Bread and Circuses

New Masonic Products

2011-11-27T13:28:00.003-05:00

It's been a while with the posting.
Since I last posted anything, I've moved to a new city, and started a new job. Plus my Zazzle Store of Masonic Apparel and Accessories has continued to grow. Here are two of my latest designs, available on iPad/iPhone/iPod cases, laptop sleeves, binders, notebooks, notepads and more!

Parchment with Square and Compass by MasonicApparel
View other iphone cases

Leather Bound Book with Square and Compass by MasonicApparel
View more Square and compass Binders

American Superheroes - Played by Brits

2011-06-10T16:01:00.005-04:00

So we all loved Christian Bale as Batman. He brought a needed gravitas back to a role that had been plagued by overacting and visible nipples. We ignored the fact that a Welshman was playing the role of probably the second most popular American superhero (after Superman himself - What's more about The American Way than Supes?).

But my British wife was absolutely gobsmacked to hear that after the next three major American Superhero moves come out (we're not counting you Aquaman), the top three American superheroes will all be played by Brits.

Let's Recap:

Christian Bale. British Actor. Batman. Yet his family left England when he was the tender age of two, so he is acceptable as an American Batman. He also played Rugby, which is probably why my wife fancies him.

Henry William Dalgliesh Cavill. The new Superman. How British is that name? Fans of The Tudors will recognize him. But yes, he does look acceptably Clark Kent-ish in those glasses. I can see it. I think he will do well, but I also vote that given a few more years Tom Welling should get his big screen debut, given how well he did in Smallville. Also, Cavill was originally cast as Superman in Superman Returns, only to be replaced when McG quit. Zach Snyder of 300 and Watchmen fame is set to direct, with Christopher Nolan producing, so I'm holding out high hopes for this film.

And then we have Andrew Garfield. The New Spiderman. In a reverse from Christian Bale's history, he was born in L.A. to a British mother, and them moved to the UK when he was three. He was in The Social Network, aka The Most Popular Film This Year I Haven't Seen, and will now star as Spiderman. To which news my British wife replies "Well, no one can be worse than Toby Maguire, but he has to do something about that hair. Note: I picked the one picture in which he is not sporting an incredible mop of hair.

So what do you think? Is it cool that British actors are playing the most iconic American heroes? Is it ok in Superman's case because, let's face it, he's already an illegal immigrant and therefore unwelcome in Arizona and Alabama, so a foreigner can play it convincingly? Comment and let us know!

It's all right, You can all sleep sound tonight

2011-06-10T13:31:00.009-04:00

My wife is a huge fangirl for Superman. She loves the old Christopher Reeve movies, especially, Superman - The Movieand Superman II, gives me withering looks when I disparage Lois & Clark - The New Adventures of Superman (tho she does admit the series is almost as crappy as Superman IV), and has watched Smallville religiously. I've always liked Batman a bit more, what with his humanity, darkness and general willingness to go a bit further than that goody-two-shoes Supes who won't kill a human even if the world depends on it.

But lately I have to admit it's rubbing off. I loved Superman: Red Son, and particularly enjoyed the interplay between Batman, earth's coolest human superhero, and Superman, the Übermensch who acts almost in a "Father Knows Best" fashion towards us frail mortals in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

That's why I particularly enjoyed the post from Waiter Rants on The Man of Steel. To Quote in part:

"So I rented the 2006 film Superman Returns last night and watched it on my big plasma TV. And when I saw Superman sonic booming though the skies to save a fiery plane from crashing that smile retuned. Now many critics panned the film, saying the director overplayed the whole Superman as Jesus thing. But what those dolts didn’t remember is that Superman is a reincarnation of a very old myth. Yes, Kal-El was sent to Earth by his father to be humanity’s savior, sort of dies, wakes up and flies into the heavens. I get the comparison. Jesus kind of had superpowers too. But the myth even predates the Gospels. Remember Hercules, the strongest man in the world? The son of Zeus who performs great feats, journeys to the underworld, cheats death and ascends to Mount Olympus? Sound familiar? So when the twentieth century rolled around we recycled an old myth and put it tights and a red cape. And that’s why I think so many people love the idea of superheroes and The Man of Steel in particular. It touches on something primal and endless; our secret wish that there’s a benevolent being greater than all of us – someone who will save us from ourselves."

It's an excellent summation of the links between ancient dying god myths and modern superhero legends, particularly Superman. One quote that has stuck with me, though I don't know who it came from, was (paraphrase) that "Batman is Bruce Wayne's alter-ego. He puts on a cape and pretends to be stronger than he is. Clark Kent is Kal-El's alter-ego. He puts on a pair of glasses and pretends to be weaker than he is. Clark Kent is Superman's commentary on the human race."

Blog Redesign Poll

2011-06-09T14:39:00.001-04:00

How do you like the new redesign?

Freemasons For Dummies: Liquor and Freemasonry in Indiana

2011-06-08T10:29:00.001-04:00

Freemasons For Dummies: Liquor and Freemasonry in Indiana

A fascinating article about Indiana and its history of Masonic Prohibition. Have a read!

In related news, Yvonne in Alabama just purchased one of my Masonic Beer Mugs.

Square and Compass Beer Glass by MasonicApparel
More Masons Mugs

Whether in the traditional beer stein style or a frosted glass mug, this would make a great Father's Day gift. If you live in Indiana, you can buy a stainless steel travel mug for your coffee!

On Rowan William's Distrust of Freemasonry

2011-06-02T13:53:00.002-04:00

I wanted to comment on this article because I believe it gets much right about why Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is hostile to Freemasonry, and yet it also misses the point in its very first paragraph.

"Why is Rowan Williams suspicious of Freemasonry? For the same reason, surely, that almost everyone else is: it is a secretive society with links to mystical gobbledegook that may or may not have a whiff of Satanism. A Christian leader should be particularly careful not to be associated with such stuff, for he wants the Christian faith to seem open, accessible, reasonable – utterly distinct from such cloak-and-dagger Harry Potter stuff."

Let's unpack that a bit. First of all, the author argues that almost everyone is suspicious of Freemasonry. That may be the case in the UK, but not here in America, where the lodge is a valuable part of many communities, and charities like the Shriners' Hospitals do quite a bit of good.

I'll skip over the "secretive society" bit and go straight to the main contention here. Does Freemasonry really have links to "mystical gobbledegood," with a whiff of "Satanism?" Several great books that examine the historical underpinings of Freemasonry, including "The Origins of Freemasonry," and "The Masonic Myth," explode the arguments that Freemasonry is somehow linked to ancient magical or mystical rites. There is simply no historical progression. Furthermore, I have seen no "cloak-and-dagger Harry Potter stuff," in the Lodge. If there was, I'm sure Masonry would be doing a much better job of recruiting young people.

"Freemasonry may have links with ancient magic, but it also has links with modern reason. I think that this is what Williams really dislikes about it. Not the funny handshakes and creepy initiation ceremony, but the implicit claim that the rationalist God of the Enlightenment is an improvement on the limited Christian one. In the 18th century, Freemasonry spread among middle-class men who felt that religion should modernise; it should be about rational moral progress, and it should unite people rather than keep old divisions alive."

As an American and Freemason, I see the historical non-sectarianism of the Lodge as a major plus. The principles of the Enlightenment gave us western democracy and freedom of religion, and these principles of self-determination and freedom of conscience are assets for Masonry, not a threat to Christianity. The fact that a lodge brother can worship God as he sees fit does not restrict my ability to do the same as I see fit. Perhaps what Williams is really concerned about is the historic lessening of the control of the Church of England over modern British society, to the point that the UK has been called a "post-Christian" nation. Thus he lashes out at anything that does not shore up the Church of England's former dominance in society, in this case, a society of men encouraging morality and not imposing any one religious creed.

"It is therefore deeply associated with the ideology known as deism, an ideology whose greatest triumph was the American Revolution."

I would argue that the evidence that deism was a driving force behind the American Revolution is tenuous at best. Many of the Founders were non-dogmatic about their faith, and embraced religious tolerance, but this does not make them all, or even most of them, true Deists. In fact, one of the defining theories of Continental Deism was the concept of the Watchmaker God who created the world, set it in motion, and stepped back. However, most of the Founders expressed their fervent belief that the hand of God/Providence was directly responsible for their success in the fact of overwhelming odds.

Mr. Hobson continues: "Williams' suspicion of this tradition goes to the very heart of his theology. It is of a piece with his suspicion of the Enlightenment, and of "liberalism". The essence of liberalism, in this view, is its claim that the rational good of humanity has superseded any particular religion, including Christianity."

This is a very interesting contention. Anglicanism/Episcopalianism has long been considered to be a rather liberal version of Christianity. Sitting Anglican vicars have published books denying the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, and other doctrines of Christianity. Perhaps the Archbishop would do better to address the serious doctrinal schisms forming within his church, rather than trying to persecute an external organization which can and does contain many good Anglicans.

The spiritual "liberalism" that Hobson is denouncing is at the very core of what makes a non-religious group like Masonry successful. It is not a "Christian" organization anymore than it is Buddhist, Jewish or Islamic. As such it must tread the middle path of not forbidding or encouraging specific religious practice, and I believe it does so very well by forbidding discussion of religion in the Lodge. This kind of accepting attitude would be an asset to the Church of England, not a threat. Religion in the Church, and Tolerance in the Lodge is a perfect compromise.

Where do you get your news?

2011-06-01T13:35:00.003-04:00

Where Do You Go For Your News?

I find that I get more balanced news from international sources, rather than the 80% US news and 10% Int'l news that US news sites report. Where do you get news?

2011-05-31T12:56:00.002-04:00

Brewing Apparel

As many of you know, I am also a homebrewer. I have designed a few products for homebrewers and those who like real beer, please let me know what you think.
Thanks

How to Make Your Own Hard Cider

2011-05-31T10:59:00.002-04:00

Hard Cider is a British tradition, a tasty apple-based alcoholic drink. It's simple and cheap to make. Check out this article about how to get started making Cider at home.

How to Make Your Own Hard Cider

The Masonic Myth: A Book Review

2011-05-29T11:12:00.004-04:00

The Masonic Myth

I have reviewed The Masonic Myth by Jay Kinney. This is the first in a series of book reviews that I will be writing about books every Mason should read.

Future books in the series will be:
Freemasonry for Dummies by Chris Hodapp
Born in Blood by John Robinson
The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century by David Stevenson
Solomon's Builders by Chris Hodapp

#Everymanshouldknowhowto

2011-05-26T13:57:00.003-04:00

So currently trending on Twitter is "Everymanshouldknowhowto."

In that vein, a quote from Robert Heinlein

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

Ryan Giggs: Man-whore, Crybaby, and Aspiring Censor of the Internet

2011-05-26T13:18:00.004-04:00

First of all, some background for those who aren't on Twitter or don't follow UK news. Footballer (soccer player) Ryan Giggs obtained an injunction prohibiting UK newspapers from revealing that he was the Man United player alleged to have had an affair with Imogen Thomas. People on Twitter then tweeted his identity, and now he is demanding Twitter turn over personal details of people who may have breached the injunction.
Info from Wikipedia

Then the UK's Guardian newspaper had the testicular fortitude and incredible stupidity to post this article arguing, wait for it... the imposition of a 5 second delay on all tweets, and that Twitter be required to screen every one of the 50 million tweets sent every day.

Here's my response:

This has to be one of the most laughable articles I have ever read. British privacy injunction law ranks up there with the UK's tortured libel laws as glaring examples of a western free society trampling the right to speech.

The author of this article might as well suggest that the UK require a 5 second delay on all mobile phone conversations and texts, because someone might mention Ryan Giggs in a phone conversation as easily as they do on Twitter. Should we allow Giggs to sue 3, Orange, O2, and other mobile providers for not using voice recognition software to mute the words "Ryan Giggs" from conversations? Perhaps he should sue the Royal Mail to determine if anyone said anything nasty about poor Mr. Giggs in the post.

As the author points out, Facebook has 500 million members, and Twitter 175 million. The sheer scale of content defies attempts to regulate it, and proves how backward UK injunction law is when you attempt to apply it to social media. Twitter alone has surpassed 50 million tweets per day. Even if you automated it to screen for pre-selected words, you would need to employ an enormous amount of staff to monitor the screening. And then people like me would start tweeting things like "bRYAN eGiggs" to avoid the censors. Or using Leet speak or other internet languages. Who pays for this screening? Thin skinned celebrities like Giggs?

Furthermore, to describe Facebook and Twitter users as "citizen journalists" is disingenuous. Facebook and Twitter are not, first and foremost, news sites, nor do they position themselves as such. I use a mobile phone, and I often discuss what's happening over that phone connection, but that does not make me a citizen journalist, it does not make every phone call I make a news report, nor does it make my service provider in the business of news.

In the United States, a court can order parties to a case not to comment on it but has no authority to stop unrelated reporters from reporting on a case. Furthermore, I doubt Giggs will have any success bringing an action against Twitter, because here in the States we are rather tetchy about a pesky little thing called the First Amendment. Twitter is an American company, protected by the American (written) Constitution, and as such any "tweets" that it sends out, after receiving them from users, even if based in the UK, are protected communications.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The judge in the suit has apparently ruled that Twitter itself, despite being a US company, must follow UK law. I would refer his lordship's attention to quote attributed to the American President Andrew Jackson: "John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it."

To be fair to the Guardian, they also posted this article arguing that Ryan Giggs is an "enemy of web freedom." Which he absolutely is, as well as being an insufferable moron, an arrogant wanker, and a crybaby.

*EDIT* Thanks to this blog post, A Twat in a Hat, for correcting the initial impression created by that awful Guardian article that Twitter was being sued. I have edited my introduction. Great points made as well, check it out.

Other Great Masonic Products on Zazzle

2011-05-20T12:39:00.000-04:00

I recently found this great store on Zazzle with a wide range of Masonic products. Have a look!

Hand Drawn Square and Compass from Zazzle.com

2011-05-19T17:43:00.001-04:00

Hand Drawn Square and Compass by MasonicApparel
Browse Masons T-Shirts

New Hand drawn square and compass design. Soon to be featured on many more products. Check back to see the full line. Thanks to Lace9 for her excellent design, check her out on Cafe of the Muse also Hand Drawn on Twitter and lace9lives's Store at Zazzle

5 Rock Stars Who Should Have Died A Long Time Ago

2011-05-18T04:56:00.002-04:00

5 Rock Stars Who Should Have Died A Long Time Ago

Go there, read the latest in my original writing, and vote for which rock star has led the most excessive life!

The Journey of a Young Freemason

2011-05-17T16:14:00.004-04:00

For the past year and a half I have been a Freemason, having been raised to the degree of Master Mason in March of 2010. The stated communication after having been raised, I was sitting in the Junior Master of Ceremonies chair. I am now Senior Master of Ceremonies, which is a position I really enjoy.

I especially like that during degrees, the Masters of Ceremonies get to spend most of the "down time" with the candidates. It brings back some of the excitement of when you were a candidate, not sure what to expect, and lets you see the degrees afresh all over again. Because there is not much ritual work that you have to memorize as a MoC, I've supplemented this by being the "go-to-guy" in my lodge for Questions and Answers. I also assist the other officers during degree practice by being a combination prompter/fill in for other chairs that may not be present at every practice. This has given me the very rewarding opportunity to really get steeped in the ritual, and hopefully improves my knowledge and makes me a better Mason. I am the youngest member of our lodge by at least 15 years, so it's great to see the older members come and complement me on a job well done after doing Q&A after a degree. It's a great opportunity to learn from some Brothers who have been Masons for 50+ years.

The Master of our lodge when I was initiated was serving his second stint in the East the year I was born. Cricket is a great friend and a wonderful mentor. One of the best parts of a normal lodge night (when we don't have a degree on the Trestle Board) is to stop for a drink or two afterwards with some of the guys. There's great camaraderie and conversation, and it's a great opportunity to learn.

Masonry in America is at a crossroads. Membership has dwindled since the boom days of the 1950s, and many lodges are aging faster than they can replace their members. One thing our District Grand Lecturer said to us once which has always stuck with me is a story he told about an elderly Mason he knew who lay dying. His friends, family and close lodge brothers were visiting with him, and one of them said to him "how are you going to replace yourself?" The elderly Mason looked at him quizzically, "I don't know many young people." The Brother replied "Don't you have any younger family?" The dying Mason replied "Well, my son-in-law is a good man, but why would he listen to me?" His friend looked at him, raised an eyebrow, and said "You're on your deathbed. He'll listen to you." The family and friends were dismissed and the elderly man asked for his son-in-law to be called in. They talked for twenty minutes, and at the end of their meeting the son-in-law had agreed to petition the lodge. The elderly Mason died a few days later.

Some friends have asked me why I would want to spend 2 nights a month with a bunch of older guys. I reply that they have a wealth of wisdom and experience that I can draw from. Before our society became so stratified into age groups, where everyone believes that those older than them do not understand them, and those younger have nothing to offer, generations mixed, mingled and socialized much more freely. I have been lucky to be in a lodge where the older members freely accepted me into lodge, even when I had a Mohawk. They treat me like an equal and a brother, and I believe for them I represent the future of The Craft. I hope any Mason reading this would be encouraged to seek out those younger men he knows who he believes would be a good fit for Masonry.

I hope to use this blog to chronicle my journey as a Mason. We all know we are ever engaged in the process of understanding the Ritual, The Craft, and the true meanings of Masonry throughout our lives.

I will also from time to time be reviewing a few books. I love reading, and this enthusiast extends to Freemasonry.

New Masonic Products on Zazzle

2011-05-17T11:28:00.002-04:00

Now available, Masonic iPad cases, posters, prints and postage.

Masonic T-shirt for the Ladies!

2011-05-15T14:18:00.002-04:00

Though Freemasonry is exclusively male, we all owe so much to the supportive ladies in our lives. Show your appreciation (or ladies, show your love for that special Mason in your life) with this cute ladies shirt.

My Masonic Apparel Products on Zazzle!

