31 December 2007
2007 Reading
The Heavenly Man, by Brother Yun **** Dancing Under the Red Star, by Karl Tobien *** The Great Bridge, by David McCullough **** God's Smuggler, by Brother Andrew **** Getting Things Done, by David Allen **** The Broker, by John Grisham ** In a Pit With a Lion on a Snowy Day, by Mark Batterson *** When God Comes Calling, by Ted Fletcher **** Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner *** The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini *** A Thousand Splendid Suns, by Khaled Hosseini **** Thunderstruck, by Erik Larson **** What Jesus Demands from the World, by John Piper ***** The Cades Cove Story, by Randolph Shields **** Peace Like a River, by Leif Enger **** The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara ***** A Briefer History of Time, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow *** Made to Stick, by Chip Heath and Dan Heath **** The China Fantasy, by James Mann ***** Masters of the Air, by Donald L. Miller ***** Geronimo: His Own Story, by Geronimo *** America Alone, by Mark Steyn *** The Bookseller of Kabul, by Asne Seierstad **** Six Days of War, by Michael Oren **** Night, by Elie Weisel **** Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali **** Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer **** Digital Fortress, by Dan Brown ** Good News About Injustice, by Gary Haugen, The World Is Flat, by Thomas Friedman The Life of David Brainerd, by Jonathan Edwards *** The Heart of a Saint, by Bert Ghezzi **** His Dark Materials, by Philip Pullman ** Cat and Dog Theology, by Bob Sjogren and Gerald Robison In Defense of Israel, by John Hagee * A Long Way Gone, by Ishmael Beah ***
19 December 2007
The Little Gunner Boy
One of the more disturbing books I've read so far this year is A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah. A victim of the civil war in Sierra Leone, Beah was orphaned at 12 and left to fend for himself in a rural part of his west African homeland. Eventually, he found refuge in a village protected from rebels by a squad of the Sierra Leonean army. When the village was in danger of being overwhelmed by rebels, Beah was conscripted (along with several other boys in the village), given an AK-47, drugged with amphetamines and pot, brainwashed with Rambo movies and initiated into life as a soldier.
By the time Beah was removed from the war several years later by UNICEF, he had become a heartless killing machine who had lost count of the number of men, women and children he had tortured and murdered. After being "rehabilitated" and "repatriated" into civilian society, Beah was adopted by a woman in New York, where he went to high school and now lives and works as a human rights advocate.
Throughout the narrative, those rehabilitating Beah would assure him, "It's not your fault," in an effort to get him to forget his past. However, these platitudes seem simplistic and did not ring true to me, only reinforcing the difficulty of addressing such human depravity apart from a biblical worldview that confronts both the sins committed against us and the sins that we commit in response. Are child soldiers guilty? When should they be held accountable for war crimes? When they're seven or seventeen? I'm sure their dismembered victims' families would have a different answer than I would.
Ultimately responsible are the depraved individuals who place guns and bayonets in the hands of children. However, apart from an encounter with the cross, self-redemption will be fleeting for the victims and the perpetrators of these atrocities--particularly when the line between the two is so fuzzy.
By the time Beah was removed from the war several years later by UNICEF, he had become a heartless killing machine who had lost count of the number of men, women and children he had tortured and murdered. After being "rehabilitated" and "repatriated" into civilian society, Beah was adopted by a woman in New York, where he went to high school and now lives and works as a human rights advocate.
Throughout the narrative, those rehabilitating Beah would assure him, "It's not your fault," in an effort to get him to forget his past. However, these platitudes seem simplistic and did not ring true to me, only reinforcing the difficulty of addressing such human depravity apart from a biblical worldview that confronts both the sins committed against us and the sins that we commit in response. Are child soldiers guilty? When should they be held accountable for war crimes? When they're seven or seventeen? I'm sure their dismembered victims' families would have a different answer than I would.
Ultimately responsible are the depraved individuals who place guns and bayonets in the hands of children. However, apart from an encounter with the cross, self-redemption will be fleeting for the victims and the perpetrators of these atrocities--particularly when the line between the two is so fuzzy.
The Little Gunner Boy
One of the more disturbing books I've read so far this year is A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah. A victim of the civil war in Sierra Leone, Beah was orphaned at 12 and left to fend for himself in a rural part of his west African homeland. Eventually, he found refuge in a village protected from rebels by a squad of the Sierra Leonean army. When the village was in danger of being overwhelmed by rebels, Beah was conscripted (along with several other boys in the village), given an AK-47, drugged with amphetamines and pot, brainwashed with Rambo movies and initiated into life as a soldier.
By the time Beah was removed from the war several years later by UNICEF, he had become a heartless killing machine who had lost count of the number of men, women and children he had tortured and murdered. After being "rehabilitated" and "repatriated" into civilian society, Beah was adopted by a woman in New York, where he went to high school and now lives and works as a human rights advocate.
Throughout the narrative, those rehabilitating Beah would assure him, "It's not your fault," in an effort to get him to forget his past. However, these platitudes seem simplistic and did not ring true to me, only reinforcing the difficulty of addressing such human depravity apart from a biblical worldview that confronts both the sins committed against us and the sins that we commit in response. Are child soldiers guilty? When should they be held accountable for war crimes? When they're seven or seventeen? I'm sure their dismembered victims' families would have a different answer than I would.
Ultimately responsible are the depraved individuals who place guns and bayonets in the hands of children. However, apart from an encounter with the cross, self-redemption will be fleeting for the victims and the perpetrators of these atrocities--particularly when the line between the two is so fuzzy.
By the time Beah was removed from the war several years later by UNICEF, he had become a heartless killing machine who had lost count of the number of men, women and children he had tortured and murdered. After being "rehabilitated" and "repatriated" into civilian society, Beah was adopted by a woman in New York, where he went to high school and now lives and works as a human rights advocate.
Throughout the narrative, those rehabilitating Beah would assure him, "It's not your fault," in an effort to get him to forget his past. However, these platitudes seem simplistic and did not ring true to me, only reinforcing the difficulty of addressing such human depravity apart from a biblical worldview that confronts both the sins committed against us and the sins that we commit in response. Are child soldiers guilty? When should they be held accountable for war crimes? When they're seven or seventeen? I'm sure their dismembered victims' families would have a different answer than I would.
Ultimately responsible are the depraved individuals who place guns and bayonets in the hands of children. However, apart from an encounter with the cross, self-redemption will be fleeting for the victims and the perpetrators of these atrocities--particularly when the line between the two is so fuzzy.
11 December 2007
Hagee's Heresy
I recently read John Hagee's latest book, In Defense of Israel--a book which he claims will shake Christian theology with its assertion that Jesus did not come to be the Messiah. In his typical fashion, Hagee holds up the implicit trump card that disagreeing with him means agreeing with antisemites and replacement theologians (interestingly, the only "replacement theologian" he quotes in his book is aberrant and discredited "archbishop" Earl Paulk).Thankfully, many respected leaders are disagreeing with him--and not antisemites, replacement theologians or the heresy hunters who react to charismatics, Pentecostals, word-faithers, dispensationalists, prophecy hacks, etc. The strongest, most eloquent and gracious reactions have come from people who agree with Hagee on many issues. I considered writing on it, but the book is so aberrant, I get tired just thinking about it. Here are a few samples:
"... I sincerely do not mean to be disrespectful to anyone, but this book is written as if he did not think that anyone with any serious knowledge of the Scriptures, or power of reasoning, would be reading it. ... it seems as if someone else has taken over the writing and reduced it to a level of spiritual foolishness that I do not believe I have ever witnessed in the writings of such a well-respected teacher and preacher before." - Rick Joyner
" ... Tragically, in the attempt to fight against these serious errors, a more serious error has now been introduced. Yet some believers – and even leaders! – are buying into this error hook, line, and sinker, and some have begun to teach and preach it as well. Since the publication of the book, Pastor Hagee issued some clarifying remarks, but the clarifications only complicate the issues and fail to renounce and remove the error... " - Michael Brown
" ... These teachings contradict biblical doctrine, undermine the testimony of Jewish followers of Jesus, and weaken the cause of Christian supporters of the Jewish people. ... Hagee's book also weakens the cause of Christian Zionism to which he has devoted so much of his life's work. If his theology is so clearly aberrant on the Messiahship of Jesus, why should thinking Christians accept anything he says in support of the Jewish state? But the extreme interpretations that he advocates are not necessary to build the case for support for Israel and the Jewish people." - Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations
" ... If his theology is so clearly aberrant on the Messiahship of Jesus, why should thinking Christians accept anything he says in support of the Jewish state? Indeed, the book includes a surprising number of factual errors, along with its careless handling of Scripture. ... " - Rabbi Russell Resnik
Hagee's Heresy
I recently read John Hagee's latest book, In Defense of Israel--a book which he claims will shake Christian theology with its assertion that Jesus did not come to be the Messiah. In his typical fashion, Hagee holds up the implicit trump card that disagreeing with him means agreeing with antisemites and replacement theologians (interestingly, the only "replacement theologian" he quotes in his book is aberrant and discredited "archbishop" Earl Paulk).Thankfully, many respected leaders are disagreeing with him--and not antisemites, replacement theologians or the heresy hunters who react to charismatics, Pentecostals, word-faithers, dispensationalists, prophecy hacks, etc. The strongest, most eloquent and gracious reactions have come from people who agree with Hagee on many issues. I considered writing on it, but the book is so aberrant, I get tired just thinking about it. Here are a few samples:
"... I sincerely do not mean to be disrespectful to anyone, but this book is written as if he did not think that anyone with any serious knowledge of the Scriptures, or power of reasoning, would be reading it. ... it seems as if someone else has taken over the writing and reduced it to a level of spiritual foolishness that I do not believe I have ever witnessed in the writings of such a well-respected teacher and preacher before." - Rick Joyner
" ... Tragically, in the attempt to fight against these serious errors, a more serious error has now been introduced. Yet some believers – and even leaders! – are buying into this error hook, line, and sinker, and some have begun to teach and preach it as well. Since the publication of the book, Pastor Hagee issued some clarifying remarks, but the clarifications only complicate the issues and fail to renounce and remove the error... " - Michael Brown
" ... These teachings contradict biblical doctrine, undermine the testimony of Jewish followers of Jesus, and weaken the cause of Christian supporters of the Jewish people. ... Hagee's book also weakens the cause of Christian Zionism to which he has devoted so much of his life's work. If his theology is so clearly aberrant on the Messiahship of Jesus, why should thinking Christians accept anything he says in support of the Jewish state? But the extreme interpretations that he advocates are not necessary to build the case for support for Israel and the Jewish people." - Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations
" ... If his theology is so clearly aberrant on the Messiahship of Jesus, why should thinking Christians accept anything he says in support of the Jewish state? Indeed, the book includes a surprising number of factual errors, along with its careless handling of Scripture. ... " - Rabbi Russell Resnik
06 December 2007
I'm Sorry, Muslims
After reading a recent letter from evangelicals to Muslims apologizing for the crusades, the war in Iraq and just about every offense in between, I feel that it is important (since I was not invited to sign the document) that I issue a formal apology as well.
