Sam Storms sermon

Sam Storms, pastor of Bridgeway Church, delivered an excellent sermon describing six blessings bound up in the person and work of Jesus. The text for the sermon is Isaiah 9.6-7. Storms's rumination on the mystery and awe of the incarnation is stunning.

Listen here.

David Wells on Preaching in Postmodern World

Trinity Evangelical Seminary's Henry Center recently hosted David Wells to deliver a lecture, "How, then, Should We Preach to the (Postmodern) World?"

Watch the video here.

Listen to the audio here.

HT: Owen Strachan

Linus on Christmas

CT on Newsweek cover story

There is a good Christianity Today editorial responding to Newsweek's cover story on gay marriage. The editorial ends this way:

And so ironically, even before the first word of Miller's religious case for gay marriage has been read, Meacham has conceded that it is not a case at all, but a simple assertion. And while they both claim they are arguing against exclusiveness and for inclusivity, they have managed to exclude from this crucial national conversation a significant proportion of the American population who happen to believe there is a strong biblical case for traditional marriage.

The one thing we biblical conservatives will never do, however, is exclude people like Meacham and Miller from any conversation that matters to us. So, we invite them to sit down with us, or someone from our world, to have a biblical, intellectually rich conversation about marriage—if they really are interested in being serious about this crucial topic.

Read it in its entirety here.

For a more thorough critique, see Robert Gagnon's response.

HT: Between Two Worlds

On Gov. Blagojevich's arrest

Robin Dembroff has a good post explaining how Governor Blagojevich's recent arrest underscores our perennial enslavement to slavery.

old school hoopster

The NY times has a fun little story about 73 year old college basketball player, Ken Mink.

"Lost and Saved on Television"

Writing in the Catholic periodical First Things, Ross Douthat is encouraged by the spiritual overtones that lace a good amount of television programming. Douthat acknowledges that at one time religion was a key contender in the battle to keep the airwaves and television free of bawdiness. That battle, Douthat admits, has been lost largely because of "Technological change" that proliferated mediums and outlets making it more difficult to regulate the content of programs. Yet Douthat encourages any that are battle-weary because "there are opportunities in defeat as well as victory, and places where new life can spring up amidst the ruins". Citing the spiritual and moral overtones of American shows like Battlestar Galactica, Lost, and The Sopranos, Douthat sees it as advantageous for Christians to engage in this "riotous marketplace".

Read the article here.

On Food

Last week Bill Moyers interviewed Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma. I found the interview fascinating. Pollan explains the role of food in issues related to the environment, energy, and national security. For Pollan, it is all about food.

Watch the interview here.

Grizzly Man and Gay Marriage

With the passing of California's Proposition 8, I have found myself reflecting on the homosexuality discussion. It seems to me that the whole debate is in orbit around anthropology, that is, how one understands human nature, for both sides of the debate appeal to nature. Supporters of gay marriage appeal to nature ("I was born this way"), citing desire as the determining factor. It is believed that a gay person's sexual desire for members of the same-sex legitimates homosexual practice or lifestyle. Opponents of gay marriage also appeal to nature, citing, not desire, but anatomical design as the determining factor. Humans, it is believed, are bound sexually by their design because two male parts (or female) simply do not go together sexually. The former speak of nature more subjectively and the latter speak of nature more objectively.

The homosexuality debate, then, should grapple with the trustworthiness of desires and the limits put on us by our own physical design.

Enter Grizzly Man. This Werner Herzog documentary has something to say about this discussion. The film follows Grizzly Man, Timothy Treadwell, and, with his own video documentation, his life among the Grizzlies in Alaska. Yes, Treadwell lived with Grizzlies, swam with Grizzlies, and talked to Grizzlies, experiences that provide stunning footage.

Herzog's interviews several Alaskans on Treadwell's decision to live with these bears which provide insight. For many interviewees, Treadwell was crazy. Sure, he may have had a desire to live with bears but actually following those desires was foolish, they said. They appealed to the limits binding individuals; humans do not and should not live with wildlife because it is just that, wild. On the other hand, other interviewees respected Treadwell as a man who had a desire to live with bears and went out to fulfill that desire. After all, Treadwell disregarded his detractors and pursued his dream.

Treadwell's longing to live with the bears did not correspond to Treadwell's nature. Unfortunately, Treadwell was bound and limited; he was a human, not a bear, and humans do not live with bears. In the end--and this is a spoiler for anyone that hasn't seen the film--Treadwell's decision finally caught up with him as he was killed by a Grizzly (along with his girlfriend). (If you do plan to watch the film, beware, for it contains lots of strong language. The film also contains coarse sexual references which, incidentally, shed some light on the homosexuality debate)

The film's tagline captures the point nicely: "In nature, there are boundaries." I am not suggesting that homosexuality is akin to seeking life among the bears. I am suggesting that Grizzly Man underscores an important point to consider in the homosexual debate: one's desires do not always correspond to their design. In other words, Treadwell's humanity (i.e. design) hampered his desire to live among the bears. Both design and desire did not correspond with one another and were not going to end in individual fulfillment. And this is the major offense to what I am suggesting: our personal--and corporate--fulfillment does not necessarily correspond to our desires. Understanding one's "nature" by turning to what one desires is wildly unpredictable. Our desires mislead, conflict, and evolve. And this is particularly true for sexual desires. The more reliable gauge for understanding one's sexuality is design, not desire.

