reviving a dead horse again

I have edited my previous post because it could be read with a tone of spite. That was not my intention, though statistically about half of the two people who read this blog assumed it was angry/negative/hurtful/etc. Since i knew it wasn't spiteful, I assume you, dear other reader, thought it was.

My apologies to the blog I linked to, I did not realize he would take it personally. The purpose of my writing is simply to express myself, share my thoughts, critique culture (esp Christian pop culture), etc. without tearing others down. I admit the post was not loving, and so it has been changed. Everything I said was true, though it could have been expressed more kindly.

Captive and Free: a story of pens

There are two types of pens in this world. Those which are captive, and those which are free. They are easy enough to tell the difference: captive pens cost more.

We pay a premium to purchase pens that don’t seek every opportunity to be free. Like humans, a pen’s first inclination is one of independence. And, like humans, a pen’s will must be thwarted for the greater good. ’Tis truly a loving pen who whispers into your ear “your will, not mine be done”. I have one such pen. She is a Waterman Phileas. Medium nib. Font of wonderment. I yearn to feel my hand glide across the page with her smooth strokes. This feeling is only intensified by the fact that I am frequently forced to use a cheap pen because I did not treat my philly well.

You see, a part of her fell off (the back endcap), not my fault, and I foolishly thought it was stuck inside the cap. My hasty solution: grasp at the apparent gold inset ring I thought was stuck with a dentist hook. Sure this would have pulled it out were it there. But it weren’t. Instead, I scratched the bejeebies out of her cap. And so, she plugs. If I choose not to write with her for a couple hours, I am assured an ink-stained tongue due to my feeble attempts at freeing her precious spout of the scratch-induced clog.

There are cheaper pens, of course. But they are wont to evade your every grasp. Even now, my normally-full pen cup only holds three of these utensils. Even the nicer disposable pens wander off, though they seem to be semi-domesticated, and last a while longer. More like a feral pen than the wild ball point stik, my second choice (pilot G-2) have all fled from my desktop. I have searched my office for any remnant of their presence, but they are gone, seeking shelter in the hands of someone who considers them to be a “good” pen. That is, worthy to be stolen from a church.

There is no real point of this post, other than to describe the nature of pens. Only a slight recommendation: try a good pen sometime. Not a cartridge pen, not a ball point, but a true fountain pen. They will not leave or forsake you, you will not let them. They will be predestined by their owner for good works. You must learn how to guide them across the pages of their long lives, maximizing the inkflow and minimizing their wear. A good, submitted pen is worth its weight in gold.

p.s. feel free to read into this post as much or little spirituality as you like.

Reviving a dead horse

Some people have recently asked me why I haven’t blogged in a while. There are multiple reasons, but one of the main issues is simply that I am scared to. I read lots of blogs. Far too many, I’m afraid. Most blogs point to other blogs. I click on these links with timidity and awe. How did a complete stranger cause me to visit another stranger’s site? And so, like this beguiled paragraph, my workflow gets bounced across the interwebs down a tangential path of infinity.

The problem with the blogosphere is that it is far too large. Anybody can post content, and most of it is not worth reading. Various folks guy trying to make it as bloggers, posting on all sorts of sites, and doing it with very little writing ability. So much blogging is stream of consciousness rather than thought-out, edited writing. It’s the sort of first draft drivel one might expect to come out of a persons mouth, not through the written word. Or worse, that one might expect to come from a blog called nojrotsap.

And then there’s the oneupsmanship, of blogging. Particularly on religious/youth blogs, we try to make ourselves known by spewing out words, posting them, and pretending it’s writing. This causes the material itself to degrade into the TMZ style literary gulag that seeks spectators and helps nobody. Our goal becomes making it on the top 20 blogs of the year rather than creating art, celebrating Jesus, or sharing ourselves. It’s almost as bad as a regional church conference, where everyone tries to be noticed with witty insights that don't contribute to the conversation.

So why don’t I blog often? I have plenty of material I would like to explore, and have considered going through someone else’s list of topics. But here are my reasons why not:

1) I don’t want to be “that blogging youth pastor guy”

2) I don’t make writing a priority

3) I am afraid my material is the kind of writing that makes for great blog fodder like others are for me

4) When I do blog, I become needy for comments.

Ultimately, I’m shallow.

The Cost of Winning

Do we ever consider what winning costs us? In the wonderful capitalist society of these united states, winning is a way of life. By allowing the market to decide, we effectually pick winners and losers at life. Those who make money win. Those who do not, lose.

but it moves beyond that.

When winning becomes the frame of reference for all life, others become competition, no longer humans. We perpetuate the lie that there isn’t enough for everyone and play the game of domination. On a micro level, we refuse to help co-workers because they might get our promotion. We obliterate the dignity of our spouses for the sake of winning the argument. On a macro level, we promote American superiority, force our way of life on other people groups, suggest our politicians stop giving money to other nations, and then blame corporations for our personal plight. All while we continue to join in the competition that started it all. In many ways, this has become the new American experiment.

And then there’s Jesus.

Broken
Submitted
Loving

Jesus.

What if, in stead of lambasting gays and those who have abortions, we counted the cost of winning. Is it worth the effort? Where would winning the legal argument take us? Is winning the legal action worth losing the relationship? Questions most Christians haven’t answered, and questions that need to be thoughtfully considered.