No, I'm not Catholic. No, I can't trace my lineage to Sir William Moorcrusher or any other 13th-century knight errant. No, I do not have a history of discriminating against followers of Muhammad in word, thought or deed. No, that was not me in the alley last night firing my AK47 in the air chanting, "Death to Saudi Arabia."
You're confused.
I'm just apologizing for the fact that stuff like that happened and that I share certain cultural characteristics with those who have participated in the above activities. The bottom line is that I'm just trying to cover my bases with a heavy dose of good, old-fashioned American penitence: the apology.
Ahh ..... Now that I have that off my chest, I await the response of conciliatory Muslims worldwide as they apologize for raiding Jerusalem and thereby initiating the crusades in the first place, for their imperialistic attempts to take over Europe from the 9th through the 15th century, for killing and torturing my Christian brothers and sisters in places like Sudan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, for ... well, you get the picture.
How is my goofy little apology any more naive than that of a group of Western evangelicals, safely insulated from the bloody reality of the global Islamic-Christian conflict making an ad hoc statement of reconciliation with a bunch of moderate Muslim scholars, pasting it as an ad in The New York Times and then acting like they’ve accomplished something of significance? The conflict is not being fought at this level, so how can it be resolved at this level?
None of this means squat for the Arab warlord butchering the tribal Christian in Sudan or the Western missionary having an "interfaith dialogue" over Turkish coffee in a cafe in Amman. Yes, God is at work in the Muslim world, but His work is not that of reconciling Muslims to Christians or vice versa, but of reconciling Muslims to Himself through His Son.
No, I'm not Catholic. No, I can't trace my lineage to Sir William Moorcrusher or any other 13th-century knight errant. No, I do not have a history of discriminating against followers of Muhammad in word, thought or deed. No, that was not me in the alley last night firing my AK47 in the air chanting, "Death to Saudi Arabia."
You're confused.
I'm just apologizing for the fact that stuff like that happened and that I share certain cultural characteristics with those who have participated in the above activities. The bottom line is that I'm just trying to cover my bases with a heavy dose of good, old-fashioned American penitence: the apology.
Ahh ..... Now that I have that off my chest, I await the response of conciliatory Muslims worldwide as they apologize for raiding Jerusalem and thereby initiating the crusades in the first place, for their imperialistic attempts to take over Europe from the 9th through the 15th century, for killing and torturing my Christian brothers and sisters in places like Sudan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, for ... well, you get the picture.
How is my goofy little apology any more naive than that of a group of Western evangelicals, safely insulated from the bloody reality of the global Islamic-Christian conflict making an ad hoc statement of reconciliation with a bunch of moderate Muslim scholars, pasting it as an ad in The New York Times and then acting like they’ve accomplished something of significance? The conflict is not being fought at this level, so how can it be resolved at this level?
None of this means squat for the Arab warlord butchering the tribal Christian in Sudan or the Western missionary having an "interfaith dialogue" over Turkish coffee in a cafe in Amman. Yes, God is at work in the Muslim world, but His work is not that of reconciling Muslims to Christians or vice versa, but of reconciling Muslims to Himself through His Son.
05 December 2007
I'm Sorry, Muslims
After reading a recent letter from evangelicals to Muslims apologizing for the crusades, the war in Iraq and just about every offense in between, I feel that it is important (since I was not invited to sign the document) that I issue a formal apology as well.
No, I'm not Catholic. No, I can't trace my lineage to Sir William Moorcrusher or any other 13th-century knight errant. No, I do not have a history of discriminating against followers of Muhammad in word, thought or deed. No, that was not me in the alley last night firing my AK47 in the air chanting, "Death to Saudi Arabia."
You're confused.
I'm just apologizing for the fact that stuff like that happened and that I share certain cultural characteristics with those who have participated in the above activities. The bottom line is that I'm just trying to cover my bases with a heavy dose of good, old-fashioned American penitence: the apology.
Ahh ..... Now that I have that off my chest, I await the response of conciliatory Muslims worldwide as they apologize for raiding Jerusalem and thereby initiating the crusades in the first place, for their imperialistic attempts to take over Europe from the 9th through the 15th century, for killing and torturing my Christian brothers and sisters in places like Sudan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, for ... well, you get the picture.
How is my goofy little apology any more naive than that of a group of Western evangelicals, safely insulated from the bloody reality of the global Islamic-Christian conflict making an ad hoc statement of reconciliation with a bunch of moderate Muslim scholars, pasting it as an ad in The New York Times and then acting like they’ve accomplished something of significance? The conflict is not being fought at this level, so how can it be resolved at this level?
None of this means squat for the Arab warlord butchering the tribal Christian in Sudan or the Western missionary having an "interfaith dialogue" over Turkish coffee in a cafe in Amman. Yes, God is at work in the Muslim world, but His work is not that of reconciling Muslims to Christians or vice versa, but of reconciling Muslims to Himself through His Son.
No, I'm not Catholic. No, I can't trace my lineage to Sir William Moorcrusher or any other 13th-century knight errant. No, I do not have a history of discriminating against followers of Muhammad in word, thought or deed. No, that was not me in the alley last night firing my AK47 in the air chanting, "Death to Saudi Arabia."
You're confused.
I'm just apologizing for the fact that stuff like that happened and that I share certain cultural characteristics with those who have participated in the above activities. The bottom line is that I'm just trying to cover my bases with a heavy dose of good, old-fashioned American penitence: the apology.
Ahh ..... Now that I have that off my chest, I await the response of conciliatory Muslims worldwide as they apologize for raiding Jerusalem and thereby initiating the crusades in the first place, for their imperialistic attempts to take over Europe from the 9th through the 15th century, for killing and torturing my Christian brothers and sisters in places like Sudan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, for ... well, you get the picture.
How is my goofy little apology any more naive than that of a group of Western evangelicals, safely insulated from the bloody reality of the global Islamic-Christian conflict making an ad hoc statement of reconciliation with a bunch of moderate Muslim scholars, pasting it as an ad in The New York Times and then acting like they’ve accomplished something of significance? The conflict is not being fought at this level, so how can it be resolved at this level?
None of this means squat for the Arab warlord butchering the tribal Christian in Sudan or the Western missionary having an "interfaith dialogue" over Turkish coffee in a cafe in Amman. Yes, God is at work in the Muslim world, but His work is not that of reconciling Muslims to Christians or vice versa, but of reconciling Muslims to Himself through His Son.
Mike the Cat
I've been enjoying a good book with a strange name, Cat and Dog Theology, by Bob Sjogren. Sjogren's basic premise is that people look at God in one of two ways: Like a cat, some people assume that God exists for them--to help them achieve their dreams, reach their destiny, and fulfill their hearts' desires. Others, like dogs, recognize that they exist for the pleasure of their owner, not vice versa. Sjogren argues that American evangelicalism has been corrupted by "cat theology." Of course, cat theology is no theology at all. It is merely the American values of achievement and self-fulfillment wrapped in a religious shell. Check out this brief clip from "wisdom" guy Mike Murdock, who explains that God is all about achievement, and that the biggest people in the Bible were the achievers. As Sjogren effectively asks in Cat and Dog Theology, what about the people in the Bible (and in church history) who weren't necessarily models of achievement, but who appear to be grist in God's mill, glorifying Him through their suffering, death and unfulfilled dreams?