"Suicide to Snickers"

"Postmoderns are remarkably nonchalant about the meaninglessness which they experience in life. Reading the works of an earlier generation of writers, existentialist authors like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, one almost developed a sense of vertigo, the kind of apprehension that one gets when standing too near the edge of a terrifying precipice, so bleak, empty, and life-threatening was their vision. That sense, however, has now completely gone. Postmoderns live on the surface, not in the depths, and theirs is a despair to be tossed off lightly and which might even be alleviated by nothing more serious than a sitcom." (from David F. Wells' Above All Earthly Pow'rs, 177)

Eurpoean reflections on the sense of meaninglessness engendered by the modern world tended to be dark. By contrast, Americans have remained more upbeat. Take the show Seinfeld which, with its bright colors and bouncy bass riffs, expressed the same meaninglessness, albeit with a smile. Wells says,

"By the 1990s, when we encounter the television series Seinfeld, for example, this sense of internal loss and disorientation had been turned into a brilliantly acted but completely banal sitcom. Seinfeld, Thomas Hibbs writes, was 'a show about the comical consequences of life in a world void of ultimate significance or fundamental meaning.' This show, he adds, was 'by its own account, a show about nothing.' The darkness of soul had lifted, though not its emptiness. Now we were no longer serious enough to do anything but smirk. The journey into the postmodern world, from the writers of this literature of bewilderment into television shows like this, is one from darkness in the depths to mockery on the surface, from suicide to shallow snickers." (188)

What is to remedy this heavy (or maybe not so heavy) sense of meaninglessness? For Wells, it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A good word from Dorothy Sayers

"Let us, in Heaven's name, drag out the Divine Drama from under the dreadful accumulation of slipshod thinking and trashy sentiment heaped upon it, and set it on an open stage to startle the world into some sort of vigorous reaction. If the pious are the first to be shocked, so much the worse for the pious--others will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before them. If all men are offended because of Christ, let them be offended; but where is the sense of their being offended at something that is not Christ and is nothing like Him? We do Him singularly little honor by watering down His personality till it could not offend a fly. Surely it is not the business of the Church to adapt Christ to men, but to adapt men to Christ."

from Dorothy L. Sayers' Creed or Chaos?, 36.

The Soothing Glow of Colored Light

As soon as our daughter could see, she was fascinated by the soothing glow of the television (a sight we try to limit!). Humans have always been dazzled by the sight of colored light and have found resourceful and creative ways to enjoy its beauty. Consider, for example, churches laced with stained glass. In the last century, however, colored light has been ubiquitously linked to the cult of consumption. William Leach's Land of Desire picks up on this:

"'Coloured glass,' wrote German architectural utopian Paul Scheerbart, who influenced Mies van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright, among others, 'destroys hatred.' 'Light softened by color, calms the nerves.' By 1910, American merchants, in their efforts to create the new commercial aesthetic, took command over color, glass, and light, fashioning a link so strong between them and consumption that, today, the link seems natural. By the 1920s so many commercial institutions and people had exploited 'color' that, according to the The New York Times, the word itself had been 'worn to a frazzle.'" (9)

There is a limit on the power of colored light to soothe, something much of Los Angeles is finding out. NPR did a story today on the new LED billboards (think JumboTrons) that many feel are littering the landscape of L.A.

Gospel Coalition

I have encountered a series of good videos on youtube from the Gospel Coalition. It is made up of mostly pastors seeking to unleash the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here is an introductory video:

Election aftermath

FYI: Between Two Worlds has a series of good contributions from evangelicals reflecting on the '08 election, including this one on Obama and the future of abortion.

Piper's comments on election '08

HT: Between Two Worlds

Chesterton's Platitudes Undone

I ran across a fun little book that I received during college called Platitudes Undone. During the 1950s a fan of Chesterton stumbled across a copy of Holbrook Jackson's Platitudes in the Making (1911). Within the text of Jackson's book were Chesterton's handwritten comments and quips on Jackson's platitudes.

Chesterton's comments capture nicely his ability to pack a pithy punch.

Here are some examples:

Platitude: A lie is that which you do not believe.
Chesterton's insert: This is a lie: so perhaps you don't believe it

Platitude: No opinion matters finally: except your own.
Chesterton's insert: ...said the man who thought he was a rabbit.

Platitude: Things done on principle are things done wrong.
Chesterton's insert: Only on the wrong principle; this last principle, for instance.

Platitude: A man is a ship: his religion a harbour. Few men sail the high seas.
Chesterton's insert: No men do, except to find a harbour somewhere.

Call + Response

This documentary on sex trafficking should be well-worth sitting through, and from what I understand it does a great job of not only creating awareness but moving the viewer to action on this horrific reality.



HT: Between Two Worlds

OBU selects new president

Oklahoma Baptist University selects its fifteenth president, Dr. David Whitlock.

Songs about God's Love are Cheap

Jonathan Dodson, pastor of Austin City Life, has a good post on why so many worship songs about God's love are weak, cheap, and could just as easily be sung to a girlfriend or boyfriend.

The Cycle is Broken!

By and large, humans, especially those of the ancient world, have tended to view history cyclically. In other words, history has often been conceived, not as a progression or linearly, but as a series of cycles. This view pervaded the ancient world for a couple of reasons. First, life follows a cycle. We come into this world utterly dependent, grow to relative independence, and finally shrink and wither to dependence again. A bumper sticker I have seen captures this reality nicely: "Take care of your children because they choose your nursing home". We go from dust to dust. A second reason many ancients viewed history as a repeating cycle is the agricultural life that profoundly shaped the ancient world's consciousness. The days, seasons, crops, and years all follow a cycle. It was assumed that history followed the same cyclical pattern. (for more on this see David Bebbington's Patterns in History)

Interestingly, the Bible does not present us with a cyclical view of history (although certain books, like Judges, follow the cyclical pattern). Instead, it presents a progression, a linear view of history: Creation. Fall. Redemption. It presents the move from a garden to a city. In this way, the Bible is an aberration. An oddity. Just as the Hebrews were bizarre for their monotheism, they were also odd in their view of history as being linear.

Of course, to see history linearly only makes sense in light of the cross. Touching upon this profound truth, G.K. Chesterton makes an interesting comparison between the Buddhist swastika and the Christian cross:

The cross is a thing at right angles pointing boldly in opposite directions; but the Swastika is the very same thing in the very act of returning to the recurrent curve. That crooked cross is in fact a cross turning into a wheel. Before we dismiss even these symbols as if they were arbitrary symbols, we must remember how intense was the imaginative instinct that produced them or selected them both in the east and the west. The cross has become something more than a historical memory; it does convey, almost as by a mathematical diagram, the truth about the real point at issue; the idea of a conflict stretching outwards into eternity. It is true, and even tautological, to say that the cross is the crux of the whole matter.

In other words, the cross in fact as well as figure, does really stand for the idea of breaking out of the circle that is everything and nothing. (The Everlasting Man, 134)

Redemption through the cross of Christ is not something we'd expect. Apart from the cross, we are enslaved to cyclicalness. We are like horses at the hot walker, shackled to the cycle of our sinful passions. Moving nowhere but to eventual condemnation. Not surprisingly, so many have taken the dark, cold cyclical view of history.

