instead of tearing up the turf with your caterpillar treads, take them on with an open mind, as equals, man to man, as we used to say, and yet you never fail to get them wrong. You might as well have the brain of a tank. You get them wrong before you meet them, while you're anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you're with them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. Since the same generally goes for them with you, the whole thing is really a dazzling illusion empty of all perception, an astonishing farce of misperception. And yet what are we to do about this terribly significant business of other people, which gets bled of the significance we think it has and takes on instead a significance that is ludicrous, so ill-equipped are we all to envision one another's interior workings and invisible aims? Is everyone to go off and lock the door and sit secluded like the lonely writers do, in a soundproof cell, summoning people out of words and then proposing that these word people are closer to the real thing than the real people that we mangle with our ignorance every day? That fact remains that getting people right is not what living is all about anyway. It's getting them wrong that is living, getting them wrong and wrong and wrong and then, on careful reconsideration, getting them wrong again. That's how we know we're alive: we're wrong. Maybe the best thing would be to forget being right or wrong about people and just go along for the ride. But if you can do that -- well, lucky you."

So there's that. I think I'm still processing it, so I may be back within the next few days with more commentary on it, or perhaps as I read more of the book.

Biology and Man Hugs

2008-04-06T22:37:00.004-04:00

I hate biology.

1 Corinthians 16:13 - "Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong."

I keep turning to that verse tonight. Be strong. And I'm trying to be strong, but being strong sucks. Being weak is so much easier.

I just want to take a moment to thank every guy I've talked with and spent time with during the past couple days. You know who you are, and you're probably not reading this. That verse doesn't say to be a man of courage, it says men. God requires brotherhood from us: "Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2)

See, when I'm struggling with something, there are usually only a few people I will talk to about it. Or rather, I will usually only talk to a few people about it - there are more than a few people I go to with my problems, just not all at the same time and not with the same sorts of problems. But lately, I've been telling a bunch of people, people who deal with the same problems, and who can help me out.

Proverbs 17:17 - "A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity."

God gave us our friends, our brothers, so that they can be there for us when we're down, and help us through difficult times. It is their purpose, the function of the relationship. We are a support system when necessary. I have a support system. And not only did God design that system, he actually demands that we use it. It's the law. The Body of Christ is not an idea; it is a requirement.

In some roundabout way of reasoning, this brings me to the subject of man hugs.

I feel like men deal with a lot of stuff that needs to to be discussed and worked through, but rarely ever is due to pride or modesty ("modesty" in this case being simply a euphemism for the fear of potential embarrassment). It is important to deal with man stuff, because we need to be reassured of our masculinity. If we're not, we become overly hostile and begin making bizarre efforts to prove ourselves worthy in the eyes of. . .well, anyone who's willing to pay attention. This is not a good thing for the masculine soul or, really, society in general. It's how wars get started.

Which is why I believe that men need, in the words of Entourage's Ari Gold, to "hug it out" a lot more. And I don't mean with those "man hugs." Somehow America has developed some social stigma about male contact. John Eldredge has written about our culture's current attempts to emasculate men, be it through the treatment and punishment of boys who play a little too rough at recess, or through the constant encouragement of metro- and homo-sexuality in the media. Every now and then I really do feel I'm hearing the message that I'm wrong because I'm not gay. (Note that I do not use encouragement synonymously with condoning or acceptance, which would have vastly different implications.)

But whatever it is, there is definitely something rotten in the state of male relationships. What happened to brotherhood? Where is that brutal honesty we so desperately need to hear in order to improve ourselves and actually become the men we want so much to be? Why can't we be aggressive without being disgustingly competitive? It is possible to be real men without being jerks? It is possible to really hug real men without being gay? Why can't there be some sort of middle ground? Because we're men, and we grow up in a world telling us that if we don't take an extreme position, we're not strong enough to survive in it.

But the Biblia tells us something different. It tells us to stand on that middle ground. We're supposed to be there for each other. That is strength. 1 Corinthians 16:13 says to be men of courage, to be strong. Do you know what 1 Corinthians 16:14 says? "Do everything in love." And those two sentences are the whole paragraph. That is the entire thought, and ultimately the point I'm trying to make. By loving each other, we are strong. By loving each other, we are men. And we can hug each other more than we do.

So thanks to all my brothers for being men, and keeping me strong right now.

Much love, and a big strong bear hug.

Thank you, Allah

2008-04-05T10:35:00.001-04:00

Yesterday was a good day.

Skip this ad

2008-04-04T14:01:00.003-04:00

Well...

Here we are...

I finished reading John Eldredge's Wild at Heart this morning. I liked it a lot. It is a good book. I recommend that you read this book because it was very good.

I didn't really get on here with a topic to write on, or with any actual plan. Mostly I'm just wasting time. I've been considering lately writing about man-hugs. But for some reason, I just don't really feel like writing about them right now.

So...

This is weird. I have nothing of any significance to say right now. I mean, there are lots of things that I could say, but none of them bring about any particularly passionate response in me. At least not right now. I don't know why. I'm just kind of lost in my head. This is what happens when I have nothing to do.

And now I'm gonna stop taking up space with empty words.

About Me

2008-04-02T23:59:00.003-04:00

By the time this is up, it will probably be a new day.

For some reason, after only 3 days, I could no longer stand my xanga account. It just wasn't working for me, so now I'm here, and it was a fairly uneventful transition.

But now I am trying to really establish myself here after the move, so I attempt to edit my "about me" section. But I ran into the same dilemma I always run into. I ran into it on facebook. Again on xanga. Here is my dilemma:

What in the world is that supposed to mean? I can talk about myself, sure, but how do I condense that into some sort of crazy all-inclusive bubble of a paragraph. So I get scared. What if there's really nothing to say? I do believe, quite often, actually, that I may very well be just boring enough not to merit even a blurb of biography, even on my own site. Of course, I hope this is not the case. I hope that this is merely some existential quandary, the likes of which are seen by at least dozens of people every day. Surely I can overcome that.

But alas, (earwax), I cannot. And so, for at least a short while longer, I must remain without about.