Mike the Cat
I've been enjoying a good book with a strange name, Cat and Dog Theology, by Bob Sjogren. Sjogren's basic premise is that people look at God in one of two ways: Like a cat, some people assume that God exists for them--to help them achieve their dreams, reach their destiny, and fulfill their hearts' desires. Others, like dogs, recognize that they exist for the pleasure of their owner, not vice versa. Sjogren argues that American evangelicalism has been corrupted by "cat theology." Of course, cat theology is no theology at all. It is merely the American values of achievement and self-fulfillment wrapped in a religious shell. Check out this brief clip from "wisdom" guy Mike Murdock, who explains that God is all about achievement, and that the biggest people in the Bible were the achievers. As Sjogren effectively asks in Cat and Dog Theology, what about the people in the Bible (and in church history) who weren't necessarily models of achievement, but who appear to be grist in God's mill, glorifying Him through their suffering, death and unfulfilled dreams?
04 December 2007
Our Creche
When the kids were younger, my dad made them a non-porcelain, wooden nativity set that they could play with without us worrying about them breaking the pieces. Today, Andy noticed that they had rearranged the pieces in a rather non-aesthetic, but theologically correct orientation--with all the figures facing the Baby in the manger, rather than the room. You'll notice that one of the sheep appears to be slain in the spirit in the left side of the photo.
Our Creche
When the kids were younger, my dad made them a non-porcelain, wooden nativity set that they could play with without us worrying about them breaking the pieces. Today, Andy noticed that they had rearranged the pieces in a rather non-aesthetic, but theologically correct orientation--with all the figures facing the Baby in the manger, rather than the room. You'll notice that one of the sheep appears to be slain in the spirit in the left side of the photo.
03 December 2007
The Authority Sock
When I was a worship leader back in the late '90s, our church was a big fan of the song "I Went to the Enemy's Camp ... and I Took Back What He Stole from Me." I couldn't stand the song, because I felt it dripped with "Holy Ghost bravado." Not to mention the fact that I could find no biblical substantiation for entering the enemy's camp and reclaiming my stuff. Not to mention the fact that I couldn't find any biblical support for the idea that the devil could steal my stuff in the first place.The song--like the "authority socks" featured in this ad--proudly proclaimed "Satan is under my feet!" [You're supposed to stomp when you get to that part of the song. C'mon, your not stomping loud enough!] However, the verses printed on the sock (presumably in support of the socks' proclamation) are Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44--both of which refer to Jesus having the enemy under His feet.
A more appropriate passage that could have been printed on the sock is Romans 16:20: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." But even in this passage, it's God who seems to be doing the crushing--and at some time in the future. According to Scripture, we really don't have any authority over Satan at this time. Although Satan was decisively defeated at the cross and we have been empowered to resist his temptation, we await--with bated breath, no less--his final crushing.
The moral to this tale? If you're going to "stand strong on the Word of God" like the ad proclaims, at least pick the right words to stand on!
The Authority Sock
When I was a worship leader back in the late '90s, our church was a big fan of the song "I Went to the Enemy's Camp ... and I Took Back What He Stole from Me." I couldn't stand the song, because I felt it dripped with "Holy Ghost bravado." Not to mention the fact that I could find no biblical substantiation for entering the enemy's camp and reclaiming my stuff. Not to mention the fact that I couldn't find any biblical support for the idea that the devil could steal my stuff in the first place.The song--like the "authority socks" featured in this ad--proudly proclaimed "Satan is under my feet!" [You're supposed to stomp when you get to that part of the song. C'mon, your not stomping loud enough!] However, the verses printed on the sock (presumably in support of the socks' proclamation) are Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44--both of which refer to Jesus having the enemy under His feet.
A more appropriate passage that could have been printed on the sock is Romans 16:20: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." But even in this passage, it's God who seems to be doing the crushing--and at some time in the future. According to Scripture, we really don't have any authority over Satan at this time. Although Satan was decisively defeated at the cross and we have been empowered to resist his temptation, we await--with bated breath, no less--his final crushing.
The moral to this tale? If you're going to "stand strong on the Word of God" like the ad proclaims, at least pick the right words to stand on!
26 November 2007
The Golden Compass
When Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass (book one of the His Dark Materials trilogy) hits the big screen on December 7, I will be interested to see if Hollywood neuters the book's heretical elements for the sake of broadening the film's audience and avoiding an all out war with the Vatican.
I'm guessing they will. Hollywood loves money more than it hates organized religion, and Pullman's engrossing fantasy shares the basic formula of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, another subversive book-turned-movie that ended up extolling the virtue of personal faith--albeit only after demeaning it for two hours.
Like Da Vinci, Compass is a quick read, a well-oiled narrative with engaging characters and unexpected plot twists in a vivid landscape populated by armored bears and gypsies. Pullman doesn't "waste" pages on dwarf songs or recipes for wild rabbit stew (a la Tolkien). You won't find him delving into messianic allegory or extended expositions on "deep magic" (a la Lewis). The self-described atheist doesn't open a can of heterodoxy until around page 270 (of 299). But when he does, he opens it wide, rewriting the Adam and Eve narrative, sanctifying original sin and casting the church as a virulent and dehumanizing force in the world. And, from what I've read in summaries of the next two books in the trilogy, this just the beginning.
Even if these elements are transferred to the movie (and I predict they won't be), I don't see the The Golden Compass emptying churches or creating a generation of skeptics and God haters. I said it about Da Vinci, and the same applies to The Golden Compass. "Movies like this can only gain traction in a nation where careful explorations of challenging concepts like the virgin birth and deity of Christ [or Adam and Eve and original sin] have been exchanged for motivational speeches [or books about "becoming a better you"]."
I'm guessing they will. Hollywood loves money more than it hates organized religion, and Pullman's engrossing fantasy shares the basic formula of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, another subversive book-turned-movie that ended up extolling the virtue of personal faith--albeit only after demeaning it for two hours.
Like Da Vinci, Compass is a quick read, a well-oiled narrative with engaging characters and unexpected plot twists in a vivid landscape populated by armored bears and gypsies. Pullman doesn't "waste" pages on dwarf songs or recipes for wild rabbit stew (a la Tolkien). You won't find him delving into messianic allegory or extended expositions on "deep magic" (a la Lewis). The self-described atheist doesn't open a can of heterodoxy until around page 270 (of 299). But when he does, he opens it wide, rewriting the Adam and Eve narrative, sanctifying original sin and casting the church as a virulent and dehumanizing force in the world. And, from what I've read in summaries of the next two books in the trilogy, this just the beginning.
Even if these elements are transferred to the movie (and I predict they won't be), I don't see the The Golden Compass emptying churches or creating a generation of skeptics and God haters. I said it about Da Vinci, and the same applies to The Golden Compass. "Movies like this can only gain traction in a nation where careful explorations of challenging concepts like the virgin birth and deity of Christ [or Adam and Eve and original sin] have been exchanged for motivational speeches [or books about "becoming a better you"]."
The Golden Compass
When Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass (book one of the His Dark Materials trilogy) hits the big screen on December 7, I will be interested to see if Hollywood neuters the book's heretical elements for the sake of broadening the film's audience and avoiding an all out war with the Vatican.
I'm guessing they will. Hollywood loves money more than it hates organized religion, and Pullman's engrossing fantasy shares the basic formula of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, another subversive book-turned-movie that ended up extolling the virtue of personal faith--albeit only after demeaning it for two hours.
Like Da Vinci, Compass is a quick read, a well-oiled narrative with engaging characters and unexpected plot twists in a vivid landscape populated by armored bears and gypsies. Pullman doesn't "waste" pages on dwarf songs or recipes for wild rabbit stew (a la Tolkien). You won't find him delving into messianic allegory or extended expositions on "deep magic" (a la Lewis). The self-described atheist doesn't open a can of heterodoxy until around page 270 (of 299). But when he does, he opens it wide, rewriting the Adam and Eve narrative, sanctifying original sin and casting the church as a virulent and dehumanizing force in the world. And, from what I've read in summaries of the next two books in the trilogy, this just the beginning.
Even if these elements are transferred to the movie (and I predict they won't be), I don't see the The Golden Compass emptying churches or creating a generation of skeptics and God haters. I said it about Da Vinci, and the same applies to The Golden Compass. "Movies like this can only gain traction in a nation where careful explorations of challenging concepts like the virgin birth and deity of Christ [or Adam and Eve and original sin] have been exchanged for motivational speeches [or books about "becoming a better you"]."
I'm guessing they will. Hollywood loves money more than it hates organized religion, and Pullman's engrossing fantasy shares the basic formula of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, another subversive book-turned-movie that ended up extolling the virtue of personal faith--albeit only after demeaning it for two hours.