Thankfully, the cycle has been broken. The swastika, and all that it represents, has extended and become a cross. History will never be the same.

Piper on ESV Study Bible

The Big Picture

For so long I read the Bible as a series of isolated stories with minimal connection to one another. All the stories were consistent in their insistence that we serve God and neighbor, but that was about it.

As I progressed through my seminary studies I began to see remarkable connectedness to the Bible. There are many ways to break down the overarching story of the Bible, but here are two:

1) Genesis 1-11 poses the question of how restoration might come.
2) Genesis 12-Revelation 22 answers that question.

Or, put more simply:

1) Genesis 1-11-the problem.
2) Genesis 12-Revelation 22-the solution.

The glue, of course, holding the whole book (and not to mention the whole universe!) together is Jesus Christ.

Religion and Politics

Joe Carter has good reminders for how Christians should engage politics. Here is the introduction:

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was purportedly asked if God was on his side. "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side," said the President, "my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

Although Lincoln is often praised for this remark by those who oppose the mixing of religion and politics, it contains three of the most controversial ideas in American politics: that it is legitimate to invoke the name of God within the realm of political discourse; that God's existence not only matters, but that he is always right; and that since God takes sides on certain issues, some people will be divinely justified while others will be in opposition not only to their political opponents but to the very Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.

If you find these ideas absurd and repugnant, you are most likely a secularist. If you find them to be embarrassing truths, then you may be on the religious left. If you find them so obvious that they hardly need stating, then you are probably a member of the so-called "religious right."

(HT: Between Two Worlds)

The Sola Panel | Is church for evangelism?

This is a good, brief write-up on the place of evangelism in the church. (HT: Justin Taylor)

The Sola Panel | Is church for evangelism?

Posted using ShareThis

Keller on need for good theology

Significance of clothing in ANE (Question for readers)

Anyone that has attended Gordon-Conwell is probably aware of Gordon Hugenberger's class, Christ in the OT. In that class Hugenberger often mentioned the significance of the hem of one's garment. The hem of one's garment, Hugenberger says, was indicative of one's inheritance. It was etched into the very fabric of one's clothes. Hence the seriousness and subsequent jealousy surrounding Joseph's colorful coat.

This point makes sense of a number of passages, yet I have never seen the same point made by other OT scholars (granted, my reading in OT is very limited). Does anyone else in the OT field agree with this understanding of ANE clothing?

I welcome any thoughts or answers.

Hammer Time

Aside from being hilarious, these commercials underscore that it is often media that becomes the source of our daily salvation. In this instance, salvation from the monotony of the modern workplace comes with the arrival of Monday Night Football. We are indeed "mediated"!

from "On Earth as It Is in Advertising?"

When we expose ourselves mindlessly to popular culture, we interpret little of it wisely and we permit most of what is advertised to leave residue on our consciousness.

(from Sam Van Eman's On Earth as It Is in Advertising?, 15)

from "Mediated"

I am in the process of reading Thomas de Zengotita's Mediated.  In this book, de Zengotita describes how the deluge of mediums soaking us affect our psyches.  In the following excerpt, he describes how Times Square epitomizes our predicament.  The description is haunting, especially the juxtaposition between the virtual and real.

 

Take the new Times Square, everybody's favorite icon for the virtualization process, because that's where what is happening in the culture as a whole is so effectively distilled and intensified.  All the usual observations apply--and each observation contributes its iota to muffling what it was intended to expose, including this one, my little contribution, which consists of noticing how everything in that place is aimed.  Everything is firing modules, straight for your gonads, your taste buds, your vanities, your fears.  But it's okay; these modules seek to penetrate, but in a passing way; it's all in fun.  A second of your attention is all they ask.  Nothing real is firing, nothing that rends or cuts.  It's a massage, if you just relax and go with it.  And why not?  Some of the most talented people on the planet have devoted their lives to creating this psychic sauna, just for you.  

And it's not just the screens and billboards, the literal signs; it's absolutely everything you encounter.  Except for the eyes of the people, shuffling along, and the poignant imperfections of their bodies; they are so manifestly unequal to the solicitations lavished upon them.  No wonder they stuff themselves with junk--or trying to live up to it all, enslave themselves to regimes of improvement.  The flattery of representation has a downside, as we shall see--for the flattered self is spoiled.  It never gets enough.  It feels unappreciated.  It whines a lot.  It wants attention.  

(from Mediated: How the Media Shapes Your World And the Way You Live in It, 21) 

The music of Joe Garner

A friend introduced me to Joe Garner. I have really enjoyed his stuff thus far. His music can be downloaded for free at NoiseTrade.

Here is a description of Garner's music from his MySpace site:
Recorded at a mountain studio in east Tennessee and released independently, Garner's is a sound definitely grown from the ground. Earthy, honest and plaintive; Mourning Birds beckons back to the folk ballads of a simpler time and at the same time casts a shadow of unease on its own mirth. Compiled with a handful of friends giving sparse and simple accompaniment to his guitar, Garner's first effort includes six tracks that display the enigmatic range of moods that make this burgeoning songwriter and storyteller a haunted soul not soon forgotten. Songs like 'Bury the Hatchet' and 'June and God' usher the listener into the quiet moments of human longing and the subterranean rage that either break our spirits or make us whole. These stories of squandered love and utter desperation place us as near voyeurs in the midst of lives unraveling and eroding before us. Idiosyncratic yet empathic, the images conjured up by Garner's characters evoke a time and place hauntingly too near. Other songs, like 'They're All Gone', move hesitantly out from the shadows. In his way, Garner captures a glimpse of hope's somber release, the silent joy of discovering that some of life's darker doubts and questions cannot be answered, not yet. Son to a life-long and road-weary Country 'n' Western picker, Garner comes by his music honest. While not too concerned with slaying the forefathers of his genre or recreating the wagon wheel, Joe Garner has been able to move in and inhabit the best sensibilities of a songwriting once known as Country Music, but upon its exit from the country now labeled 'Roots'. May his roots grow deeper; we'll sit and listen.

evangelism

In Ephesians Paul speaks of evangelism as being one of the gifts for the building up of the body of Christ. Unfortunately, however, evangelists often inadvertently tear down the body of Christ. I can remember in high school fretting, even to the point of tears, as to whether I was actually saved. This anxiety spiked following revivals or evangelistic services because it seemed that the evangelist did everything possible in order to spawn doubt in the believer's heart. I can remember hearing these preachers relay stories about individuals that thought they were saved but then realized they had not produced a truly sincere profession of faith. If these Christians were not really Christians, how could I be sure that I was? After all, I could hardly remember my acceptance of Christ at age nine, much less remember the sincerity of such a moment.