2011-04-23T11:58:00.001-04:00

make custom gifts at Zazzle

If

2010-05-24T10:41:00.000-04:00

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

Sunday's Coming

2010-05-19T07:54:00.001-04:00

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

Revenge of the Stupid People

2010-04-08T04:06:00.003-04:00

So the Grammy Awards recently aired and people are of course (SHOCK) outraged at the sexualized performances. A link to some complaints that the FCC received:

Some gems (not corrected for spelling, capitalization, grammar, etc.) My comments in red.

What right do these "artists" to[sic] subject my children to this type of material?
It is not the artists, it is you who subjected your children to this type of material. If you have a problem with it, change the G-ddamn channel you moron.

You can't even let your children watch these types of programs.
No shit sherlock. What history has led you to believe music awards shows are appropriate for young children? Madonna kissing Britney?

ALL OF THESE ITEMS are offensive to me and for this reason, I will no longer allow my children to watch awards shows.
Good choice.

cbs publically[sic] aired to the public which we are all totally digusted by shots of pinks nude buttocks&shots of lady gagas nude buttocks...completely OBSCENE&INDECENT&cbs should be fined BILLIONS just to insure the cbs does not ever publically air female nudity... ever again. all this female nudity that is publically aired on&through the tv to the public who was totally disgusted by it because she is a woman!!all this female nudity... needs to completely stop as it is misoginistic[sic]°rading&sadis[sic] to women&we women count on the fcc to abolish all female nudity...&SHOULD BE TO STOP FEMALE NUDITY [which includes butts,buttocks,vagina and breast] FROM EVER BEING AIRED OT THE PUBLIC EVER AGAIN...
We are all not totally disgusted by the sight of buttocks, male or female. You are, and maybe you need to speak to a therapist to discuss your inability to perceive the human form without reacting with disgust. While I agree our society has hypocritical attitudes towards the depiction of male vs. female nudity, I do not agree that the answer is to ban all depictions of the female form. Why don't we all return to the Victorian ideal where you can't even see a female ankle because the female form is disgusting? That concept in and of itself is more degrading than an empowered female performer consciously using her body as part of her art. By trying to exile the female body from art, you are the one who is perpetuating "misogynistic, degrading and sadistic" stereotypes (yes, that is how you actually spell those words. And spaces come between words for a reason). You have issues.

Beyonce who proceeded to grab her crotch and play with herself as if she were a boy for several seconds...
Again we see the myth that only men masturbate. Women do it too. See above comments. The idea that women are the "virtuous sex" who don't do filthy (male) things like, oh, say enjoy sex relegates women to the ghetto of hypocrisy and sexism.

Pink's performace was very distasteful because she showed her backside
I'll say it again. I have an ass. You have an ass. We, he, she, they all have asses. You however are the only one making an ass of yourself.

Essay on Religious Doctine, Moral Law and Ritual

2009-09-19T09:19:00.001-04:00

Who has the right to determine these things?

Read my answer.

Is the term "Fundie" a sign of disrepect?

2009-09-18T18:43:00.001-04:00

I just wrote an article on Helium on the debate over whether the term "Fundie" is disrespectful. Check it out here.

Sotomayor is a Douche-Bag

2009-05-31T06:29:00.001-04:00

Is a student calling their school administrators "douche-bags" a justifiable reason for said administrators to disqualify that student from running in "democratic" student body elections? Nominee Sotomayor thinks so.

Censorship.

2009-04-30T07:59:00.000-04:00

Because I fucking hate censorship.
Amazon Rank

The Gospel According to Saint Bastard: Part One of a Series

2008-12-18T05:42:00.005-05:00

Fact: Much of modern Christianity is build around concepts, themes and beliefs that are unsupported in Scripture, the Creeds, and the historic teachings of the Faith. I was born and raised in the Church, and while I try to pursue a vibrant faith and in no way have rejected my beliefs, I found that as an adult I began to question tangential teachings found in many churches, and have always tried to check them against Scripture. To people in my generation, I want to say that you have been lied to. People push “Christian” beliefs on us from the time we enter the church, and often we never question what authority figures say. The time has come to take our faith back from the followers of blind tradition and pursue a stripped down, genuine Christian faith unencumbered by useless teaching masquerading as orthodox theology. To the older members of the Church, I want to challenge you to stop passing along crap to the new believers. We only serve to invite disillusionment and rejection when we bundle personal preferences, denominational quibbles, and cultural memes in with the revitalizing, revolutionary faith in Jesus Christ. Stop lying to us!

Too often various beliefs are bundled in with Christianity that are not requisite to salvation or correct doctrine. If a particular belief is not strongly supported in Holy Writ, or is built around a particular interpretation of a few vague verses (ie: a Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church, a overly literal interpretation of Revelations, the strict 24-hr. Creation, etc), then it cannot be held to be essential to Faith in Christ. Further, if a viewpoint has historically not been held by the orthodox Church, its validity is in question. For this we turn to the writings of the early Church Fathers, and the commonly accepted creeds.

I am beginning a series of short essays on this theme, analyzing and rejecting extraneous concepts that have culturally burdened Christianity. As appropriate to the month, my first topic, later this week, will be on why Jesus is NOT the "Reason for the Season."

Til then, for your enjoyment, the incomparable Eddie Izzard.

Be glad Russia is no longer a strong-arm police state...

2008-12-15T06:37:00.002-05:00

...because now things like this would never happen:

Police Thwart Moscow Rally

Top Five Superpowers From The Bible That Put Marvel and DC to Shame

2008-12-10T06:10:00.001-05:00

Top Five Superpowers From The Bible That Put Marvel and DC to Shame

Update

2008-11-26T06:04:00.002-05:00

Dear Friends,
I'm actually going to be maintaining this blog with a bit more regularity.
Accordingly, I wanted to get a better idea of my audience.

If you don't mind, please answer the following questions either by:
Email to me
Comment to this post

Questions:
1. How often do you visit?
2. Would you visit more often if there was more new content regularly?
3. Would you like to be notified when I have a new post?
4. Do you know me personally?

Thanks. Look for the first in a new series of posts in a couple of days.

Remember...

2008-11-05T18:13:00.001-05:00

"Where they have burned books,they will end in burning human beings." Heinrich Heine

2008-09-24T23:48:00.007-04:00

"For books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.

"As good almost kill a man as kill a good book: who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were, in the eye.

"And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

"I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat." John Milton - 1644

You have all probably heard about the controversy over Sarah Palin's alleged attempt to ban books from the Wasilla Public Library when she first became mayor of that small Alaskan town. The McCain camp has repudiated the rumors, and the list of supposed books under consideration is a blatant hoax. However, there is some truth to the stories, and as we look towards the beginning of the annual Banned Books week, I wanted to turn to this topic for one example of why I don't feel comfortable voting for the Republican ticket this year.

Palin Asked Wasilla Librarian About Censoring Books

As the emerging story seems to indicate, Palin did not have certain books in mind when the topic came up. She asked the librarian, before she took office, how she would respond if Palin, the incoming mayor, asked her to remove books from the collection. The librarian replied that she would not agree to any such requests. Earlier that week, Palin had sent her a letter asking for her resignation, claiming that she felt the librarian would not be sufficiently supportive of the incoming administration.

The problem is not that Palin tried to ban books. She did not. The problem is not that she fired the librarian. She asked for the resignations of a number of other officials as well.

My problem with Palin is that she felt that by disagreeing with the censorship of books in an theoretical sense, the librarian was not being supportive; that she considers acquiescence to the request to ban books to be:
A: Reasonable
B: Requisite for being a supportive member of the city administration.

More than the theology of her home church, or her myopic God - Guns - Abortion political worldview, the idea that Palin is only comfortable governing with people who will not raise ethical objections to her demands, and one of those demands could conceivably include banning books, Sarah Palin scares me. John McCain is old, and having Sarah Palin one heartbeat from the presidency is troubling. To me, she's a sexy, female version of John Ashcroft, with his greek statuary breast concealing fetish. As a former student of a college where, allegedly, the school president fired the school librarian over similar book-banning issues, this conversation is disturbing. America does not need to be run by moral/intellectual thought police convinced they are doing the will of Jesus.

"Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books ..."-- U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)

Remember, we're not talking about pulling books from a school library, where, conceivably, there may be some books that are not age-appropriate for an audience of minors. This is the PUBLIC library.

I want to thank Dr. Steven Hake for encouraging his literary students to read:
Candide (seized at one time or another by Customs and the US Post Office for obscenity)
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich (banned in the US)
As well as other titles by Huxley, Hemingway, Hesse, and others that caused Fundie consternation.

For those who are interested, The Independent in the UK ran an excellent series, The Banned Books Series, every week for 25 weeks, starting with a free giveaway of A Clockwork Orange. I have 1-12, and am looking for the rest. It's a beautiful set.

"Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education." - Alfred Whitney

Us White Folks Have Our Crazy Pastors too.

2008-05-04T18:13:00.003-04:00

The All White Elephant in the Room

This is what I've been saying ever since the Wright debacle hit the news and was seized upon by conservatives as a reason to distrust that "crazy black candidate." After it was proved we couldn't claim he was a Muslim, the religious white right has been using Obama's pastor's comments about AIDS and 9/11 to claim that he's a poor candidate. If we were to apply this argument evenly without regard to race, why have we supported candidates like Bush and other evangelicals, who have garnered the support of crazies like Falwell and Robertson. Oh, but our pastors are totally different from Obama's... These "shining lights" of the church in America didn't claim that the US gov't created AIDS or that 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost. No, they claimed that God Almighty himself created AIDs and that 9/11 was divine punishment for our toleration of abortion and homosexuality. Right, those arguments are totally different. It's one thing to claim that the all knowing, all powerful just God creates calamities to send upon the world to punish us for things we ourselves want to demonize and fight against (like THE GAYS), it's another to blame the foreign policy of America. This entire thing has devolved into a race-baiting tempest in a teapot that is disguising latent racism as a coherant, responsible political challenge to Obama's qualifications.

We Call Upon the Author to Explain

2008-04-13T22:41:00.002-04:00

I think I've finally found a song to rival U2's Wake Up Dead man to express a Psalmist sense of despair and questioning...

Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, from Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!

Don't Be a Schmuck, Don't Vote For Huck

2008-01-18T18:36:00.000-05:00

Excerpted From Here:

1) Governor Huckabee did lasting damage to the Republican Party and conservative movement in Arkansas.
It's hard to go after Democrats with a conservative message when your Republican Governor is out front releasing violent criminals, providing state benefits to illegals, pushing tax increases, expanding government spending and programs, and constantly walking an ethical tight-rope (more on each of these items to follow). This tied our party's hands - many conservatives got frustrated, apathy set in, and some quit the fight.

2) Governor Huckabee's non-stop clemencies continually hindered the work of criminal prosecutors and miffed Republicans. The numbers are staggering - over 1,000 clemencies and commutations of criminals as governor. Most people now are familiar with his push to parole convicted rapist Wayne Dumond, who went on to rape and murder a Missouri woman less than a year after his release. But there are many more troubling facts regarding Huckabee’s pattern of releasing violent criminals. While I cannot speak for Huckabee’s motives, it seems clear that he used poor judgment and was reckless with this executive power.

3) Governor Huckabee's pattern was to ignore immigration laws, often in the name of Christianity.
Huckabee opposed immigration enforcement as governor on a number of fronts. Immigration enforcement groups call Huckabee’s record on immigration "a disaster" and reference him as they guy who "scares the heck" out of them.

4) Governor Huckabee was no friend to fiscal conservatives in Arkansas.
Huckabee’s record on taxes, government spending, and growing government programs was miserable. Basically, when the economy got tough, Huckabee expected families like mine to tighten our budgets in order to help state government meet its spending whims.

5) Huckabee left a long trail of ethics questions while Governor of Arkansas
This is an area where I think Huckabee does receive some unfair criticism. Some of the ethics charges against him were frivolous and politically motivated. However, it has been concerning for some time just how much the governor accepted in gifts and how he was seemingly always pushing ethical limits.

* During his tenure, Huckabee accepted 314 gifts valued overall at more than $150,000, according to documents filed with the Arkansas' Secretary of State office.
* The Huckabees set up wedding registries at local department stores as Mike was leaving office – even though they had been married for 30 years. State ethics laws prohibited Huckabee from receiving gifts of more than $100……but there was an exception for wedding gifts.
* Judicial Watch, a non-partisan group dedicted to fighting government corruption, listed Huckabee among their Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians of 2007. Huckabee was one of only three Republican politicians to make the list.

6) Huckabee's education record shows him to be an advocate of the "status quo"
The New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association (NEA) has endorsed Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee for the upcoming Primary elections. This is the first time in memory that they have recommended a Republican (in 2004 they endorsed Howard Dean).

7) Huckabee has very little support for his Presidential bid here in Arkansas
For the most part those in his party who know him best are not supporting him.

A Romantic Evening Out

2007-10-21T20:49:00.000-04:00

More from the land where they use the C-word on telly, (but only after 9pm, it's not like we're French or anything).

Friday night we got a friend to take the children overnight. This allowed us the opportunity to spend a relaxing evening together, and we decided to make a date of it. So what did we do, but play Laser Tag of course.

The fiancee's church was having a night out playing Laser Quest with another church. So we got to spend the evening running around a dark room lit by black lights and strobes and shooting people. Nothing like a little violence to keep a load of Christians entertained.

We played three rounds. The first was a free for all, which was well wrong, being as thirty or forty people in a small arena just becomes a bloody massacre. The next game was roughly church on church, though the fiancee and I, as well as the pastor and his wife, were loaned out to the other team due to uneven numbers. Our team won.

The last round was guys versus girls. We pretty much avoided each other for this one, though it wasn't completely possible due to the fact that at a certain distance in the dark all you see is the glowing vest of the opponent, and you fire indiscriminately at a group of hostiles, so a bit of inter-relational friendly fire becomes unavoidable, much like the American Air Force has the nasty habit of bombing Canadians every so often. To my credit, she shot me six times to my four, so I like to imagine I managed to salvage some gallantry from the situation.

At the end of the game, the girls had racked up an impressive 345 points to the guy's -175 points. The feminine jubilation was short lived however, as it soon became apparent that the guys had not yet tallied their scores by deactivating their guns. We won, thanks in small part to the my realization that each team had a base which could be tagged for additional points. A few of us managed to fight our way to the women's base and capture it, unbenownst to the ladies, who merely thought it was an exceptionally well-defensible position. Whereupon we sat under the base, shooting it to score and unleash a rather WWII sounding klaxon as often as it recharged. The gross disparity in final scores however could not be laid completely on the doorstep of our additional strategic knowledge, despite the ladies' best efforts to claim unfair circumstances.

It was a most enjoyable evening. Untimately, we spent much of our date night in the dark, getting all hot and sweaty, and with the night's activities leaving us both rather achy in the morning from our exertions. Apparently rather standard for a date, all things considered. Even if it was just Laser Tag.

Glastonbury 1996

2007-10-11T12:49:00.001-04:00

One of my mates is in this music video for Higher State of Consciousness, Tweekin' Acid Funk mix by Josh Wink. Set to video filmed by Wink himself at the 1996 Glastonbury Festival.

Reading

2007-10-09T06:34:00.000-04:00

Since I've had a bit of time on my hands, I've been rediscovering the art of pleasure reading.

Last week, since I enjoyed Fatherland so much, I read three more books by Robert Harris.

Archangel is a modern thriller centered around the hunt for the lost diary of Joseph Stalin.

Enigma is a fictitious look at Bletchley Park's codebreaking efforts during WWII.

And finally, Pompeii is a great historical novel set in the four days leading up to the eruption of Vesuvius, filled with fascinating technical information on the Roman Aquaducts.

I'm currently reading Every Dead Thing by John Connolly, a spiritual crime thriller. More information on that when I've finished.

A great book...

2007-09-26T12:12:00.000-04:00

Just finished reading Fatherland by Robert |Harris. It's an excellent "what if" look at Germany in 1964 had Hitler won. Check it out.

Talk like a Buccaneer Day

2007-09-19T08:53:00.000-04:00

I wish I knoo who ever created this rubbish excuse fer a "holiday". hold on 'un minute, tar ter the power of wikipedia, I can. john baur an' mark summers, yaouw wankers 'ad be'ah hope ar paths never cooss, or I shall gid yaouw a roight proper walloppen. i fink it's abart as noggen yedded an idae as possible. an excuse fer grownups ter terk loike lung john silvers moy be crack, but really, the point agen? so i've decided ter foight the trend with this "talk loike a brummie" post. We are not chuffed.

Also... Bugger
and... Bollocks

The Yearbook

2007-09-18T13:27:00.000-04:00

So I brought my senior PHC yearbook with me to the UK. I have been going through it with various friends.

Invariably, there are several responses:
1) Man, alot of these people look rather odd.

Maybe this is just a reaction to the Hollywood picture of America that most Brits are exposed to, where everyone has perfect teeth and looks somewhat plastic. Then again, alot of the people who went to PHC do look rather odd. Is there a reason that some homeschoolers look like they are the inbred spawn of a bunch of cousins?

2) Damn that guys looks like an alien.

Name removed to protect the guilty. Surprisingly, this same person got the same reaction from everyone who saw the yearbook. Curious.

3) They laughed at our American names. Names like Tobin Duby. And "Randy" got a good chuckle, but that's only because it's the British equivalent of naming your child Horny.

4) You actually have hoedowns?

The image of Americans in plaid clothing and ridiculous hats is just painfully colonial to their eyes. They're right.

5) Where are all the non-white students?

America may be the melting pot, but maybe conservative evangelicalism didn't get the message. Our friend Eva was particularly surprised by how pasty and Wonderbread our student body was. I had to go through and point out that yes, we did have some non-Anglo students.

Pictures

2007-09-18T07:26:00.000-04:00

This is what passes as a beach in Birmingham... a pile of sand, some lawnchairs and a giant screen that alternates between the BBC news and ocean scenes. All in the square in front of the Library. It's also a very multicultural area, you can see Sikhs in traditional garb, Muslim women wearing head scarves or the full hijab, and Arab men in their traditional robes, as well as the usual cross-section of Anglo/Celtic peoples.