Like Da Vinci, Compass is a quick read, a well-oiled narrative with engaging characters and unexpected plot twists in a vivid landscape populated by armored bears and gypsies. Pullman doesn't "waste" pages on dwarf songs or recipes for wild rabbit stew (a la Tolkien). You won't find him delving into messianic allegory or extended expositions on "deep magic" (a la Lewis). The self-described atheist doesn't open a can of heterodoxy until around page 270 (of 299). But when he does, he opens it wide, rewriting the Adam and Eve narrative, sanctifying original sin and casting the church as a virulent and dehumanizing force in the world. And, from what I've read in summaries of the next two books in the trilogy, this just the beginning.
Even if these elements are transferred to the movie (and I predict they won't be), I don't see the The Golden Compass emptying churches or creating a generation of skeptics and God haters. I said it about Da Vinci, and the same applies to The Golden Compass. "Movies like this can only gain traction in a nation where careful explorations of challenging concepts like the virgin birth and deity of Christ [or Adam and Eve and original sin] have been exchanged for motivational speeches [or books about "becoming a better you"]."
19 November 2007
The War on [Some] Terror
The War on Terror is clearly a very selective war only against certain types of terror in certain places at certain times against certain people.
A 19-year-old woman is gang raped by six men and then sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in jail for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape." When the woman's attorney attempted to appeal the case, he was banned from handling the case, his license to practice law revoked because he challenged the verdict and summoned by the ministry of justice to appear before a disciplinary committee.
What kind of twisted, warped "society" allows this perversion of justice? Al Qaeda in Iraq? The Taliban of Afghanistan?
I'm sure they do, but not in this instance. Instead, this incident is business as usual in Saudi Arabia, an "ally" in the war on terror and a supposedly moderating influence in the Middle East. I don't expect to hear reproachful words from any official representative of the Western nations who remain inebriated with the oil provided by this regime.
This incident, among others, reveals the utter failure of human governments to deal with the wickedness at the root of such institutional injustice. The problem in Saudi Arabia is a spiritual problem: national adherence to a false religion and the judicial enforcement of that religion's values through Sharia law—a marriage made in hell.
It should make anyone long for this day:
A 19-year-old woman is gang raped by six men and then sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in jail for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape." When the woman's attorney attempted to appeal the case, he was banned from handling the case, his license to practice law revoked because he challenged the verdict and summoned by the ministry of justice to appear before a disciplinary committee.
What kind of twisted, warped "society" allows this perversion of justice? Al Qaeda in Iraq? The Taliban of Afghanistan?
I'm sure they do, but not in this instance. Instead, this incident is business as usual in Saudi Arabia, an "ally" in the war on terror and a supposedly moderating influence in the Middle East. I don't expect to hear reproachful words from any official representative of the Western nations who remain inebriated with the oil provided by this regime.
This incident, among others, reveals the utter failure of human governments to deal with the wickedness at the root of such institutional injustice. The problem in Saudi Arabia is a spiritual problem: national adherence to a false religion and the judicial enforcement of that religion's values through Sharia law—a marriage made in hell.
It should make anyone long for this day:
I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen,white and clean, were following Him on white horses.From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. - Revelation 19:11-15
The War on [Some] Terror
The War on Terror is clearly a very selective war only against certain types of terror in certain places at certain times against certain people.
A 19-year-old woman is gang raped by six men and then sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in jail for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape." When the woman's attorney attempted to appeal the case, he was banned from handling the case, his license to practice law revoked because he challenged the verdict and summoned by the ministry of justice to appear before a disciplinary committee.
What kind of twisted, warped "society" allows this perversion of justice? Al Qaeda in Iraq? The Taliban of Afghanistan?
I'm sure they do, but not in this instance. Instead, this incident is business as usual in Saudi Arabia, an "ally" in the war on terror and a supposedly moderating influence in the Middle East. I don't expect to hear reproachful words from any official representative of the Western nations who remain inebriated with the oil provided by this regime.
This incident, among others, reveals the utter failure of human governments to deal with the wickedness at the root of such institutional injustice. The problem in Saudi Arabia is a spiritual problem: national adherence to a false religion and the judicial enforcement of that religion's values through Sharia law—a marriage made in hell.
It should make anyone long for this day:
A 19-year-old woman is gang raped by six men and then sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in jail for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape." When the woman's attorney attempted to appeal the case, he was banned from handling the case, his license to practice law revoked because he challenged the verdict and summoned by the ministry of justice to appear before a disciplinary committee.
What kind of twisted, warped "society" allows this perversion of justice? Al Qaeda in Iraq? The Taliban of Afghanistan?
I'm sure they do, but not in this instance. Instead, this incident is business as usual in Saudi Arabia, an "ally" in the war on terror and a supposedly moderating influence in the Middle East. I don't expect to hear reproachful words from any official representative of the Western nations who remain inebriated with the oil provided by this regime.
This incident, among others, reveals the utter failure of human governments to deal with the wickedness at the root of such institutional injustice. The problem in Saudi Arabia is a spiritual problem: national adherence to a false religion and the judicial enforcement of that religion's values through Sharia law—a marriage made in hell.
It should make anyone long for this day:
I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen,white and clean, were following Him on white horses.From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. - Revelation 19:11-15
18 November 2007
"The Shopocalypse Is Coming"
That's the tagline to Morgan Spurlock (of Supersize Me! fame)'s new documentary What Would Jesus Buy?, which ...
The idea of a flamboyant televangelist (who, if it's possible, is even faker than the ones on TBN) warning his audience of the dangers of consumerism is ironic to the core. Why does it take a secular documentary film maker to point out the folly of storing up treasures "where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break in and steal"?
Spurlock's not the only one questioning American consumerism these days. Marketplace, a business news show I listen to on NPR, is exploring the consequences of what they call the "disease of greed" in a series titled "Consumed."
Of course, the reasons Christians should consider the benefits of living a sustainable lifestyle are usually different from those of an unbeliever. As a steward of Creation, I want to conserve the natural resources God has entrusted to me. As a steward of God's money, I want to leverage the financial resources God has entrusted to me for Kingdom activity. This is a particularly weighty responsibility as I (and most likely you) am a member of the top 1 percent of the wealthiest people in the world.
... follows Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping Gospel Choir as they go on a cross-country mission to save Christmas from the Shopocalypse: the end of mankind from consumerism, over-consumption and the fires of eternal debt!
The idea of a flamboyant televangelist (who, if it's possible, is even faker than the ones on TBN) warning his audience of the dangers of consumerism is ironic to the core. Why does it take a secular documentary film maker to point out the folly of storing up treasures "where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break in and steal"?Spurlock's not the only one questioning American consumerism these days. Marketplace, a business news show I listen to on NPR, is exploring the consequences of what they call the "disease of greed" in a series titled "Consumed."
Of course, the reasons Christians should consider the benefits of living a sustainable lifestyle are usually different from those of an unbeliever. As a steward of Creation, I want to conserve the natural resources God has entrusted to me. As a steward of God's money, I want to leverage the financial resources God has entrusted to me for Kingdom activity. This is a particularly weighty responsibility as I (and most likely you) am a member of the top 1 percent of the wealthiest people in the world.
"The Shopocalypse Is Coming"
That's the tagline to Morgan Spurlock (of Supersize Me! fame)'s new documentary What Would Jesus Buy?, which ...The idea of a flamboyant televangelist (who, if it's possible, is even faker than the ones on TBN) warning his audience of the dangers of consumerism is ironic to the core. Why does it take a secular documentary film maker to point out the folly of storing up treasures "where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break in and steal"?
Spurlock's not the only one questioning American consumerism these days. Marketplace, a business news show I listen to on NPR, is exploring the consequences of what they call the "disease of greed" in a series titled "Consumed."
Of course, the reasons Christians should consider the benefits of living a sustainable lifestyle are usually different from those of an unbeliever. As a steward of Creation, I want to conserve the natural resources God has entrusted to me. As a steward of God's money, I want to leverage the financial resources God has entrusted to me for Kingdom activity. This is a particularly weighty responsibility as I (and most likely you) am a member of the top 1 percent of the wealthiest people in the world.
... follows Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping Gospel Choir as they go on a cross-country mission to save Christmas from the Shopocalypse: the end of mankind from consumerism, over-consumption and the fires of eternal debt!
The idea of a flamboyant televangelist (who, if it's possible, is even faker than the ones on TBN) warning his audience of the dangers of consumerism is ironic to the core. Why does it take a secular documentary film maker to point out the folly of storing up treasures "where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break in and steal"?Spurlock's not the only one questioning American consumerism these days. Marketplace, a business news show I listen to on NPR, is exploring the consequences of what they call the "disease of greed" in a series titled "Consumed."
Of course, the reasons Christians should consider the benefits of living a sustainable lifestyle are usually different from those of an unbeliever. As a steward of Creation, I want to conserve the natural resources God has entrusted to me. As a steward of God's money, I want to leverage the financial resources God has entrusted to me for Kingdom activity. This is a particularly weighty responsibility as I (and most likely you) am a member of the top 1 percent of the wealthiest people in the world.
08 November 2007
American Shaman
The stereotypical image of a shaman is that of a painted witch doctor squatting before a smoldering fire fingering a handful of jade amulets.