And I have spoke with others that have had similar experiences. Last week, one person told me that he accepted Christ four times, and was baptized three! (I think this is right; it was something ridiculous like that.). All in effort to "nail down" his certainty of being a believer.

These tactics that foster doubt in Christians, especially young people, are wrong. They harm the effectiveness of the Church by causing its members to doubt their place in it! If it is the Gospel that anchors the actions of Christians, any preaching that loosens that anchor will harm Christian activity.

But at a deeper level, these tactics undermine the Gospel. They imply that the believer must muster a certain degree of enthusiasm and sincerity or at least have a certain level of sophistication in order to validate their faith in Christ. This is simply not the case. There is an episode in the Gospels where a woman seeks to simply touch Jesus' clothes in hopes that by touching them she might be healed from her sickness. This is not mature faith but a superstitious one. Nonetheless, Jesus says your faith has made you well (Mt 9.22). Why? The point Tim Keller extracts from the text is that it is not the sincerity or sophistication of one's faith but the object of one's faith that heals them. The woman did not have an accurate understanding of faith, but the object of her faith was right. Interestingly, our culture thinks the exact opposite with regards to faith: it is not the object of our faith that matters, but the sincerity of it. This is not true of biblical Christianity and it does not measure up with reality either, says Keller.

To make his case, Keller describes three men running from a bloodthirsty bear. The men reach a cliff and there is a frozen pond at the bottom. They are faced with a dilemma: take their chances with the bear, or jump onto a frozen pond that may or may not hold them. The three men all, by faith, decide to jump onto the frozen pond. Yet they all have varying degrees of faith. The first has hardly an inkling of faith that the ice will hold him but jumps anyway. The second person is about 50% sure that the ice will hold. The last guy, seeing the other two made it, had a strong faith in the ice's strength to hold him. Given their varying degrees of faith, all made it! All were saved! In other words, it was not the level of their faith, but the object of their faith, in this case, the pond. (This is Keller's illustration as I remember it; I probably botched it in one way or another)

So, it is not so much the level of our faith but the object of it that matters, namely, Jesus Christ. Many evangelists would do well to remember this point. As I think back to my salvation experience at age nine, I do not remember what exactly I believed about Jesus. I am sure it was fraught with theological problems. Nevertheless, I do know the object of my faith at that point. I simply threw myself to Jesus, just like those men threw themselves onto the frozen pond. And through that, I was saved.

Wise Saying

Last night we had dinner with several couples and we started talking about some of the whacky things churches do to get people into their church. It is amazing some of the cockeyed and crooked antics employed as "outreach."

Amidst our discussion, I was reminded of a great saying my youth minister used to say regularly: "What you win 'em with, is what you win 'em to."

In other words, if we are getting congregants in our church doors with only pizza and games, then that is what we have won them to. It is a pithy point, and one that stands as a good corrective to many of our outreach endeavors.

NoiseTrade

Just learned of NoiseTrade, a site encouraging the spread of good music for a tiny fee (what you think the CD is worth or telling three friends about the site).

(HT: Tim Challies)

Chocolate Chip Cookies and Christian witness

NPR's Talk of the Nation did a bit on chocolate chip cookies today. The discussion was helpful and my wife and I are already employing some of what we learned.

The guest talked some about the wonders of salt. Salt, she said, suppresses bitterness and enhances sweetness. Salt has a way of squelching what is distasteful and strengthening what tastes right. You've probably heard that Christians, as "salt," are to be both preservers of the world and those that add zest to it. Well, add this one: as salt, we should also be a suppressor of what is bitter and distasteful and an enhancer of what is sweet and savory.

In addition to a good discussion on cookies, you will see a fine number by Cookie Monster.

"Trapped in Time"

Trapped in Time is a book about two 1980s teenage siblings that through some kind of meditative exercise are taken back to the 1950s (I think this is the means by which they journey back into time; I haven't read the book since 5th grade). There, they run into their parents who are meeting for the first time and mess up the whole event. Their task then becomes to get their parents together. Sound familiar?

The book follows very closely the storyline of Back to the Future, one of my favorite movies. It was my fifth grade teacher, Bernal C. Payne, that wrote Trapped in Time. Mr. Payne told us that the writers of Back to the Future banked off of his idea (this was c. 1990). If I recall correctly, Mr. Payne even took the thing to court, but was unsuccessful. It made sense because the two stories were so similar.

The plot thickened a couple of years back when I was watching the special features on my new Back to the Future trilogy DVD set. I learned that one of the writers, Bob Gale, was from St. Louis. This is where I grew up and also where Mr. Payne grew up and taught. The chances of Bob Gale stumbling upon a children's sci-fi novel from a local St. Louis author seemed highly likely.

In any case, if you like Back to the Future, I'd highly recommend getting your hands on Trapped in Time.

The bite of Jesus' words

I recently heard a good Tim Keller sermon. In this sermon, Keller said that anyone that really hears Jesus cannot respond moderately to him. This is a good word for both Christians and non-Christians.

For non-Christians that presume Jesus to be simply a masterful teacher, not Savior and Lord over all, it is a good word. It seems very acceptable to shrug Jesus off as a great man, but not who he claimed to be. Regarding those that like to call Jesus a great moral teacher, C. S. Lewis says,

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sorts of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (Mere Christianity, 52)

For Christians, on the other hand, it is tempting to look at the more radical Christian as an odd duck. I recently heard about a family that sold their nice, year-old home in order to buy a lesser home in a poorer neighborhood. They wanted to live more simply and are seeking to be a renewing presence in a needy area. This is the kind of intentional, counter-cultural radicalness that Jesus' words lead us to. That is, if we really hear him.

folksy Will Cookson

I stumbled across some really good music. The musician's name is Will Cookson. I would place him in the Iron & Wine, Kings of Convenience, and Nick Drake category. Give him a listen here.