The UK recently implemented a far-reaching smoking ban. Not only can you not smoke in any indoor public areas, but that also includes bus stops and train platforms. Right....

BTW, the silly orange knapsack contained the kids lunch for the day, and they were tired, so I got drafted to carry it. The Don King hair was a result of a windy day and roller coasters.

This was a more or less random English bloke we met in the pub, mugging for the camera with our gay-sian friend Adam. (In Britain, Asian refers to people from South Asia, not Oriental nationas like China and Japan. For example, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, or Sri Lanka.) Another note: Oriental -- as applied to a people group -- is the accepted nomenclature in much of the world for the peoples of East Asia, and carries none of the slightly racist perjorative overtones that the word has in the US. For my American readers, Oriental should only be used to refer to objects, like a vase or rug, and the term Asian applies to peoples from Japan, the Koreas, etc. Sociology lesson complete.

A Bit of the Rugger

2007-09-17T07:33:00.000-04:00

So I've been watching the Ruby World Cup of late. Now there is a game. None of the pads and 10 second plays (or complex penalties) of American football. Lots of running, these guys are as as fit as European footballers without all the poncy dancing around a little round ball. For American football fans who love watching a long run back with a couple of well executed laterals, that is the bread and butter of rugby. These guys are fit and built, they can run like receivers and running backs, and block like defensive ends.

No wonder Sebastien Chabal is nicknamed "Attila"
The scrummages are also pretty interesting to watch. Imagine an American football offensive line three guys deep, pushing towards their opposing counterparts in an attempt to gain posession of the ball. Less of the sudden impact and ponderous players, more sturm und drang. They say the hooker (the center man in the front of the line) experiences 3,000 pounds per square inch. Maybe I like it so much because the scrum is rather reminiscent of a Spartan phalanx, an inpenetrable line of players actually playing as a team, locking arms and protecting their territory.

On that subject, we visited Ben and Renee on Saturday. Ben made a wicked hot chili with some peppers he had grown. Then we had a few Guinness and watched 300. An excellent movie. The historical inaccuracies are allowable considering the beautiful visual style (It looks like a comic book), inclusions of historically inspired dialogue: ie; a paraphrase of the exchange between Leonidas' wife and a foreign woman who asked, "how is it that Spartan women are the only ones who rule men?" The Spartan reply? "Yes, for we are the only ones who give birth to men." Really, the movie could have been absolute shite (it's not) and it would have been worth watching, if only for the experience of seeing the Spartan phalanx in action. Man, when your society centers around training men from the age of 7-21, under punishing conditions, you're going to produce some genuine hard-arses.

And for the ladies who don't usually watch macho war movies, two points:
1:) The movie reflects the considerable respect and freedom Spartan women had in their society vis a vis the rest of Greece and other ancient societies.

2:) Lots of buff man candy. (A major selling point for Renee).

Misconceptions

2007-09-06T10:54:00.000-04:00

I am thinking of doing a several part piece on common American myths about Britain. Here are a few I have in mind:

British TV is crap (you'll definately get this one if you watch 11 hours of .
Life in the UK is like either Fawlty Towers or Snatch.
The average Briton is a middle class, Stiff Upper lip white guy with a posh accent.
British food is bland and nasty.
In Britain everyone drinks their beer warm.

Feel free to comment with any questions or thoughts you would like addressed. I also plan to do a series on typical British myths about America.

Pictures from Alton Towers

2007-09-05T07:51:00.000-04:00

We passed this on the way to Alton Towers... At first glance it appeared to be a Chernobyl style nuclear reactor power plant. Turned out to be a farm silo, still cool though.

A picture of the Castle at Alton Towers.

Another view of the Country House/Castle.

I love Sir Richard Branson, and Rollercoasters

2007-09-04T11:42:00.000-04:00

View Larger Map

Friday we went to Alton Towers, a major British theme park. Built on a HUUUUGE Tract of land once owned by the Earl of Shrewsbury in Staffordshire, it is an enormous complex including a ruined castle built in the gothic country house style. It is also, incidently, considered one of the most haunted sites in Britain. What's a gothic country estate without a curse?? We had a great time there celebrating cousin Leo's birthday, which mostly consisted of taking the children around to the kiddie rides.

However, my fiancee and I got to ride on Nemesis, the first inverted roller coaster in Europe. It was an incredible ride, appropos for a coaster considered to be the third best in the world. It boasts a drop of over thirty metres, maximum of four g-forces, and a top speed over 80 km/h. We elected to wait a few extra minutes and sit in the very first row, which made the ride even better. The two corkscrews and the zero-g roll were crazy, making it easily the most enjoyable roller coaster ride I've ever had. Oddly enough for a town containing a rollercoaster, the local zoning ordinances prohibit any rides being built above the treeline, so the design team created subterranian ravines and tunnels for the ride to pass through. It was wicked. Pictures from the trip after the jump.

While on the topic, the British writer Shaun Hutson's book Nemesis is a supreme horror novel. Certainly not for the faint of heart, but definately worth the read. Has nothing to do with roller coasters however.

We traveled to and from the park on the train, operated by Virgin trains. Not only was it cheaper and faster than taking the bus, but it was also cleaner and more fun. Yet another of the great things Richard Branson's company (actually, all 350 of them) do in Europe that Americans only familiar with Virgin's airline and record label would be surprised by. Now if only I could find some of his vodka to mix with my Virgin Cola, for the world's first ever supremely alcoholic virgin drink. On a related note, Sir Richard has long been financing maverick aviator Steve Fossett, whose private plane went missing over Nevada today while searching for a location on which to break the land speed record. Our thoughts are with him.

BTW, while writing this post I was drinking Bulmer's Original Cider. The Brits are crazy about their hard apple beverages.

I'm Back

2007-08-30T10:38:00.000-04:00

I know I've neglected this lately, the last several months were very hectic for me.

However, as I sit here in the UK drinking my luncheon beer (what a great custom), I've resolved to try to post at least 5 times a week, even if it's just a few short lines.

I just got back from Birmingham, I went into town to do some food shopping at the fine market in town. I know, how domestic of me. I also visited the Central library for the second time, I found a great book there in the stacks that you just can't find in the US.

I flew in earlier this month. I watched Fracture on the plane, those little TV screens in the back of your seats are great, no editing as is typical of airline films. I had a ten hour layover in Dublin. When in Ireland.... so yeah I bought a daysaver bus pass, and went into Dublin City Centre. I walked around for a couple of hours waiting for the pubs to open... which doesn't happen until ten thirty in the morning. While enjoying a few proper pints of Guinness in a pub, I met a charming Irish lady who sat and chatted with me for about an hour. An American accent opens many doors. For future reference she gave me the names of a few small pubs that have grandfathered licences allowing them to open at 7:30 AM for the dock workers.

When flying from Dublin to Birmingham later that night, apparently the flight crew assumed all their passengers were EU citizens. I had to track down a steward and explained that I needed a landing card. This provoked some consternation among the Aer Lingus staff, who otherwise were the picture of polite service. And they even did the flight announcements in English and Gaelic. My request prompted a confab of about three stewardesses, who rummaged around and found what they "thought was the right card," under the coffee maker I think.

Turns out I shouldn't have been worried. I landed in Brum and disembarked. I collected my luggage, and proceeded on . Unlike my last trip, there was no sign of a passport control officer. Usually they grill non-EU citizens thus: "How long are you staying, " "why are you here," "where are you staying," "how much money do you have with you?" Not this time. I think they assumed anyone flying in from Dublin was cool. I proceeded on through the door for "Her Majesty's Customs - No Declaration" where i passed two Customs officials rifling a gentleman's bag (surprise, he looked Middle Eastern). They seemed little concerned with a Yank, and I carried on. Maybe it was because I was wearing my typical "please don't cavity search me Mr. TSA man" suit. You can get away with practically anything if you shave and wear a suit. I expected to see some Customs presence at least pretending to care who they were letting into their country, so imagine my surprise when I passed through another door to find myself in the lobby of the airport. I warndered around for a minute, hoping there was someone I could point out the error to. "Really, I wouldn't let myself into a country without a few peremptory questions." No joy.

I am still somewhat bewildered, and trying to dodge a group of excitable Asians, when my peripheral vision screams "Danger Will Robinson, you're being blindsided." I know Birmingham has a high crime rate, but surely they don't have muggings in the airport itself. Sure enough, next minute I'm tackled by my fiance and the kids. She explains that she's traveled across Europe and never been asked to show a passport. I really don't know what their security blokes are thinking. The kids had drawn a lovely welcome back card for me.

We get outside, and I'm still gobsmacked by the lack of security, maybe I'm just used to the adinistrative paranoia of American airline security, designed almost entirely to reassure the unwitting populace that everything is under control. But get this, the taxi queue outside is empty... deserted in fact. Obviously in the wake of the Glasgow incident, the Brits are more concerned about people driving near their airports than who's entering the country.

Instead, taxis have to park in short term parking. Thankfully we had met a great cab driver the last time I was here, and he was already on his way. I can't judge whether it's an appropriate security measure, but good lord they must be raking in enormous parking revenues.

More when I get a chance. To all my readers in the land where Senators solicit anonymous sex in men's toilets, I hope you are enjoying the madness. For now this temporary expatriate has to finish his beer.

Anonymous, this is for you....

2007-05-24T00:20:00.000-04:00

I say what I mean clearly and concisely, and you still willfully misunderstand me. Fine. Civility be damned.... Here's what I really think.

A Consise History of Christianity

2007-05-20T00:35:00.000-04:00

Some of my readers may be unfamiliar with certain common terms used in Christian circles. For the un-heathen readers, you may have grown up familiar with phrases and jargon but not completely understand them beyond what you learned from your parents in church. And so I present to you Everything You Wanted To Know About Christianity.

"Some people in America are scared silly of Christianity, but many of the most frightened know very little about it. They throw around terms like fundamentalist and evangelical with very little knowledge of their meaning, and this is before they enter the dark thicket of Preterists, Amillennialists, Prelapsarian Arminian Claims Adjusters, etc."

Here, then, is a handy reference guide to some of the key terms, concepts and groups.

Premillennialism: This is the belief among some Christians that ever since January 1, 2000, it has no longer been possible, in the words of the Prince song, "to party like it's 1999." Postmillennialists are those Christians who believe that it will always be possible to do so, while amillennialists believe that in this context "1999" cannot be understood literally, but must be read as an allegorical term roughly meaning "a time at which it is especially appropriate to party."

Rapture: This was a No. 1 hit in 1980 for Blondie (No. 5 in the UK), from the otherwise underwhelming Autoamerican album. Many Christians now concede that the then-pioneering use of rap in the song sounds a little lame in retrospect. In their bestselling series of books about the song, Left Behind (Parallel Lines), Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye defend the rap verse's hip references to Grandmaster Flash and Fab Five Freddy, and maintain that when Jesus returns, all believers will be united in accepting that Blondie's cover of "The Tide Is High" is better than the original.

Pope: The pope is the president of Christianity. He is elected every four years by the Congress of Cardinals, which is divided into the Senate and the Holy House of Representatives. As president, the pope can veto important pieces of legislation, which he tends to do. The pope is also magical and cannot be seen with the naked eye except for one hour on Christmas Eve every year.

Bible: The Bible was written by God as a merchandising tie-in to his blockbuster film The Ten Commandments: Each book of the Bible is named after a person who features prominently in it--for example, the book of Numbers is named after Herschel Nmnbers, who invented numerals. The Bible was so successful that God wrote a sequel, Bible II: On to Rome, now generally called the New Testament. Protestants believe that the Bible is literally true in every detail except the description of the Eucharist, while Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible.

Catholics: Catholics are the New York Yankees of Christianity. They are the biggest and wealthiest team, and their owner is intensely controversial (this makes St. Francis of Assisi the Derek Jeter of Catholicism: discuss). Catholics all wear matching uniforms and are divided into "parishes" or "squadrons" to make choosing softball teams easier. Catholics are rigidly controlled by a hidebound hierarchy that starts with priests on the bottom and priests' housekeepers on the top. Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible, eat meat or refrain from worshiping statues.

Orthodox: For many years, American scholars believed that the Orthodox were--like leprechauns, unicorns and liberal Republicans--purely the product of the fanciful imaginations of medieval writers. Recent evidence leads us to tentatively conclude, however, that Eastern Orthodoxy may have somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 million adherents. Protestants tend to see the Orthodox as "Catholics with beards," while Catholics confess to a haunting sense that they themselves are simply "Orthodox without beards."

Protestant Reformation: This is the name historians give to a major labor dispute that erupted in Germany in 1517 when a group of monks hammered a proposed union contract to the door of the pope's house, requesting a 95 percent pay raise. The pope refused to negotiate with the monks union until it agreed to pay to have the door fixed, and the result was the world's longest-running strike. For nearly 500 years, a huge number of Christians have been on strike from being Catholic, saying they are "justified" in their work stoppage because the pope won't expand the number of indulgences they get per year. Currently, the matter is in arbitration.

Calvinism: This theory was worked out by the French theologian and fashion designer John Calvin Klein, who argued that some people are predestined to be glamorous while others are doomed to be plain. America was founded by Calvinists, who sought to establish a country where they could pursue their belief that buckled hats were fashionable.

Fundamentalism: The belief that basic elements of play--like passing, ball handling and defense--are the essential building blocks of a winning basketball team. The fundamentalists formulated their doctrine in the 1980s against the showy, heretical play of Magic Johnson's Los Angeles Lakers. Leading fundamentalist institutions include Bob Jones University and Syracuse. Larry Brown's failure to get the Knicks into the playoffs has been seen as a major setback for the cause of fundamentalism.

RIP Mr. Falwell

2007-05-16T19:24:00.000-04:00

To those who were offended by my GTalk tag line, an explanation. To those who didn't see it, here's your opportunity to get offended. It went something like this: "Jerry's Falwell's death was a punishment, not just on Jerry Falwell, but on the church that tolerated him...."

Now, I'm not trying to be overly harsh, however I don't have any taboo about speaking ill of the dead or not confronting the views of a fellow Christian, however well meaning. Nor did I really mean that his death was his punishment. Hello, all people die eventually, and orthodox Christian teaching is that disease and death are the natural consequence of all human sin. But that's as far as I'm willing to take the judgment correlation.

The tag was a satirical comment, playing off Falwell's appalling comments assigning blame for the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, saying "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

Now, as some of my friends have pointed out, maybe I'm not being fair. Isn't everyone entitled to a mistake or two? Sure they are. My question is this: at what point does a man compromise his position on a number of issues to the point that, while we may acknowledge he accomplished great things, we cannot wholeheartedly endorse him, even upon his death?

Falwell supported segregation, saying "When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line," and "I do question the sincerity and non-violent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.... who are known to have left wing associations."

He opposed sanctions on South Africa over apartheid, calling Archbishop Tutu a phony.

He said "AIDs is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.'

To sum up, I'd welcome my readers to give me examples of milestones in Falwell's career. However, I will not put on a sad face and wear a mourning band for a man I did not respect while he lived. I may be harsh, but I am no hypocrite.

If you think I'm mean, just think; I could have done this:
http://www.tmz.com/2007/05/15/jerry-falwell-1933-2007/

Christ Follower vs. Christian Ads

2007-05-10T19:42:00.000-04:00

For those who like the Mac vs. PC ads.

Moving Out, Moving On

2007-05-08T06:29:00.000-04:00

So I'm moving to Florida for the time being. Some thoughts on my recent trip to the UK are in the works though (don't expect anything too personal, if you're looking for typical blog fare you had better email me.) Just some comments on culture from the land where asking someone for a fag is normal, people smoke weed in the parks, faggots come with chips and peas in a restaurant, and everyone wants to know my opinion about the War in Iraq. So look for it once I get settled.

Shameless Self Promotion

2007-02-26T17:45:00.000-05:00

Jack's Confused Sense of Rejection

An expanded essay inspired by a previous blog post. Please go check it out, and if you have a blog, I'd appreciate a mention. Thanks.

Never Judge a Shop by its Contents

2007-02-25T00:07:00.000-05:00

While visiting sister and brother-in-law this week, I made the rounds of used book shops. At the end of the weekend, after finding a traditional German sausage maker and an Italian bakery which felt like a time warp to the 1940s in all the good ways, my family was at a small upscale Italian pastry shop. While they were enjoying gelato, I was checking out the shops in the area. One in particular looked like the sort of place that you could offload some merchandise with few questions asked. Among the VCRs and collection of DVDs, some still marked from a library or video rental, there were several shelves overflowing with books. Most were the typical fare of pulp fiction, Clancy and Steele paperbacks stacked two or three deep with no apparent order. While digging through the piles, I did find a couple that were interesting. I wished I had the time to sort through the dreck and find all the forgotten treasures you could see poking out here and there. Next to a copy of Animal Farm (which I promptly picked out and dedicated to Professor Boxer), was The Allegory of Love by C. S. Lewis. Jackpot. It was labeled "$3". I took it up to the proprietor of the place, the kind of guy you wouldn't look at twice if he was sitting on a stoop with a bottle in a paper bag, with a Styrofoam cup for change.

Enboldened by the literary scores I'd made that week, I asked if he'd take two dollars. He looked at the book and said "Sure. Anyone who reads C. S. Lewis is ok by me." I replied that I doubted he sold much of the sort. "Not really. As you can see I devote real estate to books out of principle, not because they sell." I paid him, thanked him and left.

Here's a list of what else I picked up at other shops over the weekend:

Thus Spake Zarathustra
Beyond Good and Evil
Fear and Trembling (an absolutely beautiful copy which promptly replaced my worn Dover edition picked up for Boxer's philosophy class)
The Book of War
Teeth of the Tiger
The Cuckoo's Egg
Augustine's Sermons to the People
The Second Oldest Profession (as honorable as the first)
The Spy Who Came In From The Cold
Parliament of Whores
Grimm's Faery Tales
My Secret War (by Kim Philby)
The Maltese Falcon
The Peloponnesian Wars
Years of Upheaval (The lady at one shop threw this in for free, completing my set of Kissinger's Memoirs)

A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

2007-02-20T17:06:00.000-05:00

When people ask me what denomination I consider myself, I usually tell them "I'm an Anglican who currently attends a Bapto-costal church." For purposes of this discussion, my church considers itself Baptocostal because they have Baptist doctrine and drums in worship.