Not so fast.
The Western version of the shaman wears a tailored suit and harnesses the power of modern technology. He stands before a TV camera as an expert mediator between the the audience and a complex spirit world, offering formulaic solutions to problems both banal and catastrophic. With a nose tuned for predicting disaster, he warns of the failure of following his instructions carefully. His words leave little room for mystery: A + B = C.
However, from what I hear from missionaries familiar with shamans, there is only one key difference, between him and the loinclothed witch doctors of the East: they usually do not ask for money; he always does.
This clip is from Tuesday night of TBN's Fall Fleece-a-Thon.
Not so fast.
The Western version of the shaman wears a tailored suit and harnesses the power of modern technology. He stands before a TV camera as an expert mediator between the the audience and a complex spirit world, offering formulaic solutions to problems both banal and catastrophic. With a nose tuned for predicting disaster, he warns of the failure of following his instructions carefully. His words leave little room for mystery: A + B = C.
However, from what I hear from missionaries familiar with shamans, there is only one key difference, between him and the loinclothed witch doctors of the East: they usually do not ask for money; he always does.
This clip is from Tuesday night of TBN's Fall Fleece-a-Thon.
American Shaman
The stereotypical image of a shaman is that of a painted witch doctor squatting before a smoldering fire fingering a handful of jade amulets.
Not so fast.
The Western version of the shaman wears a tailored suit and harnesses the power of modern technology. He stands before a TV camera as an expert mediator between the the audience and a complex spirit world, offering formulaic solutions to problems both banal and catastrophic. With a nose tuned for predicting disaster, he warns of the failure of following his instructions carefully. His words leave little room for mystery: A + B = C.
However, from what I hear from missionaries familiar with shamans, there is only one key difference, between him and the loinclothed witch doctors of the East: they usually do not ask for money; he always does.
This clip is from Tuesday night of TBN's Fall Fleece-a-Thon.
Not so fast.
The Western version of the shaman wears a tailored suit and harnesses the power of modern technology. He stands before a TV camera as an expert mediator between the the audience and a complex spirit world, offering formulaic solutions to problems both banal and catastrophic. With a nose tuned for predicting disaster, he warns of the failure of following his instructions carefully. His words leave little room for mystery: A + B = C.
However, from what I hear from missionaries familiar with shamans, there is only one key difference, between him and the loinclothed witch doctors of the East: they usually do not ask for money; he always does.
This clip is from Tuesday night of TBN's Fall Fleece-a-Thon.
07 November 2007
Clouds w/o Water
I know John McCain is supposedly the engineer on the "Straight Talk Express," but he can't hold a candle to Jude, the apostle that wrote these words:
Sadly, I was wrong. It didn't get sorted out. If you don't believe me, turn on your television. This clip from TBN's fall 2007 "fleece-a-thon" is a case study of Jude's warnings about "clouds without water"--manipulative promises of wealth, healing, children's salvation, etc. ... If you go to the phone right now.
These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever (12,13).When I was younger and naive I used to read those words and think, Wow, there must have been some really wicked scam artists in the New Testament times. I'm glad that got sorted out in the church councils, reformation, etc.
Sadly, I was wrong. It didn't get sorted out. If you don't believe me, turn on your television. This clip from TBN's fall 2007 "fleece-a-thon" is a case study of Jude's warnings about "clouds without water"--manipulative promises of wealth, healing, children's salvation, etc. ... If you go to the phone right now.
Clouds w/o Water
I know John McCain is supposedly the engineer on the "Straight Talk Express," but he can't hold a candle to Jude, the apostle that wrote these words:
Sadly, I was wrong. It didn't get sorted out. If you don't believe me, turn on your television. This clip from TBN's fall 2007 "fleece-a-thon" is a case study of Jude's warnings about "clouds without water"--manipulative promises of wealth, healing, children's salvation, etc. ... If you go to the phone right now.
These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever (12,13).When I was younger and naive I used to read those words and think, Wow, there must have been some really wicked scam artists in the New Testament times. I'm glad that got sorted out in the church councils, reformation, etc.
Sadly, I was wrong. It didn't get sorted out. If you don't believe me, turn on your television. This clip from TBN's fall 2007 "fleece-a-thon" is a case study of Jude's warnings about "clouds without water"--manipulative promises of wealth, healing, children's salvation, etc. ... If you go to the phone right now.
05 November 2007
"I'm not a racist."
Why is it that, in the interests of authenticity, transparency—and to salvage a career—a person will confess to all manner of sins, from porn addiction, drug abuse and infidelity to violent crime and even child abuse. But they won't admit to being a racist.
In defending his vitriolic, n-word-filled attack on a black heckler at a 2006 comedy show, Seinfeld's Michael Richards contended, "I'm not a racist."
In a recent recorded phone conversation, Dog the Bounty Hunter's Duane Chapman repeatedly used a racial slur to describe his son's girlfriend. He assures us it was taken out of context.
Whether following a police beat-down or a road-rage incident, the commonly-uttered defense "I'm not a racist" is usually thrown out to protect one from accusations of what has now become the unforgivable sin.
It's become perfectly fashionable for a community leader to admit to all manner of indiscretions with reassurances such as "Nobody's perfect," "I made a mistake" and "I'm working through my issues with a counselor."
But I'm guessing it's going to be a while before you hear someone say something like this: "I've been dealing with ethnic prejudice for years. Bottom line is, I'm a racist, and I need help. I've been hiding this dark side of myself very well, but in a time of stress, my true colors were revealed."
In an age when public confession has become a mark of authenticity, one is more likely to hear a straightforward admission of criminal offense such as drug possession, prostitution or tax fraud than a perfectly legal social offense like racism, sexism or homophobia.
It's clear that some sins are still taboo ... and not the ones we would expect.
In defending his vitriolic, n-word-filled attack on a black heckler at a 2006 comedy show, Seinfeld's Michael Richards contended, "I'm not a racist."
In a recent recorded phone conversation, Dog the Bounty Hunter's Duane Chapman repeatedly used a racial slur to describe his son's girlfriend. He assures us it was taken out of context.
Whether following a police beat-down or a road-rage incident, the commonly-uttered defense "I'm not a racist" is usually thrown out to protect one from accusations of what has now become the unforgivable sin.
It's become perfectly fashionable for a community leader to admit to all manner of indiscretions with reassurances such as "Nobody's perfect," "I made a mistake" and "I'm working through my issues with a counselor."
But I'm guessing it's going to be a while before you hear someone say something like this: "I've been dealing with ethnic prejudice for years. Bottom line is, I'm a racist, and I need help. I've been hiding this dark side of myself very well, but in a time of stress, my true colors were revealed."
In an age when public confession has become a mark of authenticity, one is more likely to hear a straightforward admission of criminal offense such as drug possession, prostitution or tax fraud than a perfectly legal social offense like racism, sexism or homophobia.
It's clear that some sins are still taboo ... and not the ones we would expect.
"I'm not a racist."
Why is it that, in the interests of authenticity, transparency—and to salvage a career—a person will confess to all manner of sins, from porn addiction, drug abuse and infidelity to violent crime and even child abuse. But they won't admit to being a racist.
In defending his vitriolic, n-word-filled attack on a black heckler at a 2006 comedy show, Seinfeld's Michael Richards contended, "I'm not a racist."
In a recent recorded phone conversation, Dog the Bounty Hunter's Duane Chapman repeatedly used a racial slur to describe his son's girlfriend. He assures us it was taken out of context.
Whether following a police beat-down or a road-rage incident, the commonly-uttered defense "I'm not a racist" is usually thrown out to protect one from accusations of what has now become the unforgivable sin.
It's become perfectly fashionable for a community leader to admit to all manner of indiscretions with reassurances such as "Nobody's perfect," "I made a mistake" and "I'm working through my issues with a counselor."
But I'm guessing it's going to be a while before you hear someone say something like this: "I've been dealing with ethnic prejudice for years. Bottom line is, I'm a racist, and I need help. I've been hiding this dark side of myself very well, but in a time of stress, my true colors were revealed."
In an age when public confession has become a mark of authenticity, one is more likely to hear a straightforward admission of criminal offense such as drug possession, prostitution or tax fraud than a perfectly legal social offense like racism, sexism or homophobia.
It's clear that some sins are still taboo ... and not the ones we would expect.
In defending his vitriolic, n-word-filled attack on a black heckler at a 2006 comedy show, Seinfeld's Michael Richards contended, "I'm not a racist."
In a recent recorded phone conversation, Dog the Bounty Hunter's Duane Chapman repeatedly used a racial slur to describe his son's girlfriend. He assures us it was taken out of context.
Whether following a police beat-down or a road-rage incident, the commonly-uttered defense "I'm not a racist" is usually thrown out to protect one from accusations of what has now become the unforgivable sin.
It's become perfectly fashionable for a community leader to admit to all manner of indiscretions with reassurances such as "Nobody's perfect," "I made a mistake" and "I'm working through my issues with a counselor."