The Heavenly Good of Earthly Work

Darrell Cosden has written a book on work called The Heavenly Good of Earthly Work. Taking cues from Jurgen Moltmann, Cosden argues that the actual work we do will persist into heaven. To begin this fascinating proposal, Cosden looks to the resurrection of Jesus. Noting that Jesus' post-resurrection appearances reveal the scars from the cross (see John 20.27; Rev. 5.6), Cosden says,

We have made an imprint on Jesus' (God's) eternal physical body. And since this body, still containing those scars, is now ascended back into the Godhead, the results of at least this particular 'human work' are guaranteed to carry over into God's as well as our own future and eternal reality. (59)

From this starting point, Cosden builds a convincing case that human work will somehow endure into eternity, albeit in a transformed state. This is a book worth reading, particularly given Am. Christianity's tendency to reduce redemption to soul saving.

Religious attending, giving

Here is an article on the donating habits of Americans and its relation to their religiosity (as well as generation). The article reveals what happens when religion, or the sacred, drifts (see below, "The divine is drifting").

Honest Abe

I was recently reminded of some witty, nineteenth-century presidential banter. Leading up to one of Abraham Lincoln's elections, his opponent (not sure if it was Douglas or McClellan) charged Lincoln with being nothing more than a "two-faced politician." In response, Lincoln quipped, "If I was two-faced, why would I be wearing this one?"

The divine is drifting

The sacred has been in migration for some time now. Under contemporary conditions, individuals have grown leery of externalities. Our world seems fragmented, tumultuous, and inhospitable. Despite all our comforts and convienences, our souls groan. Peter Berger has called it psychological homelessness. Spiritual people are far more interested in believing, not belonging (as Grace Davie puts it), or seeking instead of dwelling (as Robert Wuthnow puts it). The weight of modern life compresses the divine from the outside (churches, synagogues, mosques, Bible, Torah, etc.) to the inside, nestled deep within the individual. For the self to bear the existential brunt thrust upon it by modern conditions it must muster something sacred. And so it is that the self acquires divineness (see Wuthnow, After Heaven, 147). The sacred, then, has migrated to the self.

This is problematic for Christians because we believe that the divine only comes from without, not within. David F. Wells puts it this way: whereas contemporary spirituality begins from below, traditional Christianity begins from above (Above All Earthly Pow'rs; The Courage to Be Protestant). These are polar opposite starting points with polar opposite ends. The former ends in condemnation and destruction; the latter ends in salvation and life. Contemporary spirituality is problematic because, says Wells, it "sounds plausible, compelling, innocent, and even commendable, but, let us make no mistake about it, it is lethal to biblical Christianity" (The Courage to Be Protestant, 178).

Dr. Jones, Dr. Jones!

Saw the latest Indy film. Not so good. Too many old man jokes--in fact, when I first heard there were plans for another Indiana Jones movie (way back during the summer of 2000), there were references to Harrison Ford being in a wheelchair for the film. The writers perceived the public's awareness that perhaps Harrison Ford was getting a bit old and overcompensated with reference after reference to Ford's age. Also, some of the staple ruins and labyrinth scenes seemed like they belonged in the 1985 Goonies, not the 2008 Indiana Jones.

I think my biggest problem with the movie is that I am now 28 years old and not 10--the age when I saw The Last Crusade. As a kid, I loved these films. Just last year Sarah and I watched them again and were pretty disappointed. Some movies--like Flight of the Navigator and Gremlins--are best left stored in childhood memories. I guess my problem with the film is that it came out about 15 years too late.

Madonna and Playboy Bunny

For research during seminary I thumbed through many issues of Christianity Today. Often I would get sidetracked by interesting articles. One of those articles was written by Richard J. Mouw, now president of Fuller Seminary. The article tried to understand the unlikely union of two recognizable symbols, the Virgin Mary and the Playboy bunny. What follows is a summary of the article:

Close to forty years ago, Mouw saw coupled upon an automobile the Virgin Mary and the Playboy Bunny. This experience threw Mouw into a "frenzied attempt to absorb it into [his] theology." Perhaps the uniting of these symbols was to provide an epiphany, a window into the "Spirit of the Age." Assuming that something was to be gleaned from this odd pairing, Mouw began interpreting. Maybe this was cause to rethink H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture paradigm since here was the "Mother of Christ" and the "Pet of Hefner standing in relatively stable confrontation within a single organism, with neither one being quite dominated, or transformed by, or exalted at the expense of, the other." Or perhaps this was emblematic of the evolution of the twentieth-century woman, from the servant Mary to the autonomous Playmate. And, in Hegelian terms, this thesis and antithesis were dueling to beget a synthesis that points "to some middle, even transcendent, way that at once embraces and rises above the conflict." Possibly this was to be interpreted more broadly as a "prophetic-priestly clash," Mother Mary embodying traditional morality and the bunny representing the New Morality.

Having delved into several possible meanings, Mouw concludes that this is "a case where the medium is the message." These meaning-rich emblems are nullified by their substance, that is, "they are fashioned by...the same plastic-and-cellophane culture, a culture whose very plasticity allows for the real possibility that Madonnas and Bunnies are mass-produced in the same factory." Mouw believes that such a culture sucks out the power of the sacred and profane to judge each other. And so it is that images constructed of such material can peacefully get along.

I found this to be a very illuminating--it even has worked its way into one of my dissertation chapters. Mouw's cause for concern has only multiplied since he wrote this in 1970.

American Idol wrap-up

I've posted on Idol before (on the enigmatic use of "Shout to the Lord"). We enjoy the show, particularly this season. The New York Times has a good wrap-up to the season.

Entitlement and Exclusivity

Today our Sunday school class discussed a problem modern people have with the Gospel: the exclusivity of Jesus. That is, the truth that only through expressed faith in Jesus can one be saved. There are a number of factors that contribute to the difficulty people have with this doctrine. For example, many sociologists have pointed out that when the world we inhabit is filled with a variety of religions, ideologies, and -isms, the plausibility of any one of those religions, ideologies, or -isms being true becomes hard to imagine.

Christians have correctly noted that the question of whether there are multiple ways to God is the wrong one to be asking. Instead, we need to ask why there is one way at all!