A bit of a condtradiction don't you think? As an Anglican I find myself most blessed when in a church that has strong doctrine, sound tradition and a liturgial worship style. However, there are no good Anglican churches nearby, so I fellowship with my family.

Why do I go to a church where I often feel uncomfortable? Because I believe that the Scriptural mandate to fellowship with believers carries no caveat "if you find it comfortable or like the people in your church." That's not to say that I dislike anyone in my church, but I have to admit, after tasting the joys of a traditional faith, there is much in the large-e Evangelical movement that rubs me the wrong way. Why do I attend? Because we're commanded to fellowship with the local body of believers: http://relevantmagazine.com/god_article.php?id=7301

Now, what is Anglican? Most people think it's just Catholic-Lite, "More Doctrine.... Less Guilt... More Doctrine... Less Guilt."

It's a Protestant (maybe even Reformed) doctrine with a liturgical worship style, a church tradition and hierarchy that avoids splitting over whether women wear pants or what color carpet to have, and uses real wine in Communion. Catholic but not so Mary.

Now often people think that a liturgical style is "vain repetition." Every church has a liturgy in some form, no matter how informal it is, whether they call it a mass, a liturgy or a bulletin.

Now Evangelicals or 'fundies' often say that the Anglican church is based on the traditions of man. Yes, there is a traditional element. To quote: "It is not necessary that the Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word."

In my opinion, I'd rather have church traditions that have stood the test of time, rather than modernist manufactured traditions such as those that dominate the fundamentalist American church. My priest wears vestments that show a respect for God. Your Baptist preacher wears a suit and tie no matter how hot it is in the summer, out of respect for God. My church has a tradition of holding communion at every worship service, yours does it once a quarter. My church asks people to kneel out of reverance during prayer. Your church only lets people kneel when they're facing such a serious personal crisis that they must come to the altar. Kneel in the pews at a Baptist church as I do and you get strange looks. Yes the Anglican church has its traditions. But what of the mainstream evangelical traditions? WWJD, revival meetings, the prayer of Jabez, Joshua Harris, and many more.

If you have questions, read the Catechism and Articles of Faith in the Book of Common Prayer. I doubt most Protestants will find much cause for concern.

Now, many people have heard little about the American Branch of the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church of the US (ECUSA), outside the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson (an open practicing homosexual), and the election of Katherine Jeffers-Schori as Episcopal Archbishop. This leads to many people thinking it's "the gay church." Yes, the Anglican Communion is in the midst of a crisis approaching schism over the issue, as the Archbishop of Canterbury put a moratorium on gay ordinations and marriages and the ECUSA broke it. Traditional-Episcopalians have been departing the ECUSA and seeking to align with the worldwide Anglican communion to preserve vital doctrine. However, the Anglican Communion is doing all it can to reconcile differences without compromising doctrine, and there is hope that this can succeed. The traditional minority in the US remain steadfastly committed to the doctrines of the faith regardless of the outcome, whether schism or healing and unity.

So I'm not Catholic, I'm not pro-gay-marriage (though I am pro-gay in the way that I am pro-all human being created in the image of God). I am a Mere Christian. I don't ask you to genuflect when you prayer, but don't burn me at the stake if I cross myself. Thanks.

Gluttony: Being the First in a Seven Part Series on the Deadly Sins

2007-02-19T16:58:00.000-05:00

“You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act—that is, to watch a girl undress on a stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let everyone see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food?..... There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food: there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest in their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food and dribbling and smacking their lips.”

Some heady thoughts from the fifth chapter of the third book of Mere Christianity. Lewis is of course making a point about the unhealthy cultural attitude towards sex, but I want to reverse the analogy and deduce the inverse. Lewis claims here that our attitude towards food could become just as corrupted as that toward sexual expression. And as we know, the sins most comfortable to us are often the ones we must remain on guard against. How many Christians preach sexual chastity but think nothing of unchaste indulgence in the pleasures of food? I touched on this briefly in a previous essay, asking how many fat Baptist preachers (yes, it’s a generalization, but one that experience has proven accurate) inveigh against the evils of even moderate indulgence in tobacco or alcohol, railing that it defiles the temple, but who are poisoning their bodies with an excessive and unhealthy diet.

Now, this is a difficult topic to broach, because in our society some things are acceptable to condemn people for, while other character flaws are socially protected. If you doubt my premise, consider this: how often is it considered normal to personally confront a smoker about their “filthy” habit, but if someone addresses overeating, which I shall herein refer to as gluttony, we are insensitive to people whose metabolisms or stressors predispose them to obesity? Understand that I am not condemning those who eat any more than I condemn those who smoke or drink. All can be done in moderation, and they can also be indulged in to excess.

Let us first understand what we are talking about: Gluttony, properly understood, is expecting more of food that it can offer. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a proper Christmas repast, even if we overindulge a bit on that occasion. No, gluttony is a far more insidious vice. It consists of using food as a panacea for stress, for depression, becoming dependent on food to lift our spirits. To quote Church Father Thomas Aquinas: "Gluttony denotes, not any desire of eating and drinking, but an inordinate desire... leaving the order of reason, wherein the good of moral virtue consists." This is a vital distinction. Not all those who are overweight are gluttons, men like Chesterton and Luther, “giants side to side,” spring first to mind. Nor are those like myself who possess a rapid metabolism immune from the influences of the vice. You may be, for whatever reasons, prone to being larger, but if you have a proper emphasis on the spiritual, and do not use food for more than it was intended, you may not be a glutton. If you are slender but eat for purely sensual pleasure, or deny yourself without reason, you may well be gluttonous. Like many failings in the church, we overlook the dangers of gluttony by looking at things in and of themselves, when we should rather take a systematic approach to how everything in our lives affects our spirituality.

From First Corinthians 11, When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

In the early church gluttony was divisive and separated the church. Today, it unites us, but it is still as dangerous to our moral state.

If I may beg the reader’s indulgence while I engage in a bit of speculation: Food has become a central pillar of church fellowship. Churches, especially of the evangelical variety, eat together almost every time they gather. And it is not just a simple meal of fellowship. We have fattening foods and coffee (ahh caffeine, the ignored social drug of choice in the Church) after worship, we hold potlucks on any pretext, men’s groups hold prayer breakfasts during which there is little prayer and much breakfast. Obesity is set to over take smoking as the leading cause of preventable death in this country, and yet the church comfortably gorges itself at the table of fellowship, smugly content that we don’t destroy our bodies with liquor or nicotine. If the aforementioned pastors are concerned about the state of our bodies, they would realize that comparatively, gluttony is a far wider-reaching sin in the church than smoking.

So far we have established what gluttony is, and that it is a serious sin in the church. Gluttony and materialism are linked, and western society, and the American church specifically, are in thrall to materialism. So how can we correct our gluttony? I would suggest a few systematic approaches, leaving issues like dieting and exercise (asceticism perhaps) to the more educated than I. First we must become more concerned with those who have less than us. If we are mindful that there are many poor and homeless among us who are dying for want of a decent meal, if we are truly moved to compassion, not just pity, by news reports on the plight of those in Africa, in sum if we consider others before ourselves, we will go a long way toward correcting our own over indulgence.

Now if overeating is gluttony, so too can be an artificial show of deprivation. We are liberated, Peter’s vision opens up to us the opportunity to enjoy a good Delmonico on occasion. If we choose to eat not just moderately, but modestly, we must beware the temptation to another sin, that of Pride. I do not want the reader to exchange a smug confidence that we do are not drunkards or smokers with an equally arrogant and hypocritical confidence that we are not gluttons.

In everything we must remember that Christ is more concerned with our spiritual well being than the purely physical. Gluttony, drunkenness, or drug abuse are sins not purely because they are physical, but because they take the place of a proper emphasis on the spiritual. When it comes to the physical virtues, we must remember Colossians chapter 2:

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

It is clear that the indulgence of the flesh has at its root an improper emphasis on the spiritual. It is not that we overemphasize the physical, but rather we denigrate the spiritual and allow our natural appetites to fill the void left by an unspiritual life. If we construct a moral code, as much of the Evangelical church has, based on a laundry list of physical dos and don’ts, then we miss the mark. The key to appropriate and moderate indulgence in the things of the flesh is to have a proper conception of the spiritual. If we give the best to God of our soul, and focus on the spiritual virtues as primary, we will naturally bring our natural appetites in line with a moderate enjoyment of the physical things God created for our pleasure. Hold fast to the Head, which is Christ, and our whole body will be properly nourished, and we will not rely on food to satisfy ourselves.

Sweet Thoughts for the Holiday

2007-02-14T15:39:00.000-05:00

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

2007-02-01T15:00:00.000-05:00

And suddenly my jokes about where Chicken McNuggets come from become alot less funny.

Report Says Chinese Military Harvests Organs from Falung Gong Policial Prisoners

Solicitation of Topics

2007-01-23T03:19:00.000-05:00

Ok Readers: I would like to know what topics (religious or cultural preferably) you would like me to turn my ascerbic wit, cutting insight, biting sarcasm, deep perspective and all around supreme modesty on next. Consider it a jump start for my muse. I'm in the midst of a writing project, and I often find that short essays help me to regroup and recharge in between writing and editing on a larger project. So, if you read this blog at all, and I presume you do because you're the audience of this post, please comment with a few suggestions. Thanks.

Conversations with a Pharisee

2007-01-22T23:38:00.000-05:00

Ok, this topic won't leave me alone. My friend Eric recently pointed me to this blog. Cut through the dreck, and this is the conversation that emerged. I'lll use Courier for the blogger's comments, and Times for my reply, and different colors.

This next part of my post is just my opinion. I’m really sorry if you get offended at what I’m about to say but remember that it’s only my opinion. Please don't think that I'm judging anyone by writing what you are about to read. That was and still isn't my intention for writing this post at all. If anything I wrote this post to help others because I don't wish to see anyone hurt themselves or others with their actions. If you happen to smoke and/or drink I don't think any less of you. Please remember to keep in mind that this is only my OPINION and nothing else.

I don’t see why people smoke and drink. First, I’m going to talk about smoking. Why do people do it? Do they not know that they are killing themselves and the people around them? In my opinion people who smoke are potential murderers. Not only are they murderers but they kill their victims very slowly and painfully. My roommate smokes a pipe like a chimney when he goes camping. When I tell him that it’s hurting him and those around him his response is, “but I don’t inhale it.” There is this little thing called mouth cancer that is just as deadly as lung cancer. Plus the more you don’t inhale the more other people inhale, which in my opinion is worse than inhaling yourself because you are harming other innocent people. Paul says in First Corinthians 6:19, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (NASB) He also says it in First Corinthians 3:16-17, “Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.” (NASB) Below are three lists of facts that I obtained from the American Lung Association. The first one is facts about smoking, the second about secondhand smoke, and the third about smokeless tobacco. Please take a look at them. My Mom worked at the American Lung Association for seven or eight years. During that time I lived with two sets of pig lungs. One pair was normal and the other was treated by scientists to simulate what a smokers lungs would look like. Needless to say, I know how bad any type of smoking is for you and for those around you.

Cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable morbidity and premature mortality worldwide.

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.

The second thing I’m going to talk about is drinking. My view on drinking is different than my view on smoking. I’m not opposed to drinking wine that is if it is in moderation. The Bible isn’t even against drinking wine in moderation. Jesus even drunk wine (John 2:1-11 Matthew 27:34,48, NASB) The Bible is opposed of getting drunk. Proverbs 20:1 says, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise.” (NASB) Paul says in First Timothy 5:23 to, “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (NASB) Personally, I’m never going to drink because there is a history of alcoholism in my family and I frankly don’t understand why people willing drink alcohol when they could just choose water instead. It’s a lot cheaper and it won’t ever give you a buzz. You can’t get drunk off of drinking water. Although I’m not against drinking wine I am, however against drinking beer and whisky. Wine has some healing properties and is normally only drunk at certain times and special occasions. Beer doesn’t. In my opinion, people who drink beer and whisky drink it just to get drunk. What other reason do people drink beer and whisky? Plus, I heard that beer and whisky tastes disgusting. My roommate says that he’s going to start drinking as soon as he turns twenty-one. I’m not. I view it as a waste of money. I can put my money to better things than alcohol, like things that can help me in my ministry.

Well I believe that’s enough ranting and raving for one night. I guess I should probably stop typing and get off here and go to bed. I hope you have a great week! Your Brother in Christ, Matthew Smith

Alright Reader, you still with me? Incensed, I dashed off this response. Yes, I know I'm harsh. So was John the Baptist. A book I read just the other day said "I could not believe in a God who did not kick over tables."

Well, Eric pulled me into this one. Lest you think I am just throwing questions at you, I'd like your response. You obviously are passionate enough about your views to devote quite a bit of page to them, so a bit more responding to my criticisms shouldn't be out of order.

Nice post. You don't think less of me or many great Christian smoking theologians (spurgeon, lewis, tolkien, sproul, barth, bach, etc), but we're potential murderers. Somehow I disbelieve the first statement along with the second. To quote Spurgeon: "Well, dear friends, you know that some men can do to the glory of God what to other men would be sin. And notwithstanding what brother Pentecost has said, I intend to smoke a good cigar to the glory of God before I go to bed to-night. If anybody can show me in the Bible the command, 'Thou shalt not smoke,' I am ready to keep it; but I haven't found it yet. I find ten commandments, and it's as much as I can do to keep them; and I've no desire to make them into eleven or twelve."

To continue with Spurgeon: "There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God."

Now, I'm not calling you a pharisee personally, but if the den fits, well then viper slither into it.

Let's look at a few inconvenient facts you left out.

Drinking beer does have the same health effects of wine, just possibly one of them in smaller quantities. Before you jump on this, if you have a small headache, which is better, an Advil or a Codeine? Did you know that red wine is more beneficial than white? Would you condemn a white wine drinker as only wanting to get drunk?? Beer also protects bone mineral density. There are also highly potent anti-oxidant properties of xanthohumol, a major hop flavonoid

In fact: a flurry of independent research since those initial reports on red wine's health benefits surfaced a dozen years ago finds that alcohol in general provides a number of health benefits when consumed in moderation, and that beer might be the healthiest beverage of them all.

So I drink Guinness and Glenlivet to get drunk do I? Do you know how much a bottle of Glenlivet costs? At least forty dollars and up. That's fine wine territory. People buy Busch lite or Vodka to get drunk, not top shelf single malt 12 year aged Scotch whisky. You know, maybe this is an example of people with no knowledge of what they speak who should keep their comments to what they do know. Did you know Martin Luther was an esteemed beer brewer? Maybe you can argue this one with him in heaven. "I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never with force. I simply taught, preached and wrote God's Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip and Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it." C.S. Lewis hosted Beer and Beowulf nights with his graduate students. But hey, in Luke 7:33-35 Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by saying "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, `He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, `Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." So I guess I'm in good company, call me an Christ drunkards together. Please.

Psalm 104 tells us that "GOD made wine that maketh glad the heart of man". We read in Proverbs 31:6&7 "Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more" and in Ecclesiastes 9:7 "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do." and in Ecclesiastes 10:19 "A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes life merry"

The Rev Elijah Craig, a Baptist minister, was the first to distil Bourbon in 1789
Monks created champagne. Monks brewed beer. Monks brought the technique to make whisky to Scotland (thank God).

As far as drinking wine at certain occasions: Did you know that the health benefits of drinking red wine are associated with having A GLASS A DAY? You write: Plus, I heard that beer and whisky tastes disgusting... Way to go with the wild association. I heard there are mutant crocodiles in the NY subways. I know people who find cola and indeed all sodas disgusting. I know someone who hates the taste of coffee. I even have one friend who can't stand the taste of water. Does this give us any evidence for or against those drinks, some of which I'm sure you drink? Oh, and if you don't think you can get drunk off water, you obviously have never heard of water intoxication.

Ok, mouth cancer: It is much less likely to get mouth cancer from smoking than lung cancer. Also, it's much more treatable and is not a death sentence. Did you know that eating barbecued foods and well done meat HIGHLY increases your risk of colon cancer?

Do you drink caffeine containing beverages? Some people think this is abusing your temple?

If your friend smokes while camping, I imagine you're outdoors. Just how much smoke do you actually inhale, compared to spending the night in a smoke filled bar (I know, a place a Christian would never set foot in.) I'm sure you're not at any risk from the occasional camping trip with your chimney puffing friend. And, if I'm a potential murderer, shouldn't I minimize the exposure of others by filtering such smoke through my lungs first?

Body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit: Mind if I ask your Body Mass Index? Mine's 18.6 I have healthy blood pressure and heart rates, lower than even healthy averages. Gluttony, you know, one of the seven deadly sins, (smoking and drinking are not listed), afflicts hudnreds if not thousands of pastors who use the Temple argument to inveigh against drinking and smoking. Physician heal thyself. In fact, obesity is set to overtake smoking as the number one preventable health problem in America. Sorry if that threatens your mom's job.

If you really want to help people, why not write a blog post exhorting people to moderation in drinking or smoking if they choose to do so??

Since anyone can rip bible passages out of context, here's a nice chunk for you to chew on: Colossians 2, beginning at verse 16: Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (ESV)

Puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head. Pretty strong condemnation of you, by God, for judging me over questions of drink. So you're twenty. You couldn't even legally drink if you wanted to. Do you feel enpowered to comment and pass judgment on all sorts of things with which you have no experience, or just the punching bags of straw men arguments the Church has attempted to get you to accept blindly "Christians dont' do?" Are you an expert on foreign affairs or tax law as well? Does a few Bible verses give you the answer to those as well? Come back when you've read some substantive theology about the things of God, when you're a little older, when maybe gasp you've tried a few good beers and one struck you as not disgusting (oh the temptation), frankly, when you're more mature and maybe we can have a civil conversation about these things as well. Sorry if there is too much Scripture quoted here to overload your Sunday School rhetoric. Keep the Faith (just learn it better while you're at it, and maybe focus on the spiritual over the physical).