But I'm guessing it's going to be a while before you hear someone say something like this: "I've been dealing with ethnic prejudice for years. Bottom line is, I'm a racist, and I need help. I've been hiding this dark side of myself very well, but in a time of stress, my true colors were revealed."
In an age when public confession has become a mark of authenticity, one is more likely to hear a straightforward admission of criminal offense such as drug possession, prostitution or tax fraud than a perfectly legal social offense like racism, sexism or homophobia.
It's clear that some sins are still taboo ... and not the ones we would expect.
02 November 2007
Parable of the Cathedral at Chapel Hill
Verily I say unto you, there was once two priests who were brothers, and, behold, the wife of one of the brothers was barren after bearing a daughter. And, yea, that wife and the priest sought out the wisdom of the physicians of the land, and, behold, the physicians declared that it was the priest whose seed was corrupted, and not the womb of his wife. And, lo, that wife wept and cried to the Lord with great supplication and said, "O Lord, when wilt thou grant thy maidservant a manchild, that she may delight in his ways and carry on the name of thy maidservant's husband?" And, behold, the woman's heart leapt within her as she considered the countenance of her husband and that of her husband's brother. Yea, they were as one and winsome in appearance. Thus, she purposed in her heart to discuss this matter with her husband and with her husband's brother. And, behold, not many days hence, the brother of the priest with the corrupted seed went into her, and she conceived and bore a son, and they called his name Donnie. And, lo, they covenanted together to not reveal to Donnie or to the people of the land that which they had wrought. ....
... until now.
... until now.
Parable of the Cathedral at Chapel Hill
Verily I say unto you, there was once two priests who were brothers, and, behold, the wife of one of the brothers was barren after bearing a daughter. And, yea, that wife and the priest sought out the wisdom of the physicians of the land, and, behold, the physicians declared that it was the priest whose seed was corrupted, and not the womb of his wife. And, lo, that wife wept and cried to the Lord with great supplication and said, "O Lord, when wilt thou grant thy maidservant a manchild, that she may delight in his ways and carry on the name of thy maidservant's husband?" And, behold, the woman's heart leapt within her as she considered the countenance of her husband and that of her husband's brother. Yea, they were as one and winsome in appearance. Thus, she purposed in her heart to discuss this matter with her husband and with her husband's brother. And, behold, not many days hence, the brother of the priest with the corrupted seed went into her, and she conceived and bore a son, and they called his name Donnie. And, lo, they covenanted together to not reveal to Donnie or to the people of the land that which they had wrought. ....
... until now.
... until now.
23 October 2007
"The Arts Are in the Dark ..."
"The arts are in the dark, because nobody knows what it means to really live anymore."
That was just one of the nuggets I gleaned from Robert McKee's Story Seminar this past weekend in New York. Vilified by some, adored by others, McKee is considered a guru among Hollywood screenwriters, but the seminar had value for anyone in the communications world, anyone who needs to capture people’s attention with compelling narrative.
An avowed atheist and all-around curmudgeon, McKee is open with his disdain for organized religion (not “spirituality," he assures us). However, what I found most interesting was his decidedly traditional view of storytelling and how it reflects the broken human experience. McKee has run from his Catholic upbringing, but he has been unsuccessful in divesting himself of all remnants of a biblical worldview.
His frustration with Hollywood movies is not one of style, but one of form: McKee's complaint is that Western people can't tell good stories anymore. Why? Because good stories are forged in the heat of adversity--something Westerners have essentially eliminated from their cushioned lives. Good stories, whether or not they end with the bad guy getting away, must be wrapped around a moral spine of the author's belief in something. It is stories of sin, redemption, consequences, temptation and love, that people resonate with, McKee contends, not ambiguously artsy pieces, created by people who don't really believe much of anything, who let their tales wander aimlessly toward unresolved endings.
McKee's is an interesting insight that reveals the inconsistency of a world without God. The search of the soul for meaning, consistency and truth is a search for God Himself. As Augustine said, "We were made for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You."
That was just one of the nuggets I gleaned from Robert McKee's Story Seminar this past weekend in New York. Vilified by some, adored by others, McKee is considered a guru among Hollywood screenwriters, but the seminar had value for anyone in the communications world, anyone who needs to capture people’s attention with compelling narrative.
An avowed atheist and all-around curmudgeon, McKee is open with his disdain for organized religion (not “spirituality," he assures us). However, what I found most interesting was his decidedly traditional view of storytelling and how it reflects the broken human experience. McKee has run from his Catholic upbringing, but he has been unsuccessful in divesting himself of all remnants of a biblical worldview.
His frustration with Hollywood movies is not one of style, but one of form: McKee's complaint is that Western people can't tell good stories anymore. Why? Because good stories are forged in the heat of adversity--something Westerners have essentially eliminated from their cushioned lives. Good stories, whether or not they end with the bad guy getting away, must be wrapped around a moral spine of the author's belief in something. It is stories of sin, redemption, consequences, temptation and love, that people resonate with, McKee contends, not ambiguously artsy pieces, created by people who don't really believe much of anything, who let their tales wander aimlessly toward unresolved endings.
McKee's is an interesting insight that reveals the inconsistency of a world without God. The search of the soul for meaning, consistency and truth is a search for God Himself. As Augustine said, "We were made for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You."
"The Arts Are in the Dark ..."
"The arts are in the dark, because nobody knows what it means to really live anymore."
That was just one of the nuggets I gleaned from Robert McKee's Story Seminar this past weekend in New York. Vilified by some, adored by others, McKee is considered a guru among Hollywood screenwriters, but the seminar had value for anyone in the communications world, anyone who needs to capture people’s attention with compelling narrative.
An avowed atheist and all-around curmudgeon, McKee is open with his disdain for organized religion (not “spirituality," he assures us). However, what I found most interesting was his decidedly traditional view of storytelling and how it reflects the broken human experience. McKee has run from his Catholic upbringing, but he has been unsuccessful in divesting himself of all remnants of a biblical worldview.
His frustration with Hollywood movies is not one of style, but one of form: McKee's complaint is that Western people can't tell good stories anymore. Why? Because good stories are forged in the heat of adversity--something Westerners have essentially eliminated from their cushioned lives. Good stories, whether or not they end with the bad guy getting away, must be wrapped around a moral spine of the author's belief in something. It is stories of sin, redemption, consequences, temptation and love, that people resonate with, McKee contends, not ambiguously artsy pieces, created by people who don't really believe much of anything, who let their tales wander aimlessly toward unresolved endings.
McKee's is an interesting insight that reveals the inconsistency of a world without God. The search of the soul for meaning, consistency and truth is a search for God Himself. As Augustine said, "We were made for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You."
That was just one of the nuggets I gleaned from Robert McKee's Story Seminar this past weekend in New York. Vilified by some, adored by others, McKee is considered a guru among Hollywood screenwriters, but the seminar had value for anyone in the communications world, anyone who needs to capture people’s attention with compelling narrative.
An avowed atheist and all-around curmudgeon, McKee is open with his disdain for organized religion (not “spirituality," he assures us). However, what I found most interesting was his decidedly traditional view of storytelling and how it reflects the broken human experience. McKee has run from his Catholic upbringing, but he has been unsuccessful in divesting himself of all remnants of a biblical worldview.
His frustration with Hollywood movies is not one of style, but one of form: McKee's complaint is that Western people can't tell good stories anymore. Why? Because good stories are forged in the heat of adversity--something Westerners have essentially eliminated from their cushioned lives. Good stories, whether or not they end with the bad guy getting away, must be wrapped around a moral spine of the author's belief in something. It is stories of sin, redemption, consequences, temptation and love, that people resonate with, McKee contends, not ambiguously artsy pieces, created by people who don't really believe much of anything, who let their tales wander aimlessly toward unresolved endings.
McKee's is an interesting insight that reveals the inconsistency of a world without God. The search of the soul for meaning, consistency and truth is a search for God Himself. As Augustine said, "We were made for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You."
15 October 2007
"Become a Better Me": Why I Don't Really Want To
I met Joel Osteen in 2005, at the grand opening of the Lakewood Church's new digs at the Compaq Center. I was fortunate enough to sit in the front row and enjoy a nice meal afterward for VIPs, journalists, friends of the family, etc. The facility is stunning, the staff friendlier than Asian flight attendants and the music pitch perfect. The sermon that muggy Houston morning was about how the Osteen family overcame great odds in building a great church ... and (you guessed it) how you too can overcome great odds and be everything God wants you to be. Osteen was gracious, with his self-deprecating humor and "awe-shucks" persona. I have no reason to doubt that his integrity behind the scenes is beyond reproach.
The saddest part of the story, however, is to see a man with so much influence, so many people hanging on his every word, so many resources at his disposal for speaking the truth, squander the opportunity every time he steps behind the microphone or picks up a pen.
I read Osteen's first book, Your Best Life Now, but have no intention of reading his latest tome, Become a Better You. Unless something dramatically has changed in Osteen's life and theology (and this interview on CBS suggests it has not), this latest book is likely more of the same self-help-wrapped-in-Christian-lingo. For me, it has no discernible relation to the biblical gospel that I so desperately need on a daily basis.