But this question, while appropriate, does not seem to carry the force that it should. Why? I think a large part of the reason is the sense of entitlement that runs deep within us. Those of us in America (and other modern, western settings) have unprecedented wealth and resources. Some of the poorest among us live with more comforts and conveniences than a medieval king. Lagging closely behind wealth is a sense of entitlement. Add to this the deluge of ads we receive that pander to our whims and wishes and you can see how plausible the idea of entitlement is.

This sense of entitlement is an assumption. I am guessing that it is not shared by those starving in Africa. We are catechized by the structures, systems, and forms that comprise our contemporary context. In our particular moment, the context happens to catechize in a way that makes belief in the exclusivity of Jesus difficult to maintain. We interact with legions of spiritualities and religions and, we think, surely there is not only one religion that is TRUE. The important thing to bear in mind is that every generation is blind to their own assumptions, prejudices, presuppositions, etc.

That God has provided a way for fellowship with him is astonishing. And he did so at such a great cost. Nothing less than the death of his own son. It is troubling that, amidst our spoiledness, we say, "that's not good enough."

There is a video on this narrated by R.C. Sproul worth watching (HT: Justin Taylor).

Nigel Biggar lecture

Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Oxford, delivered a lecture grappling with how the Christian should engage in public discourse. I found it helpful.

Bourdieu and The Study of Religion

My PhD research draws heavily upon sociology. Going the sociology route meant delving into a large body of literature largely unfamiliar to me. A good chunk of last year was spent immersing myself in this body of work. David Wells' research on evangelicalism and modern/postmodern life has been my inspiration for pursuing this type of research. Wells' books on the subject have utilized a good amount of sociology and, consequently, have provided an interesting angle on the issue of church and culture.

Recently, my supervisor recommended that I look at the work of French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu. For Bourdieu, any society consists of various "fields." Each field contains different types of capital, that is, material and non-material resources that give individuals an edge in life. For example, in the economic field there is a struggle over monetary resources. In academia, individuals might vie for prestige. Religion is a field bound up with its own type of capital: meaning, salvation, etc. For Bourdieu, the struggle for significance is fundamental to understanding social relations. Individuals compete to etch out a place in the field or social arena they inhabit. And individuals become adept at navigating a number of different, yet perhaps overlapping, fields. Shaping an individual's play in the field is habitus, that is, an urge or impulse that directs one's actions. It sounds to me like habitus is somewhat like a worldview, although less systematic and tidy than the way one would traditionally think of a worldview. Habitus is operative at a deeper level of consciousness than a worldview might be.

Bourdieu dabbled in religion but spent the bulk of his work investigating this theory as it applied to culture and art. Sociologists of religion, however, have been applauding its usefulness for the study of religion. And--while I do not agree with some of the presuppositions undergirding Bourdieu's theory--I think it will be a helpful template for understanding some of my research. I have read several journal articles on Bourdieu but have yet to get my hands on any of his books--so my understanding of him is limited to secondary sources; I will take a trip to the library this week to remedy that.

Wheaton and the Fact/Value Divide

I recently posted on the fact/value split that pervades American life (see below). It is a concern for Christians who are called to make Christ Lord of all their life, including their time in the public square. The recent resignation of Kent Gramm amidst his divorce and the media's response to the issue provides an insightful window into the way this split works.

Alan Jacobs, Wheaton professor and one of Gramm's colleagues, has a good discussion of the entire situation in his post for the First Things blog.

Trust Jesus, Not Politics

Americans have too much faith in American politics. And we're not the only ones. Moderns in general tend to place a great amount of hope in the state that governs them. Craig M. Gay has argued this point in the The Way of the Modern World. He says, "While we may lose faith in this or that politician and/or party from time to time, our belief in the potential of the political process tends to be unshakable" (31). The sheer size of modern states along with their technological resources give plausibility to their potential for solving any and every problem.

At the same time, however, there seems to be some skepticism toward government intervention. My job at the elementary school required a class that delved into legislation for the public school system. This lecture suggested that many of the changes, particularly the latest No Child Left Behind Act, have created enormous difficulty for the public schools. And the class as a whole seemed to affirm the frustration over this legislation. Also, consider the grumbles that accompany tax season. If our trust in American politics was consistent, tax season would be a treat, a good and pleasing offering to our omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent government.

Evangelicals in particular have typically expressed a good amount of faith in American politics, notwithstanding some evangelicals that have recently convened to amend evangelicalism's tight relationship with politics. While we should be good, concerned citizens, we need to remain aware of political limitations. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain will not save us. They will not provide universal flourishing. If we believe that can be attained by a Democrat or Republican, we have sorely undestimated our problem. The ultimate problem is sin and it has penetrated not just human hearts but all of creation, including human structures and systems, like governments. This requires a massive overhaul, in fact, nothing short of the re-creation of all things. Thanks to Jesus' work and the power of the Holy Spirit, we can experience this project of redemption and even participate in it. This process of building the Kingdom must be our priority. Of course, this includes being politically engaged citizens but it also transcends that.

As the promises of the candidates soar to new heights this summer and fall, beware. They will find it nearly impossible to deliver. Their proposals that sound so neat and tidy will become sloppy in the complexity of real life. The only thing that can overcome the difficulty of sin is the Gospel of Jesus. That is where our ultimate hope must be.

"The Big Picture Story Bible"

"The Big Picture Story Bible" was one of the gifts we received when Cora was born. While I am not privy to the many children's bibles that exist, I must say that this is an excellent one. It gives a broad sweep of God's plan of redemption. This children's bible properly maintains the centrality of Christ to redemptive history and captures the drama of many of the OT stories by keeping little ears alert to Christ's relationship to these great OT characters. There is even a chapter that explains how Christ fulfilled the promises of the OT. This book brings the bible together in a way that I did not understand until seminary.

Sarah and I are already reading the bible to Cora because, at the suggestion of a former pastor, we do not want Cora to remember a time when we did not read scripture with her. For parents looking for a children's bible, I highly recommend this one. My only quibble is that the illustrator put too many white people in the pictures. I am not sure that the Ancient Middle East had too many redheads running around--although Esau was "red." Otherwise, I really enjoy the illustrator's artwork, especially the sly fox that seems to always make an appearance.

More on "Expelled"

I don't want to devote this blog to all things "Expelled," but I ran across the most helpful review yet. Thanks again to Justin Taylor.