Religious? Litigious??

2007-01-21T13:59:00.000-05:00

Ok, so comments have died down and I figure it's about time I up the shock value of my blog just a bit. Remember, this is about Free Speech and a picture of the kind of world we will live in if some Christianists get their utopia of a theocratic nation. It's not about gay rights, but about Christians repressing thought and controversy that makes them uncomfortable. I also find it relevant as a blogger who frequently uses parody as a rhetorical tool. So on that note:

First Cease and Desist Letter

Response to the Cease and Desist Order

Just Another Day Off Work...

2007-01-15T19:03:00.000-05:00

For many people, Martin Luther King Jr. Day is just another day off work. For some, it remains the abomination of Lee-Jackson-King Day. So, on that note, I urge you to read the Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

If we could recapture just a bit of Dr. King's vision, we would be motivated to do more for our fellow man, no matter his country, beliefs or ethnicity. On that, a short poem by an Irishman named Paul.

One man come in the name of love
One man come and go
One man come, he to justify
One man to overthrow

In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love

One man caught on a barbed wire fence
One man he resist
One man washed on an empty beach.
One man betrayed with a kiss

In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love

(nobody like you...)

Early morning, April 4
Shot rings out in the Memphis sky
Free at last, they took your life
They could not take your pride

In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love...

2007-01-11T19:27:00.000-05:00

Window in the Skies

2007-01-10T20:18:00.001-05:00

An awesome video with lyrics that speak a great message.

Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander. - US Holocaust Memorial

2007-01-08T22:47:00.000-05:00

On January 3, 2006, 18-year-old Nazanin was sentenced to death for murder by court in Iran after she reportedly admitted fatally stabbing one of three men who attempted to rape her and her 16-year-old niece in a park in Karaj (a suburb of Tehran) in March 2005. She was seventeen at the time. Her sentence is subject to review by the Court of Appeal, and if upheld, to confirmation by the Supreme Court.

According to reports in the Iranian newspaper E’temaad, Nazanin told the court that three men had approached her and her niece, forced them to the ground and attempted to rape them. Seeking to defend her niece and herself, Nazanin stabbed one man in the hand with a knife that she possessed. As the men continued their attack, she stabbed another of the men in the chest, which eventually caused his death. She reportedly told the court “I wanted to defend myself and my niece. I did not want to kill that boy. At the heat of the moment I did not know what to do because no one came to our help”. She was nevertheless sentenced to the maximum punishment possible under the law, death by hanging.

Dr. Martin Luther King: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

Thoreau: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

Read and sign the Save Nazanin Petition:

*UPDATE* News from the Retrial

"After much discussions, the four judges unanimously determined that the lower court decision in January of 2006 was wrong and Nazanin killing the would-be rapist was not intentional."

Now, the political philosopher in me says the judges should have said it doesn't matter whether the killing was intentional or not. But I've watched enough Law and Order to know a win is a win, no matter how it's cloaked.

Let us not be complacent as the Germans who ignored the smell of the crematoria. Let us not be indifferent as the West to the plight of Rwandaa. Let us not ignore the plight of those who need our help. Let our voices cry out to God and the State so the blood of our innocent brethren has a voice. Do not rest in complacency, indifference, and ignorace. Because if we do, one day we shall be the ones facing injustice and no one will hear us.

The Grass Withers and the Flower Fades

2006-12-20T01:14:00.000-05:00

No, I am not being paid by the floral industry to write this.

Why do women like flowers? Why do guys like buying them for women? To address the quesiton, why do women NOT like utilitarian gifts (many generalizations will be made in this post, I understand I'm speaking generally about cultural norms, and there will be exceptions, including many women would would love a Kitchenmade mixer for Christmas). Utilitarian gifts have a purpose, they may convey a kind or caring sentiment, but their primary purpose is to be used.

Not so with flowers. The sole reason to give a gift of flowers is to demonstrate love for someone. They have no other use, and the temporal nature of a flower only serves to enhance the sentiment. I give you this rose to signify my love, it will be beautiful for a day or two, and then it will decay, and I will send you more flowers in the future, because I can never stop telling you just how much I love you. In this way, flowers are the ideal "just because I love you" gift. A gift that lasts is a constant reminder of one's love and affection.

However, the giving of gifts serves two purposes. First, it shows that at this particular moment in time, I want to express a particular sentiment to you, such as love or shared grief (how closely those feelings are related. Grief, as Lewis writes, is the transformation of love through the process of loss). Second, it is a reminder that I continue to feel this sentiment towards you. The expression signified in the first particular is temporal, at a fixed moment in time the giving of a gift expresses an emotion, such as love, that we are feeling right NOW. The second aspect of gift giving allows the gift to remain as a continuing reminder that at that time, and hopefully still, I love you. Flowers are particularly attuned to be a gift which admirably serves both of these purposes. The flower itself is fleeting, temporary. It shows that right now I want to make a irrational gesture of love. I want to give you a gift right now that serves no other purpose except saying I Love You, right now, and I just had to tell you. In this way, it appears that flowers are admirably suited merely for the temporal attitude of gift giving. This is why some women do not like receiving flowers, they appear to be a waste of money on something that does not last. But the sentiment of giving out of love does last, and in this way the truth goes far deeper.

The giving of flowers in the second regard, is an act signifying a continuing gift. The flower fades, but the sentiment is renewed by the giving of more flowers. In this way, it harks back to the first gift of flowers. Even giving a dozen roses on a couple's anniversary reminds both partners of the first flowers he ever gave her, whether it was a single white rose, or a bouquet of wild flowers plucked on the way to a date. Because the flower fades, it requires the renewing of this sentiment by another floral gift, to remind the lover that the sentiment was not merely a one time sentiment, but that the attitude of love lives on. In these ways, the gift of flowers implies both gift giving attitudes: The flower is a temporary gift of momentary emotion, but in a way, giving flowers now makes both the giver and the receiver partakers of the emotions entailed by every other floral gift of the past. They can remind us of a particular time, or of better times, or of better things to come. So darling, when you read this, you'll understand a bit more why I give you flowers, and why they are an expression of love that is more than worth the cost.

Oh, and if this post strikes my readers as a bit out of the ordinary for me, well it is. I was challenged to write on something positive and uplifting, to break out of my typical critic's attitude. But no, I have not changed, and to prove it, if anyone wants to get me this for Christmas, I think it would be an awesome way to convey my usual attitude with the right tuxedo:

Single Black Rose Boutonniere

Of Mammon and the Rapture

2006-12-13T04:06:00.000-05:00

A short update will have to suffice, since I do not have the time for a full ramble. I would love my reader's thoughts on this:

Convert or Kill: Violent Left Behind Video Game Prompts Controversy

I wish to God I was making this up. What would be the response of fundementalist christianists if Walmart carried a video game along the following fictitious lines:

Holy Jihad: Caliph Edition
Campaign for the prophet Mohammed (not depicted) to spread Islam to the world. Enhance Allah's Kingdom by spreading the Quran using persuasion if necessary, the sword if all else fails. Remember, we're in a battle against the forces of Shaitan.

Sounds crazy, right? Well, the Christianists will now have their own real time strategy game where we fight to spread the faith. Because you know, Age of Empires has just waaaay too much gratutious sex and nudity.

What's next? Allow me to hypothesize.
Left Behind, Prequel Edition "As the Rapture approaches, take the culture war to the streets. Organize your neighbors for the Marriage Amendment and to get that pesky gay couple to move out of the neighborhood. Petition the town council to exclude any stores that sell FHM or Maxim from the community. Picket soldier's funerals with the message of God's judgment on American liberals. Look for the Eric Rudolph Expansion Pack in the Fall (The Fall of man, of culture, of the decadent American church? We don't know which, but remember, fire and brimstone always sell better to the faithful than do grace, hope and love)." © (see note)

Yet another example of Christians accepting flimsy variants of popular cultural modes in an attempt to keep our young people from engaging troubling concepts, rather choosing to brainwash them to Christianist viewpoints. And a disturbing cultural trend within the church to accept media depiction of violence, any violence, if it's for a cause with which we may sympathize (or not sympathize, such as is this Author's view), when we want to reject any truly relevant artistic or literary expression because of themes that are just as valid, but more troubling, such as themes of sex or profanity (remember you don't read any of those in the Bible). Violence though appears to be 100% Grade A Christianist approved.

Copyright Notice: Plot line and all elements not copyrighted Lahaye and Jenkins reserved to the author, because I'm afraid if the wrong people come across this post, we may very well see something in this vein shortly. If you think I'm kidding, read the description of the LBH game and tell me this is too far fetched.

There are two kinds of egotists: Those who admit it, and the rest of us.

2006-11-26T22:26:00.000-05:00

Anyone who knows me know that I admit it. But sometimes it's wise to admit it to oneself as well. Charles Spurgeon said, "Humility is to make a right estimate of one's self." So in one sense self-awareness is the fundamental operating condition of a humble spirit, and I am not repudiating my thoughts on this blog where I've expressed, sometimes (or often) quite strong opinions when I feel I have insight to offer.

But have you ever felt those moments when God just humbles you, when out of the blue something pops up to remind us that no matter how far we've come, we have a ways to go in the Imitation of Christ? I had one today.

I got an email from a former classmate at college. He introduced himself, said I probably don't remember him, but that we were at school freshman year together. He said that he has a picture of us and several other people together at a class outing to a historical site, and that every time he sees it he stops to pray for us all.

I was floored. When had I thought of him except in reminiscing to other friends about the somewhat odd characters who were at school the first year? Had I EVER stopped to pray for him?

Sad to say, I don't know that I have. You probably don't know how God used you, but thank you Ben.

To My Anonymous Exhorter: A Response

2006-11-26T00:26:00.000-05:00

As my below post makes mention, I was recently reprimanded by an anonymous comment calling into question my post Re: Lahaye and Jenkins.

I feel a response is necessary. I will excuse the length of this response on the grounds that I am not only responding to the critiques of my opinions of the series, but also I expound my view of engaging the culture we live in. I do not know if my original commentator is a regular reader of my blog, or someone who stumbled across that post while looking for the Left Behind fanclub, but no matter, his/her comments merit attention.

I will reproduce the comment below in italics, and intersperse my reply point by point.

I agree with you - that the church in America is theologically atrophied. That's a good word picture.

Thank you, I'm glad my essential point got across.

But I'm afraid that the passion with which you write to communicate your very valid points are overshadowed by your use of a certain word - which in most Christian circles, evangelical or otherwise - would be considered offensive and a cursing of God's name. Sort of pours water on the fire or righteous indignation.

I dealt with my defense of my studied use of that word below, but I will give a few more comments. I remember in college, being assigned the film Cromwell in one of our classes. After viewing it, my professor felt he had to make an explanation for the more timid among the class. At one point Cromwell enters his church and sees the King has forced the trappings of the Roman church into English churches. He is then confronted with one of his friends whose ear had been cut off for some offense or other. Cromwell, righteously indignant, exclaims "God Damn this king." Dr. Stacey pointed out that Cromwell was NOT blaspheming, that this was a sincere prayer to God to punish this ungodly king. In that context, my use of the phrase should only indicate the depth of my righteous indignation, not the hypocrisy of it.

Maybe if we modeled self control more, the world would see our commitment to Christ rather than our rampant hypocrisy. (and I don't just limit it to language; Lord knows there's a plethora of "addictions" we Christians have)

Ok, so herein I'm accused of not having enough self-control in my posting. So be it. I feel there is a greater danger within the church, self or imposed control approaching legalistic Phariseeism. While we should not "sin so that grace can abound...", who is more likely to seem "real" to an unbeliever and truly evidence God's grace, one who has bought into the fundamentalist line that to be a Christian means you don't drink or swear or watch R rated movies, or someone who does not reproach the unbeliever if their language is a bit salty, who shows that the true message of the Gospel is that Christ cares who we are more than what arbitrary rules we impose on ourselves. Christ hung out with profane fishermen, prostitutes, and corrupt government officials, not the "good" people of the established church. Peter denied Christ three times with blasphemies, and yet God still used him mightily at Pentacost to found the Church. This is not meant to condone true blasphemy, only to show that is is not what God is more concerned about. Profiting off the gospel to the detriment of the work of the church is even more blasphemous of our faith and our calling. My point here is that the "world" will see who Christ is, not because we are the most self-controlled people in the world, but because God gives us grace even when we are not.

Out of curiosity, how are you personally ministering to the world? [Personal note: We may differ on this, but I don't believe that Christians must become LIKE the world in order to minister to them and show them their need for Christ.]

I hesitated to respond to this question, but I feel I must. For one, none of us truly does as much as we should, but if we are following Christ, we should at least know that there is more that we can do, rather than promoting our own works-including apocalyptic fiction-as the answer. The prophets of the old testament (not to say that I consider myself a prophet-more a critic) did not solve the world's problems themselves, rather they called the community to repent and get on track with what God wants.

That said, yes, the gauntlet has been thrown and I will try to respond charitably and without pride. I have not been called to a world stage, nor do I have the influence and public exposure which Lahaye and Jenkins continue to squander to their own profit. However, I try to live a life which exemplifies my vision of Christ's overpowering grace as explained in my second paragraph of response above. Living Christ to the world, not as "the world" writ large, but to individuals. Not classifying everyone into a worldview box, labeling them, and then saying "you're an existentialist/nihilist/pagan/pluralist/postmodern" and then beat them with the baseball bat of six or seven points of sunday school rhetoric my Biblical Reasoning prof taught me "prove" Christ to that "group." I will not deny my faith, nor live in sin in order to reach others, but I will try to discard all the non-essential legalism which all my readers who grew up in the fundamentalist church are familiar with, in order that the message of Grace, the gospel of Mere Christianity*, will shine through. We are to discard every weight so that we may run the race before us well. I cultivate relationships as I can, and in fact I am often more comfortable sitting in a coffeshop discussing God, life, and faith with all those individuals created in the image of God who make up the monolithic "the world" we so dread, than I am sitting in a holy huddle in church exhorting ourselves with how much we love us some Jesus over a shot of grape juice.

So that is my ethos of relational evangelism. I have seen God do mighty things with that approach.

I realize I am a bit of an iconoclast. I see opportunities to point out problems in the church, and if I do it with any regularity, maybe it is because the American church is so atrophied we are consumed with expending enormous amounts of time and effort combating gay marriage and Roe v. Wade, so that we will miss the opportunites to preach the truth in love to the homosexual, the pregnant teen, or dare I say it the Human Rights Council staffer or abortionist. I am not saying that all these will come to Christ, but I would like to hope that God will grant me the grace to live a life where they can look at me and say they saw Christ's love despite our disagreements, rather than repudiate Christ with how unloving His church is. However, I am making efforts to be constructive as well as deconstructive, since both in unity will, I believe, bear fruit.

As far as what I am doing in the church, well, I am not a leader, but I do try to follow Christ when He affirms the priesthood of all believers. I contribute in small groups in my church, and have recently led a Bible study on Grace. I am discipling several new believers as we work through the gospel of John and Mere Christianity.

*Not as Lewis wrote it, but as Christ preached it.

More to the point, one reader commented on my indictment of the Left Behind series.

So what exactly do you propose is wrong with Christians composing literature and offering it on the free market? Forget whether you or anyone else actually considers it "literature" (before the CLAers come and mug me). They had an idea and wrote a story. Do you really think these authors are offering their works as an alternative to Scipture and the only way to salvation? Or should Christian ideas never be offered on the free market at all for fear of their corruption? And what if one - even one soul - did pick up the books just because they were interested, and decided to investigate more, and that ended up being their first step toward salvation?

God uses even the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. That's not an excuse for Christians to be foolish, but neither is it prudent for so members of the body of Christ to spend time distancing themselves from brothers and sisters with whom they fundamentally agree that Christ died for that we may undercut the very tools God may be using for His own ends - whether we care to recognize them or not.

Let me explain my problems with the concept. I will not address the theology (if you can call it that) of the series, as that was not the point of my original essay. For example, how did what was going to be a trilogy end up becoming seven books, then twelve, then 15, as more and more people bought the books, as the authors were seduced by Amazon ranking and profit margins and marketing. Yes, God can use a deeply flawed work to bring people to him, ie: the NIV and the Roman church, and the Pentacostal movement. (Please, hold the emails on those topics.) Why did the head of marketing for all of Tindale House publishers suddenly become head of marketing for the Left Behind series alone? Does a genuine attempt to bring people to God need a head of marketing? Haven't the attempts to modernize and market Christianity resulted in some of the greatest abominations of our pop-culture faith?

If the series had never been written, I believe that God's sovereign grace is more than capable to bring all those people whom He has called before the beginning of time to saving faith in Him. I repudiate the idea that attacking errant preachers or novelists on a theological point like the prostitution of our faith on the altar of Mammon will reduce God's kingdom by even one soul. Maybe that's just me.

Yes, we may fundamentally agree that Christ died for us, but when the means people use become apparently destructive of those ends, then I believe there is call for pause and reflection, and if needs be, condemnation from the Church. Many will have cast out demons in Christ's name, or brought people to God, or written enormously popular works of fiction in his name, and He will say "depart from Me I never know you." Now, I am not questioning these gentleman's faith, just saying that if the former sentence can be true, then certainly there is reason to question things done in Christ's name, for not all those things, even if they bear some fruit, are of Christ. And marketing Christ into a series of 15 "fiction" books to record profits, slapping four initials on an armband, or giving your coworkers "Testamints" are most likely not of Him.

Note: To my fellow travelers, check out Nathan Wilson and Dr. Sock's great satirical reposte, Right Behind and Supergeddon.

An apology to my readers and a few miscellenia

2006-11-25T06:17:00.000-05:00

To sum up, an omnibus post.

Ok... It went something like this. I get spam on my blogspot. I enable comment moderation. I completely forget about it in the course of my busy life. I log into the new version of Blogger today, and have 68 comments awaiting moderation...