Not your normal New Year's Post

New Year’s offends me. How an ambiguous day of the year becomes such an enculturated part of our society is beyond my cognition. There are multiple reasons why I think we should abolish this celebration, the primary reason is religious.

Saying “happy New Year” is imposing a governmental religion on my personal view. The only reason this day is significant is the tax implications of it. Very few companies end their fiscal year Dec. 31. The biggest is the government. They try to convince you to have a happy New Year primarily because they are looking forward to the money you owe them from the old year. They choose Jan 1 as the day to make things right with their coffers. Sure you get an extra few months to pay it, but that’s the day it is no longer your own. Should all acquaintance be forgot . . .

Culturally, I find “happy New Year” to be another example of the American Government’s imperialism. They are trying to rob me of my identity. How dare you dragoon your New Year on me. I feel as though my resemblance to the asian persuasion, and my religious roots in Judaism are slowly being robbed by your governmental replacement.

At the same time, every weight room in the country is attempting to hijack your governmental holiday and make it a marketable one. If you choose to celebrate this day, it is your prerogative. But beware, the almighty dollar is out to get you.

Here I sit, another victim of America. I will not reflect on 2009 today, for I am morally obliged to be in constant reflection. My resolution is to . . .

Ode to new life

Isn't it funny.

When the snow fades away.

The grass returns.

Green.

Making God in our Image

If you’ve been following my facebook or tweets, you know that I have been viewing a small group curriculum called the Truth Project. This is a 12 session dvd-based curriculum to defend a “Christian worldview”. Like any curriculum, it has its ups and downs. Being published by Focus on the Family should tell you a lot about its agenda. Primarily, that only conservative (esp. politically) Christians have a true Christian worldview. If you aren’t with them, you are against them. Sadly, the curriculum does little to dialog with postmodernism in general, postmodern Christianity in particular. In fact, postmodernism is only referred to negatively by the primary speaker.

I could live with all of this. In fact, I expected as much when I opened the package. One major problem with the Truth Project, though, is that the speaker, Del Tackett, claims to be speaking un-assumptively. That is, he claims that debating with presuppositions is invalid (never mind that he himself does it the entire time). As a result, the program comes off as a group of Christians attacking the culture rather than critically engaging with the postmodern world with gentleness and respect.

So I thought it was ok. That is, until Dr. Del (whose doctorate is a D.M. [management] in Homeland Security) chose to remake the Trinity in his image to support his entire argument for a certain style of social systems.

You see, he uses this diagram to explain the relationship of the Trinity while allegedly maintaining the nicene position of each member being an ontological (in their essence) unity:

So what’s the big deal? Primarily, this diagram leads the reader to believe that God the Father is somehow the bossman over the other two. God the Son is the boss of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit has nothing to contribute to the equation logistically. If we believe that somehow the individual persons of the Trinity are ontologically subordinate, we destroy the idea that each member is of one essence. In a modern relationship, can we claim that a worker is essentially equal to his boss (at his workplace) if we diagram the relationship thusly? no.

This diagram implies inequality.

It is true that the Trinity submits to itself, but that must also include the Father and Son submitting to the Spirit when necessary (think of Jesus’ miracles, he didn’t do them, the Spirit did). Further, the Godhead can choose to be functionally subordinate to each member (that is, in how they act they submit to each other’s will, which is one unified will), but functional submission is not the same as ontological inequality.

Del needs this view, though, because otherwise his whole view of social systems is ruined.

here’s his view of the family. Clearly he doesn’t expect the children to be equal with the husband and wife, as his only Scriptures relating to children are those that say children should obey. Should the Holy Spirit just obey? become the prisoner of the other two? This diagram also demonstrates the wife as subordinate to the husband. But what about the structure of the church (sorry for cutting off the image)?

Here it is. With this diagram, Dr. Del plays rhetorical pinball, bouncing from one verse to another to support his argument, completely denying any historical context (of course he did that with the above charts too, but this is the most blatant). He substitutes placeholder for placeholder misusing verses until it fits his paradigm. The only problem is that in so doing, his substitution tactic, when taken to its logical conclusion, makes every member of the church ontologically and functionally equal to the Godhead even though Del rejects the New Age notion of becoming God.

Now this could all be fixed by claiming that the first chart is one of functional subordination rather than ontological position. But then, children would have to be equal to their parents, the flock ontologically equal to Jesus, and the state and her leaders ontologically equal to each one of these positions (via substitution). And the very next lesson he argues that there can be no bleedover between spheres of influence.

On the other hand, The Shack, which is a fictional book (rife with its own errors, but fictional) and is incredibly controversial for evangelicals, is far more accurate in depicting the relational aspects of the Trinity in my opinion.

The Trinity is a perfectly equal set of relationships where each member lovingly submits to each other member. Sometimes this causes a functional subordination (i.e. Jesus gave up his divine attributes to become human, or pericoresis) for a specific task. There is not inequality, nor can there be, because

God is like Aquafresh.
One substance, three persons.
Though made of the same God stuff,
Individuals don’t bleed into one goo,
They each have their place.
White red and blue.