I'm not interested in having a "better life"--my life is already better than that of most people in the world. I'm called to live a life that is effectively expended for the expansion of the gospel--whether by living or dying, poverty or riches, sickness or health, happiness or sadness.
I'm not interested in "becoming a better me"--and I would imagine that the prospect of me becoming a better version of myself is rather distasteful to God, as well. I'm called to self-sacrifice, not self-improvement. The improvement part's easy--I hate sacrifice.
Perhaps Osteen's message is not for people like me who have been raised in the church, are familiar with the gospel and whose personal and family lives are for the most part together. Maybe it's for the down-and-out, the desperate, the lonely, the depressed, people on the verge of financial collapse. But why bait the hook with a message of earthly self-improvement, hiding from people the reality of a gospel the demands of which are so uncomfortable and the benefits of which cannot be measured with the standards of Western culture?
The saddest part of the story, however, is to see a man with so much influence, so many people hanging on his every word, so many resources at his disposal for speaking the truth, squander the opportunity every time he steps behind the microphone or picks up a pen.
I read Osteen's first book, Your Best Life Now, but have no intention of reading his latest tome, Become a Better You. Unless something dramatically has changed in Osteen's life and theology (and this interview on CBS suggests it has not), this latest book is likely more of the same self-help-wrapped-in-Christian-lingo. For me, it has no discernible relation to the biblical gospel that I so desperately need on a daily basis.
I'm not interested in having a "better life"--my life is already better than that of most people in the world. I'm called to live a life that is effectively expended for the expansion of the gospel--whether by living or dying, poverty or riches, sickness or health, happiness or sadness.
I'm not interested in "becoming a better me"--and I would imagine that the prospect of me becoming a better version of myself is rather distasteful to God, as well. I'm called to self-sacrifice, not self-improvement. The improvement part's easy--I hate sacrifice.
Perhaps Osteen's message is not for people like me who have been raised in the church, are familiar with the gospel and whose personal and family lives are for the most part together. Maybe it's for the down-and-out, the desperate, the lonely, the depressed, people on the verge of financial collapse. But why bait the hook with a message of earthly self-improvement, hiding from people the reality of a gospel the demands of which are so uncomfortable and the benefits of which cannot be measured with the standards of Western culture?
"Become a Better Me": Why I Don't Really Want To
I met Joel Osteen in 2005, at the grand opening of the Lakewood Church's new digs at the Compaq Center. I was fortunate enough to sit in the front row and enjoy a nice meal afterward for VIPs, journalists, friends of the family, etc. The facility is stunning, the staff friendlier than Asian flight attendants and the music pitch perfect. The sermon that muggy Houston morning was about how the Osteen family overcame great odds in building a great church ... and (you guessed it) how you too can overcome great odds and be everything God wants you to be. Osteen was gracious, with his self-deprecating humor and "awe-shucks" persona. I have no reason to doubt that his integrity behind the scenes is beyond reproach.
The saddest part of the story, however, is to see a man with so much influence, so many people hanging on his every word, so many resources at his disposal for speaking the truth, squander the opportunity every time he steps behind the microphone or picks up a pen.
I read Osteen's first book, Your Best Life Now, but have no intention of reading his latest tome, Become a Better You. Unless something dramatically has changed in Osteen's life and theology (and this interview on CBS suggests it has not), this latest book is likely more of the same self-help-wrapped-in-Christian-lingo. For me, it has no discernible relation to the biblical gospel that I so desperately need on a daily basis.
I'm not interested in having a "better life"--my life is already better than that of most people in the world. I'm called to live a life that is effectively expended for the expansion of the gospel--whether by living or dying, poverty or riches, sickness or health, happiness or sadness.
I'm not interested in "becoming a better me"--and I would imagine that the prospect of me becoming a better version of myself is rather distasteful to God, as well. I'm called to self-sacrifice, not self-improvement. The improvement part's easy--I hate sacrifice.
Perhaps Osteen's message is not for people like me who have been raised in the church, are familiar with the gospel and whose personal and family lives are for the most part together. Maybe it's for the down-and-out, the desperate, the lonely, the depressed, people on the verge of financial collapse. But why bait the hook with a message of earthly self-improvement, hiding from people the reality of a gospel the demands of which are so uncomfortable and the benefits of which cannot be measured with the standards of Western culture?
The saddest part of the story, however, is to see a man with so much influence, so many people hanging on his every word, so many resources at his disposal for speaking the truth, squander the opportunity every time he steps behind the microphone or picks up a pen.
I read Osteen's first book, Your Best Life Now, but have no intention of reading his latest tome, Become a Better You. Unless something dramatically has changed in Osteen's life and theology (and this interview on CBS suggests it has not), this latest book is likely more of the same self-help-wrapped-in-Christian-lingo. For me, it has no discernible relation to the biblical gospel that I so desperately need on a daily basis.
I'm not interested in having a "better life"--my life is already better than that of most people in the world. I'm called to live a life that is effectively expended for the expansion of the gospel--whether by living or dying, poverty or riches, sickness or health, happiness or sadness.
I'm not interested in "becoming a better me"--and I would imagine that the prospect of me becoming a better version of myself is rather distasteful to God, as well. I'm called to self-sacrifice, not self-improvement. The improvement part's easy--I hate sacrifice.
Perhaps Osteen's message is not for people like me who have been raised in the church, are familiar with the gospel and whose personal and family lives are for the most part together. Maybe it's for the down-and-out, the desperate, the lonely, the depressed, people on the verge of financial collapse. But why bait the hook with a message of earthly self-improvement, hiding from people the reality of a gospel the demands of which are so uncomfortable and the benefits of which cannot be measured with the standards of Western culture?
08 October 2007
Where's John Adams When We Need Him?
Three things make me less likely to vote for a political candidate this primary season:
Fear-mongering:
"Republicans want to take health benefits from children ..."
"My opponent would be happy if we lost the war on terror ..."
Pandering:
"I think we should give every baby in America $5,000 ..."
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ..."
Generalities:
"Faith plays an important part in my life and politics ..."
"We need to bring this country back to God ..."
It doesn't really matter who said these things, because almost every candidate I've heard so far this political season has said something similar. While our citizens have access to more education, information and context than ever before, political candidates are offering pabulum for the lowest common denominator--like medieval manor lords appeasing the barely-literate, pitchfork-wielding peasant rabble storming the drawbridge with a list of grievances.
I don't want to get rosy-eyed, but in the early days of this country, politicians seemed to expect more intelligence and critical thinking on the part of their constituents. Chew on some witty, intelligent and provocative nuggets from John Adams, one of our greatest and least-appreciated presidents:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
"The happiness of society is the end of government."
Fear-mongering:
"Republicans want to take health benefits from children ..."
"My opponent would be happy if we lost the war on terror ..."
Pandering:
"I think we should give every baby in America $5,000 ..."
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ..."
Generalities:
"Faith plays an important part in my life and politics ..."
"We need to bring this country back to God ..."
It doesn't really matter who said these things, because almost every candidate I've heard so far this political season has said something similar. While our citizens have access to more education, information and context than ever before, political candidates are offering pabulum for the lowest common denominator--like medieval manor lords appeasing the barely-literate, pitchfork-wielding peasant rabble storming the drawbridge with a list of grievances.
I don't want to get rosy-eyed, but in the early days of this country, politicians seemed to expect more intelligence and critical thinking on the part of their constituents. Chew on some witty, intelligent and provocative nuggets from John Adams, one of our greatest and least-appreciated presidents:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
"The happiness of society is the end of government."
Where's John Adams When We Need Him?
Three things make me less likely to vote for a political candidate this primary season:
Fear-mongering:
"Republicans want to take health benefits from children ..."
"My opponent would be happy if we lost the war on terror ..."
Pandering:
"I think we should give every baby in America $5,000 ..."
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ..."
Generalities:
"Faith plays an important part in my life and politics ..."
"We need to bring this country back to God ..."
It doesn't really matter who said these things, because almost every candidate I've heard so far this political season has said something similar. While our citizens have access to more education, information and context than ever before, political candidates are offering pabulum for the lowest common denominator--like medieval manor lords appeasing the barely-literate, pitchfork-wielding peasant rabble storming the drawbridge with a list of grievances.
I don't want to get rosy-eyed, but in the early days of this country, politicians seemed to expect more intelligence and critical thinking on the part of their constituents. Chew on some witty, intelligent and provocative nuggets from John Adams, one of our greatest and least-appreciated presidents:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
"The happiness of society is the end of government."
Fear-mongering:
"Republicans want to take health benefits from children ..."
"My opponent would be happy if we lost the war on terror ..."
Pandering:
"I think we should give every baby in America $5,000 ..."
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve ..."
Generalities:
"Faith plays an important part in my life and politics ..."
"We need to bring this country back to God ..."
It doesn't really matter who said these things, because almost every candidate I've heard so far this political season has said something similar. While our citizens have access to more education, information and context than ever before, political candidates are offering pabulum for the lowest common denominator--like medieval manor lords appeasing the barely-literate, pitchfork-wielding peasant rabble storming the drawbridge with a list of grievances.