"Expelled"

(Note: When I refer to "Darwinists," I am referring to the atheist variety. There are many theists that support Darwinism.)

Lots of mudslinging and name-calling has accompanied the release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Having followed some of the reviews, blogs, and message boards, I have heard deafening barks, but little bite.

Many comments suggest that Expelled is trying to sneak faith (or God) into science. Regarding this charge, the narrator, Ben Stein, tactfully nudged the Darwinian interviewees back to their faith commitments, pressuring them until they spewed out beliefs in crystals and aliens "seeding" our planet. The point was clear: All have faith commitments. Whether one believes in God, aliens, or crystals, all are exercising faith. And these scientists are allowing this faith to inform their science. They are not opposed to faith (e.g. crystals and aliens work) but faith of a particular kind.

Another criticism came from a New York Times review of the film, which called the documentary one of the "sleaziest" in a long time. The reviewer states that the film ignores "the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism." The reviewer is referring to the film's suggestion that Darwinism had a part to play in legitimating the Holocaust. It seems to me that to make a sharp distinction between scientific and social Darwinism, as this reviewer does, is to undermine scientific Darwinism. If naturalistic, Darwinian evolution is true (and if we are intellectually honest) then its implications should be pushed to every aspect of life, including society. The film is not saying that all Darwinian proponents are bloodthirsty Nazis. It is suggesting that Darwinian science provides a compelling justification for genocide. And Nazi rhetoric was undoubtedly laced with Darwinian ideas. The person that divorces scientific Darwinism from social Darwinism is being inconsistent. They are, in other words, employing the fact/value split (see below). Rather than call the link between the Holocaust and Darwinism unfair, even preposterous, what I'd like to see a cogent critique of genocide from a Darwinian position.

These are just a couple of challenges or charges I have encountered while following the film’s release. Ironically, the vehement criticism over this film gives clout to its main point: a bullying majority refuses to allow other voices to be heard. This majority refuses to even allow debate over Intelligent Design because they are allowing their presuppositions (philosophical materialism) to tape-off the boundaries of what counts as science. This is not science. And I wonder how much this suppression is stymieing the progress of science. Also, the palpable anger over Expelled leads one to wonder whether this issue is really about science, as many Darwinists insist. Instead, it seems this debate is about deeply entrenched faith commitments.

Justin Taylor has pointed out two reviews of the film worth reading, one by Michael Patton and the other by Douglas Groothuis.

Oklahoma City Bison?

Sounds like the Seattle Sonics are coming to OKC. Great news for Okies who do not currently have a pro-team, but proved they could support one when the exiled Hornets came to town.

There's been talk about what to name OKC's team. Perhaps the worst suggestion I've heard is the Vipers. My personal favorite is the Oklahoma City Bison. This animal is amazing. Its an American icon emblematic of brute strength and speed. It is also region-appropriate.

The Fact/Value Split

I am currently teaching a class at our church based on Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth. One of the key issues Pearcey discusses is the insidious fact/value split. The world we (i.e. Americans) inhabit tends to filter everything through this fact/value grid. Religion is one of the subjects lumped into the value category. A subject like science, on the other hand, falls into the fact category. It is assumed that values, like religion, are fine for the private realm but not fit for the public realm. Instead, the public realm is open for discussions on matters of fact.

This fact/value division became very clear to me while assisting at an elementary school a couple of years ago. I was sitting in on a fifth grade science class that was learning about the origin of the universe. One of the students asked about God. I was intrigued. How would this teacher respond? The teacher’s response was that the “God” question is a matter of opinion and something that the student needed to discuss at home with their parents. Here was the fact/value division rearing its ugly head and, in the process, communicating to a classroom of fifth graders that the question of God, unlike issues of science, was an opinion to be handled in the privacy of one’s home.

This fact/value assumption is also a way in which Christians are tuned out. Consider the ’04 presidential debate. One of the questions came from a Catholic lady in the audience who wanted to know why Kerry supported the killing of unborn babies. Kerry’s response was something like: ‘I understand and respect your position, but…’ I don’t recall exactly how Kerry affirmed abortion after the “but,” but that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that with this “but” Kerry was nullifying the comments of this lady and subtly sliding them into the value realm. Essentially, Kerry relied on this fact/value split in order to avert this lady’s question. Kerry said that the lady had a fine opinion, a fine value but it was just that—a value. Interestingly, no one seemed to question this sleight of hand.

Be on the lookout for this fact/value division. In the coming months, as the presidential race thickens, this divide will surface. During a debate this last week there was irritation from the Obama camp over the "irrelevant" questions bombarding Barack. Some questions included issues related to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. All the chagrin over the questions' relevancy are perhaps rooted in this fact/value division. We assume that these types of questions--mostly related to "private" life (value)--are irrelevant to public life (fact). Bridge the chasm and many of these questions become entirely appropriate.

I wonder, too, whether a culture that treats religion like a beverage or ice cream flavor (i.e. preference/value) will be adept enough to grapple with the global, religious issues that have elbowed their way into public life. Like it or not, the value became fact following 9/11. Of course, its immediate effects were devastating. Its long-term effects, however, are still playing out. And it will be interesting to see how well this fact/value split will hold-up in our post-9/11 age.

Gov. Henry veto

Oklahoma is passing a bill that would require anyone having an abortion to also have an ultrasound prior to the procedure. Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry vetoed the bill (Okla. legislature later overrode Henry’s veto) because, Henry says, “By forcing the victims of such horrific acts (i.e. cases of rape and incest) to undergo and view ultrasounds after they have made such a difficult and heartbreaking decision, the state victimizes the victim for a second time. It would be unconscionable to subject victims of rape and incest to such treatment. Because of this critical flaw, I cannot in good conscience sign this legislation.”

Looking at the message boards for this story, it is clear that a lot of abortion supporters are strongly opposed to this bill. I believe abortion is wrong. Humans beget humans, not blobs. The fetus is a human even though it might not look human. Historically, Americans have struggled with this. For much of American history blacks were considered less than human—chattel property—because they looked different than whites (Stand to Reason resources alerted me to this connection). If the unborn baby is human, then to take its life is to kill a human. That seems pretty straightforward. (For a concise, lucid pro-life appeal, read Sherif Girgis' letter to Barack Obama).