So, in short, no I have not been censoring anyone. I approved every comment that wasn't a spam advertisement. Thank you all for your interest, I had no idea so many people read my ravings.

And one note, which is certainly not an apology, but perhaps an explanation. One sincere reader objected to my use of the word "g-ddammed" in my essay on the commercialization of Christianity vis a vis Lahaye and Jenkins. If I had been being flippant, I would certainly apologize. I was not, I was and remain in dead earnest.

To quote Lewis: "One listener complained of the word 'damned' as frivolous swearing. But I mean exactly what I say--nonsense that is damned is under God's curse, and will (apart from Christ's grace) lead those who believe it to eternal death." -- Mere Christianity Book II, Chapter i.

I stand by it, those who turn faith into profit, who enrich themselves at the expense of the Kingdom, are producing stubble that will be burned. I leave it to God to ultimately judge the intent of Lahaye et al., but we are called to judge by one's fruits, and I have yet to see evidence to believe that I was mistaken in my assessment.

On that note, I must plug Derek Webb, formerly of Caedmon's Call. He has a solo career now, and has released his newest album, Mockingbird, free. Completely, utterly, downloadably, free. This reminds me of a man, who, as it turns out, also inspired Derek, Keith Green, who would give away his music. That's a Christian artist demonstrating a servant spirit. And Webb's music isn't half bad, which is not surprising from someone who lists U2 among their inspirations. I particularly recommend A King & A Kingdom, and Rich Young Ruler, a few quotes from which I will leave you with. Check it out at FreeDerekWebb.com

so what must we do
here in the west we want to follow you
we speak the language and we keep all the rules
even a few we made up
come on and follow me
but sell your house, sell your suv
sell your stocks, sell your security
and give it to the poor
what is this, hey whats the deal
i dont sleep around and i dont steal
i want the things you just cant give me
*Rich Young Ruler

there are two great lies that i've heard:
the day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die
and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican
and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him
*A King & A Kingdom

Look soon for my after action report on the Bible Study I led this last week on the beautiful doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.

Oh, and since most of my posts are me being angry at/about/near something or someone, someone challenged me to write a post entirely different. I was brash enough to tell them to suggest a topic, so look for a post someday soon on why women like receiving flowers, and why we men like giving them. Save the lynching for after you've heard my views.

May the Grace and Peace of God be with you all.

Even ex-KGB guys can be cool

2006-11-25T04:18:00.000-05:00

Remember Remember the Fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I See No Reason Why The Gunpowder Treason Should Ever Be Forgot

2006-11-05T20:27:00.000-05:00

But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you.

"Sorry about the nuclear test"

2006-10-19T23:56:00.000-04:00

For all of you who have ever had to swallow your pride and apologize for something, this post should make you feel better... Can you imagine being the leader of a nation and have to tell a Chinese newspaper, "sorry about the nuclear test?" How embarrassing is that? Well apparently that's just what dear Kim has done. Does this shed more light on whether NK's test went badly? Can you imagine pulling off the most sabre-y of sabre rattlings, and then apologize for it if your gamble actually paid off? That's what I thought... Now, if I was a prince who decided to test a nuke, maybe I would go ahead with it, and then propose to come back to talks, but only from a position of strength, "Yeah, I tested it, it worked, now let's talk and don't treat me like a petulant child." But no, I wouldn't apologize. Interesting.

Kim, if you really want to prove you're a leader to be reckoned with now that you say you're in "the club," you need to make sure you have a sufficient, and in fact, excessive number of empty mind shafts. Because no megalomaniac can tolerate a mine-shaft gap.

Scary Movie 7: Google Style

2006-10-12T23:43:00.000-04:00

Wow, you're very lucky, two posts in one day! And this one even has footnotes!

Since YouTube, after its recent acquisition by Google, has decided to flag this video for objectionable content,1 drastically cutting its viewership, I thought I'd put up an alternative lin. Click here if you want to see the Scary Movie version of Democratic foreign policy missteps under Clinton. Oh wait, Google owns Blogger now too... Scheiß! Will they censor this post as well? Larry and Sergey, please don't be offended. Now that I do have your attention though, one word of advice: Please use your admittedly excellent search engine to find the top result for "censorship." "It is most commonly applied to acts that occur in public circumstances, and most formally involves the suppression of ideas by criminalizing or regulating expression. Furthermore, discussion of censorship often includes less formal means of controlling perceptions by excluding various ideas from mass communication."2

Is trying to make people think, no matter how over the top one's methods, objectionable? Yes it is, at least to those who fancy themselves political or technological Übermensch. Thank you Google, for protecting me from having to consider concepts that hurt my little feelings or make my brain hurt. Good thing you flag all videos tagged "Stripping..." as well.3 Oh, you don't, do you?? Damn, at least sexy videos will keep the minds of America's youth off of more pressing issues like security, and dare I say it, freedom of speech. Thank you YouTube, please, give us more stripping and less thinking. America needs it.
____________
Footnotes:
1:News Report on Google Censorship of Conservative Media on YouTube
2: Censorship - Wikipedia
3: Note: Links do not suggest an endorsement of any external linked content by the author, nor moral aggreement with said content. Viewer discretion is advised.

Not with a bang but a brown-out...

2006-10-12T23:35:00.000-04:00

"Not with a bang but a brown-out..." that might be T.S. Eliot's estimation of how Kim Jong Il's egocentric policies will come home to roost. Not in a nuclear confrontation or west-led coup d'etat, but when his starving people realize, as did the peoples of the Soviet Bloc, that their leader will sacrifice them for his own political aggrandisement. Since satellite photos are so cool, here's one Donald Rumsfeld revealed earlier this week, showing the disparity between North and South Korea, with power being shut off in the North after 9PM. But what's the little dot? Oh, it's North Korea's capital, where power is maintained, presumably so Kim can still have that late night film-fest with his enormous DVD collection. Maybe all that nuclear research should have gone into nuclear power so Koreans can actually turn on the lights, instead of being funneled into nuclear brinksmanship.

Unwed Pregnancy and Christ's Church

2006-09-15T18:07:00.000-04:00

For Shame

It's about time someone had the... testicular fortitude to say this to the Church. Read it and weep for our inadequacies in engaging the least among us. Then let's get on our knees before our Creator and confess our sins of hypocricy and commit ourselves to living our lives with love, remembering it is only by grace we can approach Holiness. There but for that grace goes each one of us, we were not saved because we lack the capacity to err in the same ways as our fellow man, but because of it. Our ability and desire to reject God is what necessitated propitiation. Deep inside every Christian (sometimes just below the surface) are the same human appetites which could easily cause us to conceive illegitimate children, steal from our fellows, and even, dare I say, discover an illicit love for one of our own sex. The only thing that saves us from judgment is Christ, and if we truly believed that and kept it foremost in our minds, we would experience a truly radical, transforming love for humanity that would make judgmentalism impossible. But instead we prefer our God-club because it gives us a loftier height from which to look down on those we should be so passionately concerned about. When we let Christ's mandate to love go unheeded, we are living shame and repudation to the message and the very person of Chirst. For Shame indeed.

You Defied the Will of the People...

2006-07-19T20:57:00.000-04:00

Senator Reid was quoted this week saying: "President Bush defied the will of the American people and crushed the hopes of millions...", yada yada yada.

The issue was stem cell research, but that is neither here nor there.

Our president DEFIED the will of the people in vetoing a bill the majority of American polled support? Good for him. When did our nation become a complete democracy rather than a representative republic? While the common man and the media are quick to remind us of the necessity of checks and balances, they forget that at times they themselves are the ones who need to be checked. The authors of our Constitution knew this, as evidenced by their discussions of the passions of the people in the Federalist Papers. The president's veto is not just to preserve the general will by striking down acts of Congress with which the people are not in agreement, it is also to provide a more judicious voice whose job it is to counter act the caprice and whim of elected representatives who often make their reason and decision-making enslaved to the public attitude of the moment. President Bush's veto is one example of the executive using his authority to balance out the public passions that often run hot and then cold. Plato and Publius would be proud.

The Irony of Dangerous Precedents

2006-07-06T16:40:00.000-04:00

Army Officer Refuses Participation in "Illegal" Iraq War

And this is exactly why some conservatives' defense of Michael New was the very worse way to oppose the peacekeeping mission in Macedonia, or in fact any UN mission. In arguing that individual soldiers have the moral authority to circumvent decisions of state, New and his lawyers opened a pandoran box of issues with grave implications for the coherance of military efforts in western democracies. They have submitted raison d'etat and the necessity and motivations of uno solo to democratic vote in the minds of the enlisted men, in fact a vote by an Army of One. This approach was, in my opinion, motivated by opposition to the political ends for which President Clinton was using US involvement, rather than a sincere objection on behalf of principle. Accordingly, New et al. questioned the very principles upon which the military is based. To conservatives who would draw a delineation between Lt. Watada and Mr. New, I would ask, did Congress declare war on Iraq?

It is instructive how some conservatives are willing to make any argument to advance their cause or their own political agrandizement, yet oppose the very principles they claimed to uphold when those standards are applied to a cause they find dear to their political power. Always keep in mind the implications of using any technique and justification to combat circumstances rather than addressing overarching principles.

The Cult of Coulter

2006-07-05T04:04:00.000-04:00

The Coulter Code
-- Jerome Eric Copulsky
Ann Coulter has been much in the news lately. With her recent best-selling tome, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, it seems that the notorious bomb-throwing cover girl for conservatism has turned Grand Inquisitor. The subject matter of her book -- the idea that liberalism is a religion -- merits a sighting here, and not only because it demonstrates the increasingly "religiosecular" ambivalence of our world that Martin E. Marty wrote of two weeks ago ("Religiosecular Meditations," June 19).

"Liberalism," Coulter informs us, is a "church," complete with its own creation myth (Darwinism), priests (public school teachers), doctrines (infallibility of victims), sacraments (abortion), and so forth. Coulter's liberals subscribe to a pantheistic doctrine, renouncing the biblical distinction between human beings (made in the image of God) and the rest of creation, thus rendering biblical morality impossible -- which, she claims, is the liberals' true goal. Tossing aside any pretense to Christian charity, Coulter darkly warns that liberals (or Democrats, which are, for Coulter, one and the same) are Pagans (of the Druid denomination), science-hating Darwinists, and tree-hugging supporters of PETA, intent on killing their babies and their grandparents. Some of her invective, like proclaiming that Democrats make up "the opposition party to God," might make even a Carl Schmitt blush!
A stalwart defender of what she takes to be the Christian faith, Coulter emphatically denies the possibility of any liberal rapprochement with Christianity. Moreover, liberals are theo-political heretics, enemies of the state, "deny[ing] the biblical idea of dominion and progress, the most ringing affirmation of which is the United States of America." (Such statements, of course, raise serious questions concerning Coulter's understanding of orthodox Christian doctrine.) In Coulter's world, it is really the liberal pagans who cause all the trouble ("somehow it's always the godless doing the genocides"), while devout Christians are peaceful, moral, law-abiding folks. (Coulter conveniently omits the gloomy fact that Christians have managed to slaughter many other Christians and non-Christians well into modern times. Her memory returns, however, to attack "crazy Muslims.")

Coulter's inflammatory rhetoric, proclivity for constructing straw men, and reliance on specious and ad hominem argumentation obscures the fact that her convictions aren't new. In a sense, Coulter is merely reiterating the perennial quarrel between Reason and Revelation, Athens and Jerusalem, Enlightenment and faith -- but here in the age of mass media, and for big bucks. Given that the argument of the book is so derivative and so littered with malicious half-truths and insipid humor, the book's popularity might seem perplexing.

But then I considered the book's cover. The dust jacket of Godless features Coulter in a black dress with a plummeting neckline, sporting an apparently diamond-encrusted cross that dangles above the shadowy suggestion of cleavage. (One wonders whether the diamonds represent the indestructibility or the riches of her Church.) Her arm presses upon the final letters of the book's title, "less," as through she might crush them, a one-woman suppressor of the atheistic horde. She gazes at the viewer, wearing a sly half-smile reminiscent of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa -- an impression further enhanced by the resemblance in pose and garb.

Ah-ha! I thought. This is no mere accident. Perhaps her book conceals a secret teaching, one more shocking than those encountered in a Dan Brown novel, and so inimical to the faithful that it could only be conveyed in winks and nods. Given the American obsession with codes and hidden meanings, I speculated that when Coulter writes of what "all liberals secretly believe," she just may well be hinting to the discerning reader that there is more to her text than what's on the surface.

As one who has studied with people who studied under Leo Strauss, and attuned to the art of esoteric writing, I searched. And I searched. And then I noticed, buried in a footnote, a "clue" to the entire work: "Christians," Coulter writes, "include everyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others." How very gracious of her! But there is a catch: These "Christians" may not include members of the Episcopalian Church -- which, she writes a few pages later, "is barely even a church." HmmŠ

Why does she go after the Episcopalian Church (aside, perhaps, from the fact that arch-liberal Howard Dean used to be a member)? Here's one conjecture arising from my esoteric reading. The Episcopalian Church developed from the Church of England -- an established Church, a state religion. Is Coulter, then, launching a cryptic attack on the unity of church and state? Given this, as well as her dismissal of the substance of theological differences (effacing, for instance, distinctions between Christians and Jews), and her claim that true Christians are peaceful and patriotic, one might think she is implicitly invoking the ideas propounded by the theological-political treatises of the seventeenth century, ideas like toleration and separation of religious and political authority -- you know, Liberal ideas.
This esoteric reading of Godless is, of course, preposterous, but no more so, in my opinion, than the book's actual argumentation -- and that's the point. I'm afraid that the big secret revealed in Godless is that when it comes to the depths and complexities of actual religion, Ann Coulter doesn't know what she's talking about.

Jerome Eric Copulsky is Assistant Professor and Director of Judaic Studies at Virginia Tech.

July 4th

2006-07-04T06:06:00.000-04:00

It's not about the barbecues.
It's not about fireworks.
It's not about waving the flag at a parade.
It's not about a cool concert on the Capital lawn.

Thank you.

The Most Underreported Story of the Year

2006-07-02T16:10:00.000-04:00

Someone asked me what the most underrepoted news story, in my opinion, was for the last year. And I think this has to be it:

Large Asteroid Will Miss Earth Tomorrow

You never really do hear about all the bad things that could happen but don't.

Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog

2006-06-26T00:08:00.000-04:00

Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog

Thys haue to be yne of the most amusynge and satyrycal blogges ich haue yver red.

Why I'm Glad I'm Not a Southern Baptist

2006-06-19T21:21:00.000-04:00

Southern Baptist Resolution

"RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages"

I guess somewhere in the inerrant translation of the KJV version of the Scriptures, the following passage must have been omitted.

1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples.
3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it.
9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom
10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”
11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.

Yeah. Because no one at that wedding was intoxicated after having "drunk freely." Because Christ didn't manufacture, and cause to be distributed and consumed, alcoholic beverages. Because we know it had to be grape juice, because for some odd reason after drinking a whole lot of grape juice you can't tell good grape juice from bad. Yeah, because that's the Bible our Southern Baptists want us to read.

In related news, a church that actually is making a stand on an issue that is of doctrinal import and actually matters a damn:
Episcopal Church Elects Female Presiding Bishop Who Immediately Condones Homosexuality

And then:
Diocese of Fort Worth Appeals to Canterbury for Immediate Emergency Alternative Primatial Oversight

When I grow up...

2006-05-11T23:40:00.000-04:00

When I grow up I want to be:
Dr. Robert Stacey
Dr. David C. Noe
Dr. Erik Root
Dr. J. Kevin Culberson
Dr. M. Todd Bates

Christianity Today: Shakeup at Patrick Henry College

5 Departures on Patrick Henry Faculty Pose Question: Are Christianity and Liberal Arts Contradictory Missions?

SaveRoot!

We Believe...

2006-05-09T14:48:00.000-04:00

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty
Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
And his kingdom will have no end

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen

Our Captain

2006-05-07T13:37:00.000-04:00

Our captain set out to sea. Upon his final sail.
A funeral pyre of Viking fame, whose spark could never fail
To set ablaze the hearts of us who served our captain well
That pyre lit a flame eternal, kept pure for years to come
    Our capt'n lies cold and dead my son
        but his soul burns evermore
            Within the hearts of you and I
                And those who led he well.

And from those sons of a gun to their sons, And to the sons
of their sons, they taught well the captain's tale
Mark well these words my son. Seek the Way,
Stand for truth, and pilot your ship well
    And then you'll be a captain fit
        To bear the title of such a man
            As he whose cold dead hands
                Have set our longitude

And then one day the port of those who slew our captain dead
Saw cresting over every wave the black sails of our crew
And the sons of the sons of the sons of them
Who served on the captain's ship, rekindled the flame
of the funeral pyre, kept pure for so many years,
    And they lit such a candle in that land that
        By God's grace could ne'er be put out
            And that cleansing fire burned fierce
                And purified as it passed

Oh Captain! My Captain! We set to sail for you
So fight for our captain that last time, my son.
To vindicate his sacrifice and show his life was true
Fallen cold and dead no more, My Captain lives in you.

Oh Captain! My Captain!

2006-05-05T16:26:00.000-04:00

O Captain! My Captain!
Walt Whitman

1

O CAPTAIN! my Captain! our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:
        But O heart! heart! heart!
                O the bleeding drops of red,
                        Where on the deck my Captain lies,
                                Fallen cold and dead.

2

O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up—for you the flag is flung—for you the bugle trills;
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths—for you the shores a-crowding;
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
        Here Captain! dear father!
                This arm beneath your head;
                        It is some dream that on the deck,
                                You’ve fallen cold and dead.

3

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchor’d safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip, the victor ship, comes in with object won;
        Exult, O shores, and ring, O bells!
                But I, with mournful tread,
                        Walk the deck my Captain lies,
                                Fallen cold and dead.

The Raven

2006-04-12T01:16:00.000-04:00

by Edgar Allan Poe

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
" 'Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door;
Only this, and nothing more."

Ah, distinctly I remember, it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow, sorrow for the lost Lenore,.
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore,
Nameless here forevermore.

And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me---filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating,
" 'Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door,
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door.
This it is, and nothing more."

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
"Sir," said I, "or madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is, I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you." Here I opened wide the door;---
Darkness there, and nothing more.

Deep into the darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortals ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word,
Lenore?, This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word,
"Lenore!" Merely this, and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping, something louder than before,
"Surely," said I, "surely, that is something at my window lattice.
Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore.
Let my heart be still a moment, and this mystery explore.
" 'Tis the wind, and nothing more."

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately raven, of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door.
Perched upon a bust of Pallas, just above my chamber door,
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
"Though thy crest be shorn and shaven thou," I said, "art sure no craven,
Ghastly, grim, and ancient raven, wandering from the nightly shore.
Tell me what the lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore."
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning, little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door,
Bird or beast upon the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as "Nevermore."

But the raven, sitting lonely on that placid bust, spoke only
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing further then he uttered; not a feather then he fluttered;
Till I scarcely more than muttered, "Other friends have flown before;
On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before."
Then the bird said, "Nevermore."

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
"Doubtless," said I, "what it utters is its only stock and store,
Caught from some unhappy master, whom unmerciful disaster
Followed fast and followed faster, till his songs one burden bore,---
Till the dirges of his hope that melancholy burden bore
Of "Never---nevermore."

But the raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird, and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore --
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking "Nevermore."

Thus I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl, whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion's velvet lining that the lamplight gloated o'er,
But whose velvet violet lining with the lamplight gloating o'er
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by seraphim whose footfalls tinkled on the tufted floor.
"Wretch," I cried, "thy God hath lent thee -- by these angels he hath
Sent thee respite---respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore!
Quaff, O quaff this kind nepenthe, and forget this lost Lenore!"
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore!"

"Prophet!" said I, "thing of evil!--prophet still, if bird or devil!
Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate, yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted--
On this home by horror haunted--tell me truly, I implore:
Is there--is there balm in Gilead?--tell me--tell me I implore!"
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."

"Prophet!" said I, "thing of evil--prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that heaven that bends above us--by that God we both adore--
Tell this soul with sorrow laden, if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden, whom the angels name Lenore---
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels name Lenore?
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."

"Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!" I shrieked, upstarting--
"Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken! -- quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!"
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."

And the raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming.
And the lamplight o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted---nevermore!

I hear of Jack everywhere...

2006-04-08T15:12:00.000-04:00

I am Jack’s confused sense of being misunderstood.

I am writing today to extol the virtues of one of the most widely praised and universally misunderstood Christian writers. Those who know me well know I refer to C.S. Lewis.

Lewis has been seized upon by many in the protestant branch as the answer to Catholic academia. We can now look smugly at our Catholic brethren and say “see, we protestants have a thinker too.” But when it comes down to it, we tend to shrug him off as “just the guy who wrote Screwtape Letters and the Chronicles of Narnia. And he had some wacky ideas.” You will find this theory postulated by those who are the least familiar with Lewis’ corpus of work. Instead they rely on objections such as these: “I hear Lewis became a Catholic before he died,” “Didn’t he lose his faith after his wife died,” “He had ‘Beer and Beowulf’ evenings with his grad students.” “Wasn’t he good friends with that Catholic Tolkien, (to which I reply, Tolkien led him to faith),” “Lewis was Anglican, which is almost Catholic,” and perhaps the most spiritually damning of all, “Didn’t he smoke?”

This is perhaps the most tragic symptom of the protestant Reformation. We exchanged one “infallible” Pope for hundreds of fallible little popes, il papetto, each demanding we follow him. As Tocqueville reminded us, democracies have a tendency to produce few great men, few great issues. And so it is with the modern democratic church. For a man like Lewis, whose whole life was devoted to the great issues of Faith, he is now a man with no country to call home. His doctrines make Catholicism uncomfortable, while his criticism of the church and stand for doctrinal fidelity frightens protestants. Rejected by so many, a number of his works languish in theological misunderstanding or willful ill will. And thus we miss out on the Lewis who struggled to obtain True Truth and reflect it in his works.

To reduce Lewis to a cozy Oxford don who wrote cute children’s books about a Lion, and occasionally amused himself by writing letters as a devil, would be to grossly underestimate the breadth of his work. These “objections” to his work, if you could charitably call them that, rob the man of his apologetic, philosophical and theological power, and establish the shallow hull of fiction left behind as “Lewis the Man, Lewis Properly Understood, Lewis without all those Dangerous Ideas.” To do this is to, to quote the man himself, “castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” Those who study him see the diverse Lewis, the Lewis who wrote a confession of what it is to be a Christian, regardless of doctrinal differences, as powerful as Mere Christianity. The Lewis who struggled with questions of doubt and death in A Grief Observed. The Lewis who so strongly and comfortably explained his answer to the age old question “How can a good God allow Evil to be?” The Lewis who sought Truth in all its sources, discussing The Tao and Natural Law. The Lewis who reserved his most biting criticism, not for the sinners, the harlots, the drunkards, but the “cold, self-righteous prigs who go regularly to church.” I believe this is truly the reason we like to denigrate the man. If we can write off his theological points on technicalities, we can ignore his probity into what is seriously wrong with the Church, and how God demands we set it right.

I do not presume to offer a vindication of Lewis to the skeptics. To do so would be to assume a great many things to which I do not have the right. It would imply that I fully understood Lewis in order to make a proper defense. It would assume that I believed that those who wish to marginalize him are truly concerned with Truth. And most of all it would assume that Lewis needs vindication. He does not. I only ask my reader, for your sake, read Lewis. Start with Mere Christianity. Then take a second look at Screwtape. Follow it with A Grief Observed. Then re-read Mere Christianity. Add in The Abolition of Man. Once you’ve done that, if you are truly seeking Truth, then I believe you will want to read more, and you will see the overarching themes which drive Lewis’ work, the first of which is his pursuit of God and Truth.

Four Years in the Face of Eternity

2006-04-05T23:02:00.000-04:00

Just a candle in the wind
A spark in the night
Only one grain of sand
in the whirlwind of time

Just a word in the Book
Quiet cry in the wild
One moment in time
Only a glint in His eye

And yet why do we think
That our time is our own
His work a budget line
In the ledger of life

We're just
a candle in the wind
A spark in the night
Only one grain of sand
In the whirlwind of time

Tiny seed in the field
Only a word of Truth
Life lasts a moment then
We whither as a grass

When you owe your all
how can you offer less
When forever's on the table
How can we hedge our bets

Four years is a scene
On the Author's stage
We play our tiny part
and exit in the dark

A life full of love
passes like a breath
In deaths lonely rattle
But Love walks on

So let me place the bet
And play my hand
Just live my part
Played to the heart

What are four years
when the stake is a soul
When so many harvests
Takes ten times more

So I'll give the years
Which look long to one
who can't fully read
the Script He penned

If I budget You a minute
I'll miss it in a blink
Your Unseen Hand's economy
asks more than I can think

Not a rash committment
To speak a word in haste
But a higher calling
to live a life of grace

Here I am resolved
What other could I do
I'll read my bit part
and let the play move on

For I'm just
A spark in the night
Sand in the Sea
A word in the Book
A glint in His Eye

For Rita and Fran

Not Disqualified: "I cultivate my flowers and burn my weeds."

2006-04-04T00:54:00.000-04:00

The following is not prompted by any one incident or by being called to accountability. It is also not an invitation to an open public debate on the merits of arguments against the "vice" in question. It is rather the culmination of a long growing intent to set forth a public defense of something I enjoy. Like Spurgeon, I feel I can no longer quietly participate in something that does not grieve my conscience without either accepting I am committing an unclean act, or that I believe that I am acting outside of God's will. I am a Christian who smokes (and reads "heathen" books, enjoys the occasional drink, listens to "secular" music, watches R rated movies, and fellowships in an Anglican church, but all these are neither here nor there, though the application is similar). Read it in that light.

"Well, dear friends, you know that some men can do to the glory of God what to other men would be sin. And notwithstanding what brother Pentecost has said, I intend to smoke a good cigar to the glory of God before I go to bed to-night.

"If anybody can show me in the Bible the command, 'Thou shalt not smoke,' I am ready to keep it; but I haven't found it yet. I find ten commandments, and it's as much as I can do to keep them; and I've no desire to make them into eleven or twelve.

"The fact is, I have been speaking to you about real sins, not about listening to mere quibbles and scruples. At the same time, I know that what a man believes to be sin becomes a sin to him, and he must give it up. 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin' [Rom. 14:23], and that is the real point of what my brother Pentecost has been saying.

"Why, a man may think it a sin to have his boots blacked. Well, then, let him give it up, and have them whitewashed. I wish to say that I'm not ashamed of anything whatever that I do, and I don't feel that smoking makes me ashamed, and therefore I mean to smoke to the glory of God."

These were the words preached from the pulpit by Charles Haddon Spurgeon at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, responding to a previous speaker who had inveighed against smoking. After reports were published in various newspapers, Spurgeon wrote the Daily Telegraph to set the record straight. He said, in part:

"There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God.

"The expression 'smoking to the glory of God' standing alone has an ill sound, and I do not justify it; but in the sense in which I employed it I still stand to it. No Christian should do anything in which he cannot glorify God; and this may be done, according to Scripture, in eating and drinking and the common actions of life.

"When I have found intense pain relieved, a weary brain soothed, and calm, refreshing sleep obtained by a cigar, I have felt grateful to God, and have blessed His name; this is what I meant, and by no means did I use sacred words triflingly...

"I am told that my open avowal will lessen my influence, and my reply is that if I have gained any influence through being thought different from what I am, I have no wish to retain it. I will do nothing upon the sly, and nothing about which I have a doubt.

"I am most sorry that prominence has been given to what seems to me so small a matter—and the last thing in my thoughts would have been the mention of it from the pulpit; but I was placed in such a position that I must either by my silence plead guilty to living in sin, or else bring down upon my unfortunate self the fierce rebukes of the anti-tobacco advocates by speaking out honestly. I chose the latter; and although I am now the target for these worthy brethren, I would sooner endure their severest censures than sneakingly do what I could not justify, and earn immunity from their criticism by tamely submitting to be charged with sin in an action which my conscience allows."

In the wings, Johann Sebastian Bach, Christian and composer. "At land, at sea; at home, abroad; I smoke my pipe and worship God."

Count me with Lewis, Spurgeon, Tolkien, Bach, Luther, Barth, and R.C. Sproul. Not because I smoke or drink, but because I am striving, as we all should be, to capture God's purpose for my soul, not worrying about whether I am obeying an aesthetic legalism in regards to eating, drinking, or smoking.

Let No One Disqualify You
Colossians 2, beginning at verse 16: Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (ESV)

http://www.challies.com/archives/000349.php
http://www.ransomfellowship.org/Critiq1-2003.pdf
This post owes much debt to www.spurgeon.org

New Armor for a New Church

2006-04-02T14:00:00.000-04:00

And they devoted themselves to the pastor's teaching, to fellowship dinners, to the breaking of bread (once a quarter) and to the skits. (Acts 2, Revised Modern Church Version)

The Spiritual Armor of a Christian in the Modern Church

The Backplate of Unity:
We already have a breastplate of righteousness, I want a backplate to protect myself from "loving" sniping from behind. Or maybe I'll just sit in the back row.

The Shin Guards of Accountability:
So that you don't bark your shins when kicking a fellow believer when he's down.

The Bib of Fellowship:
For potlucks, fellowship dinners, ladies missionary brunches, men's prayer breakfasts (where the most substantial prayer is before the breakfast), love banquets, dessert nights, and snack time. When you're breaking bread, you don't want to get any on you.

The Mouth Guard of Love:
Like a TV Guardian for your mouth, keeps your language clean. Also waters down all criticism to an "encouragement opportunity," so you don't hurt other's feelings with truth. Also spiritually whitens teeth with just 20 minutes a day.

The "Cup" of Christ:
Keeps you pure and protects you during those "fellowship" times on the basketball court or hockey rink.

The Earmuffs of Edification:
TV Guardian for your ears. Turns any music, even on "secular" radio stations into the Walmart version. Keeps you from blushing around your coworkers when a foul word is dropped. Because we all know if we heard it, we'd have to confront it. Caution: Not intended for use around that evil group U2.

The Shield of Youthful Indifference:
With which we can extinguish the firey glances of the old people, directed towards our hair or clothes.

The Everlasting Gospel

2006-03-28T12:40:00.000-05:00

The Everlasting Gospel
By William Blake (1757–1827)

THE VISION OF CHRIST that thou dost see
Is my vision’s greatest enemy.
Thine has a great hook nose like thine;
Mine has a snub nose like to mine.
Thine is the Friend of all Mankind; 5
Mine speaks in parables to the blind.
Thine loves the same world that mine hates;
Thy heaven doors are my hell gates.
Socrates taught what Meletus
Loath’d as a nation’s bitterest curse, 10
And Caiaphas was in his own mind
A benefactor to mankind.
Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read’st black where I read white.

Was Jesus gentle, or did He 15
Give any marks of gentility?
When twelve years old He ran away,
And left His parents in dismay.
When after three days’ sorrow found,
Loud as Sinai’s trumpet-sound: 20
‘No earthly parents I confess—
My Heavenly Father’s business!
Ye understand not what I say,
And, angry, force Me to obey.
Obedience is a duty then, 25
And favour gains with God and men.’
John from the wilderness loud cried;
Satan gloried in his pride.
‘Come,’ said Satan, ‘come away,
I’ll soon see if you’ll obey! 30
John for disobedience bled,
But you can turn the stones to bread.
God’s high king and God’s high priest
Shall plant their glories in your breast,
If Caiaphas you will obey, 35
If Herod you with bloody prey
Feed with the sacrifice, and be
Obedient, fall down, worship me.’
Thunders and lightnings broke around,
And Jesus’ voice in thunders’ sound: 40
‘Thus I seize the spiritual prey.
Ye smiters with disease, make way.
I come your King and God to seize,
Is God a smiter with disease?’
The God of this world rag’d in vain: 45
He bound old Satan in His chain,
And, bursting forth, His furious ire
Became a chariot of fire.
Throughout the land He took His course,
And trac’d diseases to their source. 50
He curs’d the Scribe and Pharisee,
Trampling down hypocrisy.
Where’er His chariot took its way,
There Gates of Death let in the Day,
Broke down from every chain and bar; 55
And Satan in His spiritual war
Dragg’d at His chariot-wheels: loud howl’d
The God of this world: louder roll’d
The chariot-wheels, and louder still
His voice was heard from Zion’s Hill, 60
And in His hand the scourge shone bright;
He scourg’d the merchant Canaanite
From out the Temple of His Mind,
And in his body tight does bind
Satan and all his hellish crew; 65
And thus with wrath He did subdue
The serpent bulk of Nature’s dross,
Till He had nail’d it to the Cross.
He took on sin in the Virgin’s womb
And put it off on the Cross and tomb 70
To be worshipp’d by the Church of Rome.

Was Jesus humble? or did He
Give any proofs of humility?
Boast of high things with humble tone,
And give with charity a stone? 75
When but a child He ran away,
And left His parents in dismay.
When they had wander’d three days long
These were the words upon His tongue:
‘No earthly parents I confess: 80
I am doing My Father’s business.’
When the rich learnèd Pharisee
Came to consult Him secretly,
Upon his heart with iron pen
He wrote ‘Ye must be born again.’ 85
He was too proud to take a bribe;
He spoke with authority, not like a Scribe.
He says with most consummate art
‘Follow Me, I am meek and lowly of heart,
As that is the only way to escape 90
The miser’s net and the glutton’s trap.’
What can be done with such desperate fools
Who follow after the heathen schools?
I was standing by when Jesus died;
What I call’d humility, they call’d pride. 95
He who loves his enemies betrays his friends.
This surely is not what Jesus intends;
But the sneaking pride of heroic schools,
And the Scribes’ and Pharisees’ virtuous rules;
For He acts with honest, triumphant pride, 100
And this is the cause that Jesus dies.
He did not die with Christian ease,
Asking pardon of His enemies:
If He had, Caiaphas would forgive;
Sneaking submission can always live. 105
He had only to say that God was the Devil,
And the Devil was God, like a Christian civil;
Mild Christian regrets to the Devil confess
For affronting him thrice in the wilderness;
He had soon been bloody Caesar’s elf, 110
And at last he would have been Caesar himself,
Like Dr. Priestly and Bacon and Newton—
Poor spiritual knowledge is not worth a button
For thus the Gospel Sir Isaac confutes:
‘God can only be known by His attributes; 115
And as for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost,
Or of Christ and His Father, it’s all a boast
And pride, and vanity of the imagination,
That disdains to follow this world’s fashion.’
To teach doubt and experiment 120
Certainly was not what Christ meant.
What was He doing all that time,
From twelve years old to manly prime?
Was He then idle, or the less
About His Father’s business? 125
Or was His wisdom held in scorn
Before His wrath began to burn
In miracles throughout the land,
That quite unnerv’d the Seraph band?
If He had been Antichrist, Creeping Jesus, 130
He’d have done anything to please us;
Gone sneaking into synagogues,
And not us’d the Elders and Priests like dogs;
But humble as a lamb or ass
Obey’d Himself to Caiaphas. 135
God wants not man to humble himself:
That is the trick of the Ancient Elf.
This is the race that Jesus ran:
Humble to God, haughty to man,
Cursing the Rulers before the people 140
Even to the Temple’s highest steeple,
And when He humbled Himself to God
Then descended the cruel rod.
‘If Thou Humblest Thyself, Thou humblest Me.
Thou also dwell’st in Eternity. 145
Thou art a Man: God is no more:
Thy own Humanity learn to adore,
For that is My spirit of life.
Awake, arise to spiritual strife,
And Thy revenge abroad display 150
In terrors at the last Judgement Day.
God’s mercy and long suffering
Is but the sinner to judgement to bring.
Thou on the Cross for them shalt pray—
And take revenge at the Last Day.’ 155
Jesus replied, and thunders hurl’d:
‘I never will pray for the world.
Once I did so when I pray’d in the Garden;
I wish’d to take with Me a bodily pardon.’
Can that which was of woman born, 160
In the absence of the morn,
When the Soul fell into sleep,
And Archangels round it weep,
Shooting out against the light
Fibres of a deadly night, 165
Reasoning upon its own dark fiction,
In doubt which is self-contradiction?
Humility is only doubt,
And does the sun and moon blot out,
Rooting over with thorns and stems 170
The buried soul and all its gems.
This life’s five windows of the soul
Distorts the Heavens from pole to pole,
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not thro’, the eye 175
That was born in a night, to perish in a night,
When the soul slept in the beams of light.