Putting these convictions aside for a moment, the opposition to this bill seems suspicious. Why would abortion advocates oppose a bill giving pregnant women all the information possible? Always be wary of one who seeks to hide information from you. That is what many abortion proponents wish to do by opposing this bill. It reminds me of fast food places wanting to resist divulging their nutritional information to the public. Why? Because if we knew the inordinate amount of calories and heart attack-inducing cholesterol contained in just one bite of their burgers we’d probably avoid them.

I do not want to be blithe about the trauma that accompanies women considering abortion. We, Christians, would do well to apply the same zeal we have for the unborn to their hurting mothers. Amidst this turmoil, however, I believe the answer is not destruction but redemption. It seems odd that either side of the debate would oppose a bill helping one understand the reality of the situation more clearly.

Cultural Engagement

Gordon-Conwell alum and pastor of Austin City Life, Jonathan Dodson, has written a good article on cultural engagement. Well worth the reading.

A Freudian Slip

Life without God is difficult to sustain. I was reminded of this when re-reading a section of The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life by Armand M. Nicholi, Jr. In this book, Nicholi pits the thinking of Lewis (the theist) against Freud (the atheist) and comes up with a fascinating debate.

One of the more interesting moments in the book is when Nicholi brings to light some of Freud's letters. Curiously, these letters are laced with references to God. Here are excerpts from Freud's letters that Nicholi provides:

'I passed my examinations with God's help'; 'if God so wills'; 'the good Lord'; 'until after the Resurrection'; 'science seems to demand the existence of God'; 'God's judement'; 'God's will'; 'God's grace'; 'God above'; 'if someday we meet above'; 'in the next world'; 'my secret prayer.' In a letter to Oskar Pfitser, Freud writes that Pfister was 'a true servant of God' and 'was in the fortunate position to lead (others) to God.' (51)

Huh? Odd words coming from an atheist. Nicholi continues:

Can we not dismiss all this as merely figures of speech--common in English as well as in German? Yes, if it were anyone but Freud. But Freud insisted that even a slip of the tongue had meaning. (51)

Oops.

These glaring examples underscore the difficulty of maintaining a purely materialistic view of the world. This is because life without God sucks the humanity out of us. When we lose God, we lose ourselves. For the atheist, maintaining one's humanity means becoming a bundle of contradictions. I will close with another excerpt from Nicholi's book. Lewis says regarding his atheist days:

I was at this time living, like so many atheists...in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was also equally angry with Him for creating a world...why should creatures have the burden of existence forced on them without their consent? (51)

Two Books

I ran across two books that would be worth checking out:

1) Conceiving Parenthood: American Protestantism and the Spirit of Reproduction, by Amy Laura Hall. Biotechnology has made the "designer baby" possible. Hall looks at the role of mainline Protestantism in fueling our desire for uber-children. Sounds intriguing.

2) The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-Lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World, by David F. Wells. It sounds like this may cap Wells' corpus on evangelicalism and contemporary culture (But I thought Above All Earthly Pow'rs did, so who knows). I thoroughly enjoy Wells' writing. Like bubblegum, his books take years to digest. Unlike bubblegum, the pilgrim wearied by life in the modern (purportedly postmodern) world can find sustenance with Wells' writing.

"Shout to the Lord" on Idol

I confess: I watch American Idol. And it is extremely entertaining for me. I did not, however, see the “Idol Gives Back” episode Wednesday but learned Thursday that the Idol crew sang an evangelical favorite, “Shout to the Lord.” Admittedly, I was a bit bumfuzzled. What are we to make of this? I know that it strikes a chord with folks when a bouncing or swaying Gospel choir sings spiritual-sounding songs. But this seemed different. This song clearly establishes the Lordship of Christ and seems more explicit than many other spiritual favorites that have enjoyed the big stage. And this song is relatively new, unlike “Amazing Grace” (a wonderful hymn), which often gets a hearing at these types of events.

I think Vincent Miller’s Consuming Religion might shed some light on this enigma. For Miller, commodification is the end result of a consumer culture. Those enveloped in consumption tend to commodify things. For example, Miller would say that when we buy a banana we do not see the banana in its context. To us, the thing seems to have fallen from the sky and magically landed on the appropriate aisle of the grocery store. We fail to realize the rich web of events that got that banana to the store, that is, the environment, politics, and the very lives that gave us this banana. In other words, the banana has been abstracted from its embeddedness in a wider, more complex context. That is what Miller means by commodification. The interpretative habits that we acquire from this culture of consumption tend to spill over into other spheres, like religion—which is Miller’s primary concern.

I think our tendency to commodify things is what made “Shout to the Lord” work on Idol. It is a moving song, never mind what the song is actually saying. That does not matter. What matters is that the lighting was right, the music was moving, the choir swaying, the Idols’ arms locked, and millions of goose bumps where rising. We wanted a feeling, a moment. Like good consumers, many of the viewers (and performers) that night readily dislodged the song from its theological roots and commodified it in order to spawn a feeling. It was reappropriated a million different ways by a million different hearers. This, of course, has always been a temptation. It is only heightened in our consumption-oriented culture.

What is frightening is the ease with which a worshipful setting was created at Idol. It did not take belief in Jesus to spawn what appeared to be worshippers of Jesus. Applied to the Church, we must be careful that we are truly worshipping the Lord Jesus and not one of the myriad of competing idols.

Note: I recently learned that the song was edited to make it less Christocentric. See also Josh Harris' post on the subject.

"I'm blogging. I'm blogging"

“I’m blogging. I'm blogging.” (think Bill Murray, What About Bob?). This is the start of what will hopefully be a good practice for me. One of our former pastors in Cambridge spoke of worship being rhythmic, likening it to breathing. We exhale (i.e. sing, confess, pray, maybe even teach a Sunday school class). We inhale (i.e. take the Lord's Supper, receive the Word, maybe even sit-in on a Sunday school class). The same can be said of life outside the church walls. Think of this blog as my opportunity to exhale. And hopefully it might provide any cyber-drifters that stumble upon it a breath of fresh, clean cyber-air.

It is called “Fitting the Pieces.” My hope and prayer is that I would cultivate a decidedly Christian consciousness. This blog will assist in this, being a space where I can muse over a variety of things. This blog, in other words, seeks to “fit the pieces” (news, music, movies, child-rearing, politics, art, sports, etc.).