Did Jesus teach doubt? or did He
Give any lessons of philosophy,
Charge Visionaries with deceiving, 180
Or call men wise for not believing?…

Was Jesus born of a Virgin pure
With narrow soul and looks demure?
If He intended to take on sin
The Mother should an harlot been, 185
Just such a one as Magdalen,
With seven devils in her pen.
Or were Jew virgins still more curs’d,
And more sucking devils nurs’d?
Or what was it which He took on 190
That He might bring salvation?
A body subject to be tempted,
From neither pain nor grief exempted;
Or such a body as might not feel
The passions that with sinners deal? 195
Yes, but they say He never fell.
Ask Caiaphas; for he can tell.—
‘He mock’d the Sabbath, and He mock’d
The Sabbath’s God, and He unlock’d
The evil spirits from their shrines, 200
And turn’d fishermen to divines;
O’erturn’d the tent of secret sins,
And its golden cords and pins,
In the bloody shrine of war
Pour’d around from star to star,— 205
Halls of justice, hating vice,
Where the Devil combs his lice.
He turn’d the devils into swine
That He might tempt the Jews to dine;
Since which, a pig has got a look 210
That for a Jew may be mistook.
“Obey your parents.”—What says He?
“Woman, what have I to do with thee?
No earthly parents I confess:
I am doing my Father’s business.” 215
He scorn’d Earth’s parents, scorn’d Earth’s God,
And mock’d the one and the other’s rod;
His seventy Disciples sent
Against Religion and Government—
They by the sword of Justice fell, 220
And Him their cruel murderer tell.
He left His father’s trade to roam,
A wand’ring vagrant without home;
And thus He others’ labour stole,
That He might live above control. 225
The publicans and harlots He
Selected for His company,
And from the adulteress turn’d away
God’s righteous law, that lost its prey.’
Was Jesus chaste? or did He 230
Give any lessons of chastity?
The Morning blushèd fiery red:
Mary was found in adulterous bed;
Earth groan’d beneath, and Heaven above
Trembled at discovery of Love. 235
Jesus was sitting in Moses’ chair.
They brought the trembling woman there.
Moses commands she be ston’d to death.
What was the sound of Jesus’ breath?
He laid His hand on Moses’ law; 240
The ancient Heavens, in silent awe,
Writ with curses from pole to pole,
All away began to roll.
The Earth trembling and naked lay
In secret bed of mortal clay; 245
On Sinai felt the Hand Divine
Pulling back the bloody shrine;
And she heard the breath of God,
As she heard by Eden’s flood:
‘Good and Evil are no more! 250
Sinai’s trumpets cease to roar!
Cease, finger of God, to write!
The Heavens are not clean in Thy sight.
Thou art good, and Thou alone;
Nor may the sinner cast one stone. 255
To be good only, is to be
A God or else a Pharisee.
Thou Angel of the Presence Divine,
That didst create this Body of Mine,
Wherefore hast thou writ these laws 260
And created Hell’s dark jaws?
My Presence I will take from thee:
A cold leper thou shalt be.
Tho’ thou wast so pure and bright
That Heaven was impure in thy sight, 265
Tho’ thy oath turn’d Heaven pale,
Tho’ thy covenant built Hell’s jail,
Tho’ thou didst all to chaos roll
With the Serpent for its soul,
Still the breath Divine does move, 270
And the breath Divine is Love.
Mary, fear not! Let me see
The seven devils that torment thee.
Hide not from My sight thy sin,
That forgiveness thou may’st win. 275
Has no man condemnèd thee?’
‘No man, Lord.’ ‘Then what is he
Who shall accuse thee? Come ye forth,
Fallen fiends of heavenly birth,
That have forgot your ancient love, 280
And driven away my trembling Dove.
You shall bow before her feet;
You shall lick the dust for meat;
And tho’ you cannot love, but hate,
Shall be beggars at Love’s gate. 285
What was thy love? Let Me see it;
Was it love or dark deceit?’
‘Love too long from me has fled;
’Twas dark deceit, to earn my bread;
’Twas covet, or ’twas custom, or 290
Some trifle not worth caring for;
That they may call a shame and sin
Love’s temple that God dwelleth in,
And hide in secret hidden shrine
The naked Human Form Divine, 295
And render that a lawless thing
On which the Soul expands its wing.
But this, O Lord, this was my sin,
When first I let these devils in,
In dark pretence to chastity 300
Blaspheming Love, blaspheming Thee,
Thence rose secret adulteries,
And thence did covet also rise.
My sin Thou hast forgiven me;
Canst Thou forgive my blasphemy? 305
Canst Thou return to this dark hell,
And in my burning bosom dwell?
And canst Thou die that I may live?
And canst Thou pity and forgive?’
Then roll’d the shadowy Man away 310
From the limbs of Jesus, to make them His prey,
An ever devouring appetite,
Glittering with festering venoms bright;
Crying ‘Crucify this cause of distress,
Who don’t keep the secrets of holiness! 315
The mental powers by diseases we bind;
But He heals the deaf, the dumb, and the blind.
Whom God has afflicted for secret ends,
He comforts and heals and calls them friends.’
But, when Jesus was crucified, 320
Then was perfected His galling pride.
In three nights He devour’d His prey,
And still He devours the body of clay;
For dust and clay is the Serpent’s meat,
Which never was made for Man to eat. 325

Seeing this False Christ, in fury and passion
I made my voice heard all over the nation.
What are those…

I am sure this Jesus will not do,
Either for Englishman or Jew. 330

We Must All Hang Together....

2006-02-27T21:42:00.000-05:00

Save Professor Root.
That is all.
More to come.

Or not. New assignment. Grow a damned backbone.

Happy St. Valentine's Day

2006-02-13T23:09:00.000-05:00

And so, a Valentine's Day thought:

For those of you without a sense of humor, get one.

Upturned Tables

2006-01-09T22:57:00.000-05:00

Forget merchants in the temple, now, the merchants have become the temple.

The week, proving that when it comes to whoring out faith on the altar of Mammon, plenty of popular writers and speakers are willing to play the pimp: Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye. They've followed the cash-cow 12 part "most expensive tract of all time" Left Behind series with at least two prequels.

Chalk Left Behind up in the same category as the Mantra of Jabez, "Jesus is my Homeboy," WWJD and Thomas Kinkade. Though that estimation probably isn't completely fair to whoever came up with the homeboy line, since he probably posesses more artistic nuance than is expressed in Left Behind.

The efficacy of the tract style approach to evangelism aside, what's the point of making someone buy 12 books at at least $20 each, if saving lost souls is the true goal? It would be interesting to see what would have happened if all the time, money and energy poured into these mediocre pieces of fiction had been channeled instead into Christians actually getting out of their comfort zone and engaging our culture? Is the church in America really so theologically atrophied that the only way we can present Christ to our friends and relatives is to buy them a series of books that read like a primate transcribed Clancy, Steele, and Chicken Soup for the Soul into twelve oversized tomes? It's about time the church got righteously indignant--as Christ did in the temple--and stand up to those who transmute our religion into some goddamned commericial enterprise and tell them we don't need more mediocre watered down representations of faith, we need committed, well-trained Christians ministering to the world.

For more thoughts on this trend, from Franky Schaeffer, see my previous post.

A pint of the good stuff

2006-01-01T19:10:00.000-05:00

A bottle of Guinness was spilt on the floor
When the pub was shut for the night
Out crept a mouse from his little hole
And sat in the pale moonlight

He lapped at the frothy brew
Then back on his haunches he sat
And all night you could hear him roar
"Bring on the f***ing cat!

Divine Goodness

2005-12-22T22:29:00.000-05:00

As my loyal readers will know, I have often tried to use this space to combat what I have perceived to be the intellectual vacuity exemplified by much of the blogosphere. However, to only inflict upon my readers my own thoughts and musings would not only prove these efforts to be both supremely arrogant and an exercise in intellectual masturbation.

To rectify this error, I begin by posting a short excerpt from C.S. Lewis. Lewis not only demonstrates an incredible style, but his incisiveness and skill at apologetics impress upon this author the crudeness of my own attempts at such writing. This work remains copyrighted, and I reproduce this excerpt here in the hope that upon considering it, some readers will be encouraged to delve further into Lewis' body of work. As the recent feature film will I am sure prove, Lewis is all too often grossly underestimated as being nothing more than the sum of his fiction writing such as The Chronicles of Narnia. His most powerful work will always be his masterful use of reason and the English language to tell what is essentially the story of a self-described one time "reluctant convert" from atheism.

Lewis' defense of the Faith has rarely been equaled and never surpassed. Why stive to reproduce his efforts when the original will always retain it's incredible power? Enjoy.

From "The Problem of Pain."

"Love can forbear,and Love can forgive . . . but Love can never be reconciled to an unlovely object. . . . He can never therefore be reconciled to your sin, because sin itself is incapable of being altered; but He may be reconciled to your person, because that may be restored." Traherne. Centuries of Meditation, II, 30.

Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatens us with the following dilemma.

On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.

On the other hand, if God's moral judgement differs from ours so that our "black" may be His "white," we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say "God is good," while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say "God is we know not what." And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) "good we shall obey, if at all, only through fear--and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity--when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraced, our idea of good is worth simply nothing--may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.

The escape from this dilemma depends on observing what happens, in human relations, when the man of inferior moral standards enters the society of those who are better and wiser than he and graduatlly learns to accept their standards--a process which, as it happens, I can describe fairly accurately, since I have undergone it. When I came first to the University I was as nearly without a moral conscience as a boy could be. Some faint distaste for cruelty and for meanness about money was my utmost reach--of chastity, truthfulness, and self-sacrifice I thought as a baboon thinks of classical music. By the mercy of God I fell among a set of young men (none of them, by the way, Christians) who were sufficiently close to me in intellect and imagination to secure immediate intimacy, but who knew, and tried to obey, the moral law. Thus their judgement of good and evil was very different from mine. Now what happens in such a case is not in the least like being asked to treat as "white" what was hitherto called black. The new moral judgements never enter the mind as mere reversals (though they do reverse them) of previous judgements but as "lords that are certainly expected." You can have no doubt in which direction you are moving: they are more like good than the little shreds of good you already had, but are, in a sense, continuous with them. But the great test is that the recognition of the new standards is accompanied with the sense of shame and guilt: one is conscious of having blundered into society that one is unfit for. It is in the light of such experiences that we must consider the goodness of God. Beyond all doubt, His idea of "goodness" differs from ours; but you need have no fear that, as you approach it, you will be asked simply to reverse your moral standards. When the relevant difference between the Divine ethics and your own appears to you, you will not, in fact, be in any doubt that the change demanded of you is in the direction you already call "better." The Divine "goodness" differs from ours, but it is not sheerly different: it differs from ours not as white from black but as a perfect circle from a child's first attempt to draw a wheel. But when the child has learned to draw, it will know that the circle it then makes is what it was trying to make from the very beginning.

This doctine is presupposed in Scripture. Christ calls men to repent--a call which would be meaningless if God's standard were sheerly different from that which they already knew and failed to pracitise. He appeals to our existing moral judgement--"Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" ¹ GOd in the Old Testament expostulates with men on the basis of their own conceptions of gratitude, fidelity, and fair play: and puts Himself, as it were, at the bar before His own creatures--"What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?"²

AFter these preliminaries it will, I hope, be safe to suggest that some conceptions of the Divine goodness which tend to dominate our thought, though seldom expressed in so many words, are open to criticism.

By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right. And by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness--the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy. What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, "What does it matter so long as they are contented?" We want, in fact, no so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven--a senile benovelence who, as they say, "liked to see young people enjoying themselves," and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, "a good time was had by all." Not many people, I admit, would formulate a theology in precisely those terms: but a conception not very different lurks at the back of many minds. I do not claim to be an exception: I should very much like to live in a universe which was governed on such lines. But since it is abundantly clear that I don't, and since I have reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is Love, I conclude that my conception of love needs correction.

I might, indeed, have learned, even from the poets, that Love is something more stern and splendid than mere kindness: that even the love between the sexes is, as in Dante, "a lord of terrible aspect." There is kindness in Love: but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness (in the sense given above) is separated from the other elements of Love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object, and even something like a contempt of it. Kindness consents very readily to the removal of its object--we have all met people whose kindness to animals is constantly leading them to kill animals lest they should suffer. Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering. As Scripture points out, it is bastards who are spoiled: the legitimate sons, who are to carry on the family tradition, are punished.³ It is for people whom we care nothing about that we demand happiness on any terms: with our friends, our lvoers, our children, we are exacting and would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes. If God is Love, He is, by definition, something more than mere kindness. And it often appears, from all the records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, more inexorable sense.

Note 1: Luke xii, 57.

Note 2: Jer. ii, 5.

Note 3: Heb. xii, 8.

Return to Top

Listening to Freddie Mercury

2005-12-20T01:35:00.000-05:00

by Emery

Every once in a while I think I’m lying
Take it to the bank; I believe every word I say
Then again this is when you start your prying
But there’s a thought it could be true
But this just isn’t how I imagined it would be

With these random people just asking the most personal things
And to think that somehow I could always come clean
And you shake your head just like you know what I mean

You’re a Christian tell the sinner to find repentance it’s your last chance
You believer where’s your patience?
Answer questions put on faces
What about God?
For you and for me, what about God?
All have fallen short.

(To see if it’s right or wrong to listen to this song, I don’t want you too)
(To see if you’re okay with all the words I say; it can’t be this way)
Somehow, someone is more equal than others
Depending on the words we choose to say

A glance at her too long tonight
But everything I am saying is right in your ears
We are all the sisters and the brothers
Until we find we don’t believe the same

Like…

Gary is getting drunk to forget Sarah
Sarah is stealing money from her parents
Aaron is lying straight to Jon about Megan and the things that went on
Jessica is a gossip, Laura is a slut
Derrick hits Bridget and Ben deals drugs
Seth spends all his money gambling
Joey stopped praying

It is all the same thing

We are all the same people
With sinning hearts that makes us equal
Here is my hand, not words said desperately
It is not our job to make anyone believe

Sex, Sex, Sex...

2005-12-01T22:12:00.001-05:00

Harry had it right. Men and women can’t just be friends; sex always gets in the way. And if it doesn’t, there’s sure to be some busybody to come along and make sure it does. Why is it that “faith based conservatives” treat their own young people as purely sexual beings? We object to the oversexualization of our popular culture, and yet we succumb to it in dealing with young people. Something there about mixed messages?

I'm thinking in particular of a new rule created at a so-called Christian coffeeshop, which has been imposed on patrons of said shop, that says that people hanging out there can't go out and walk around town, after 7:30, unless the group consists of at least 2 girls and one guy. Apparently you need at least one guy so that the helpless girls don't get mugged, and at least two girls to protect each other from their guy protector??

My problem with this rule has less to do with it per se, it's stupid, so what. I don't even object as strenuously to the fact that someone thinks they can impose such things on independent people over which they have no control. I do however have a major philosophical problem with the flawed reasoning behind it which betrays a deeper problem among the church. Using this particular instance to reason to the general, I will try to counter this argument as generally put forth.

These small bundles of raging hormones can’t even be trusted to go out for a walk on their own around a small town, because the urges of lust will overcome one or the other (or both) of them, and next thing we know, the Seventh Commandment is lying shattered on the sidewalk.

Now this is offensive to me, as it should be to all morally upright guys. For one, such a concept requires the belief that as guys, we view all women as potential sexual conquests. Secondly, it postulates that a good friendship will necessarily lead to physical involvement. Finally, it puts forward the slanderous dual pronged argument that even good kids are either: “guys who are potential rapists, and would assault a woman no matter place or time, even in public,” or “sweet church girls who are yet very likely to be lying manipulative creatures who seek nothing better than to ruin the lives of their guy friends by making a false accusation.” This baseless argument is devoid of reason and should and must be refuted, so that prying, backbiting, slanderous busybodies in the church can no longer hide behind their assumed false front of giving strong Scriptural advice.

Now, there is some merit to a standard if it is formulated such that “couples should not spend time alone in sexually tempting environments,” i.e.: sitting on the guys’ bed in his apartment with no one around. It could also say that a couple who were committed to abstinence who have already had problems with premarital physicality can and should draw further limits on their interactions alone in order to avoid compromising situations. These are wise iterations of the Scriptural command to flee temptation. However, these pernicious people often go much further in the restrictions they place on others.

This false standard is often couched in the “Well, we wouldn’t want someone to accuse someone of something they didn’t do.” Let me respond: First of all, most intelligent guys are better judges of character than to associate with people who are likely to make such damaging false accusations.

Second, considering the social stigma associated with rape and the abysmally low statistics of reported versus non-reported sexual assaults, the false rape allegation is already much less common than TV would have us believe. When they do occur, they most often occur between people who actually have engaged in physical intimacy, whether a jilted lover getting back at an ex, or a girl who has become pregnant who wishes to conceal her consensual sexual activity from her parents. Sexual assault cases are very much based on forensic evidence, and if two people haven’t engaged in sexual activity, the forensic evidence to support such a baseless accusation is simply not there.

Oh, and stop using “what other people will think,” as a cover to force what you think on others. This is the same reasoning used by people who argue against interracial relationships because of how “society will treat you.” Face it, you are the very society that you are warning us against, and if you stopped being so close-minded and hypocritical, the very problems you pretend to caringly confront us about would cease to be problems. Just exactly when did I ask your advice? Handle your own life, let me deal with mine.