I don't want to get rosy-eyed, but in the early days of this country, politicians seemed to expect more intelligence and critical thinking on the part of their constituents. Chew on some witty, intelligent and provocative nuggets from John Adams, one of our greatest and least-appreciated presidents:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak."
"The happiness of society is the end of government."
04 October 2007
A Few Observations on the ORU Debacle [UPDATED]
Oral Roberts University and its current president, Richard Roberts, are being sued by former professors who claim they were fired/pressured to resign because (1) they took issue with being asked to use students and the resources of the school to promote political candidates, and (2) because they revealed evidence of ethical problems in the school's leadership to the board of regents.
Although Roberts claims that the professors are motivated by money, but it should be noted that they are only suing for $10,000 each--which would seem like a paltry amount by today's litigious standards. Also, The litigants appear to be positively inclined toward the school, in spite of the fact that they were fired, withholding "some of the more salacious entries" in the lawsuit from public view for the sake of the school's reputation.
It's still early to determine whether the allegations against the school--and, more specifically, the Roberts family--are valid, but the most surprising thing to me about the debacle is that the professors actually thought they would get somewhere by following the conventional paths of accountability and expressing their concerns to the board of regents. It would seem that the board of regents may be the problem--not the solution--with ORU. Why? The board is largely composed of ministry friends of the Roberts--many of whom themselves have dubious reputations, in terms of doctrine, ethics and accountability. For instance, if you were in their shoes, would you take such concerns to ...
- Creflo Dollar, who claims Jesus was not divine until His baptism ...
- Kenneth Copeland, who suggests that Christians are "little gods" ...
- Jesse DuPlantis, who is a Christian comedian/evangelist who recently raised $10 million for a private jet ...
- John Hagee, who argues that Jews do not need to accept Christ to be saved ...
- Benny Hinn, who is known for spending $3,000 for a single night in a hotel--on the ministry dime ...
- I.V. Hilliard, who threw a 50th birthday party for his wife, invited his congregants to come, charged them $100 a plate--and then encouraged them to buy her gift cards to expensive boutiques ...
- Marilyn Hickey, who is best known for hawking anointed prayer clothes ...
If you have concerns with financial manipulation, inappropriate benefiting of family members from donor money, weird theology or inadequate leadership accountability, these are not the people to complain to.
“Raise up your students to hear My voice, to go where My light is dim, where My voice is heard small, and My healing power is not known, even to the uttermost bounds of the earth. Their work will exceed yours, and in this I am well pleased” (the prophecy Oral Roberts claimed God gave him that led to the founding of ORU).
Roberts' vision in founding the university that bears his name was a noble one, but I wonder if the "light" he speaks of has been dimmed by association with people with cavalier attitudes toward sound doctrine, ethical fund raising and ministry accountability.
Although Roberts claims that the professors are motivated by money, but it should be noted that they are only suing for $10,000 each--which would seem like a paltry amount by today's litigious standards. Also, The litigants appear to be positively inclined toward the school, in spite of the fact that they were fired, withholding "some of the more salacious entries" in the lawsuit from public view for the sake of the school's reputation.
It's still early to determine whether the allegations against the school--and, more specifically, the Roberts family--are valid, but the most surprising thing to me about the debacle is that the professors actually thought they would get somewhere by following the conventional paths of accountability and expressing their concerns to the board of regents. It would seem that the board of regents may be the problem--not the solution--with ORU. Why? The board is largely composed of ministry friends of the Roberts--many of whom themselves have dubious reputations, in terms of doctrine, ethics and accountability. For instance, if you were in their shoes, would you take such concerns to ...
- Creflo Dollar, who claims Jesus was not divine until His baptism ...
- Kenneth Copeland, who suggests that Christians are "little gods" ...
- Jesse DuPlantis, who is a Christian comedian/evangelist who recently raised $10 million for a private jet ...
- John Hagee, who argues that Jews do not need to accept Christ to be saved ...
- Benny Hinn, who is known for spending $3,000 for a single night in a hotel--on the ministry dime ...
- I.V. Hilliard, who threw a 50th birthday party for his wife, invited his congregants to come, charged them $100 a plate--and then encouraged them to buy her gift cards to expensive boutiques ...
- Marilyn Hickey, who is best known for hawking anointed prayer clothes ...
If you have concerns with financial manipulation, inappropriate benefiting of family members from donor money, weird theology or inadequate leadership accountability, these are not the people to complain to.
“Raise up your students to hear My voice, to go where My light is dim, where My voice is heard small, and My healing power is not known, even to the uttermost bounds of the earth. Their work will exceed yours, and in this I am well pleased” (the prophecy Oral Roberts claimed God gave him that led to the founding of ORU).
Roberts' vision in founding the university that bears his name was a noble one, but I wonder if the "light" he speaks of has been dimmed by association with people with cavalier attitudes toward sound doctrine, ethical fund raising and ministry accountability.
I'm a Delinquent Parent
In dealing with the absence of a full-time graphic designer on my team, I'm learning a few basic functions of Photoshop. Here's some practice: Maddie leaping from the top of a 30-foot waterfall. Really, she and her brother were jumping from the dining room table, while our exchange student Min Hee took pictures of them. What's the worst that could happen?
A Few Observations on the ORU Debacle [UPDATED]
Oral Roberts University and its current president, Richard Roberts, are being sued by former professors who claim they were fired/pressured to resign because (1) they took issue with being asked to use students and the resources of the school to promote political candidates, and (2) because they revealed evidence of ethical problems in the school's leadership to the board of regents.
Although Roberts claims that the professors are motivated by money, but it should be noted that they are only suing for $10,000 each--which would seem like a paltry amount by today's litigious standards. Also, The litigants appear to be positively inclined toward the school, in spite of the fact that they were fired, withholding "some of the more salacious entries" in the lawsuit from public view for the sake of the school's reputation.
It's still early to determine whether the allegations against the school--and, more specifically, the Roberts family--are valid, but the most surprising thing to me about the debacle is that the professors actually thought they would get somewhere by following the conventional paths of accountability and expressing their concerns to the board of regents. It would seem that the board of regents may be the problem--not the solution--with ORU. Why? The board is largely composed of ministry friends of the Roberts--many of whom themselves have dubious reputations, in terms of doctrine, ethics and accountability. For instance, if you were in their shoes, would you take such concerns to ...
- Creflo Dollar, who claims Jesus was not divine until His baptism ...
- Kenneth Copeland, who suggests that Christians are "little gods" ...
- Jesse DuPlantis, who is a Christian comedian/evangelist who recently raised $10 million for a private jet ...
- John Hagee, who argues that Jews do not need to accept Christ to be saved ...
- Benny Hinn, who is known for spending $3,000 for a single night in a hotel--on the ministry dime ...
- I.V. Hilliard, who threw a 50th birthday party for his wife, invited his congregants to come, charged them $100 a plate--and then encouraged them to buy her gift cards to expensive boutiques ...
- Marilyn Hickey, who is best known for hawking anointed prayer clothes ...
If you have concerns with financial manipulation, inappropriate benefiting of family members from donor money, weird theology or inadequate leadership accountability, these are not the people to complain to.
“Raise up your students to hear My voice, to go where My light is dim, where My voice is heard small, and My healing power is not known, even to the uttermost bounds of the earth. Their work will exceed yours, and in this I am well pleased” (the prophecy Oral Roberts claimed God gave him that led to the founding of ORU).
Roberts' vision in founding the university that bears his name was a noble one, but I wonder if the "light" he speaks of has been dimmed by association with people with cavalier attitudes toward sound doctrine, ethical fund raising and ministry accountability.
Although Roberts claims that the professors are motivated by money, but it should be noted that they are only suing for $10,000 each--which would seem like a paltry amount by today's litigious standards. Also, The litigants appear to be positively inclined toward the school, in spite of the fact that they were fired, withholding "some of the more salacious entries" in the lawsuit from public view for the sake of the school's reputation.
It's still early to determine whether the allegations against the school--and, more specifically, the Roberts family--are valid, but the most surprising thing to me about the debacle is that the professors actually thought they would get somewhere by following the conventional paths of accountability and expressing their concerns to the board of regents. It would seem that the board of regents may be the problem--not the solution--with ORU. Why? The board is largely composed of ministry friends of the Roberts--many of whom themselves have dubious reputations, in terms of doctrine, ethics and accountability. For instance, if you were in their shoes, would you take such concerns to ...
- Creflo Dollar, who claims Jesus was not divine until His baptism ...
- Kenneth Copeland, who suggests that Christians are "little gods" ...
- Jesse DuPlantis, who is a Christian comedian/evangelist who recently raised $10 million for a private jet ...
- John Hagee, who argues that Jews do not need to accept Christ to be saved ...
- Benny Hinn, who is known for spending $3,000 for a single night in a hotel--on the ministry dime ...
- I.V. Hilliard, who threw a 50th birthday party for his wife, invited his congregants to come, charged them $100 a plate--and then encouraged them to buy her gift cards to expensive boutiques ...
- Marilyn Hickey, who is best known for hawking anointed prayer clothes ...
If you have concerns with financial manipulation, inappropriate benefiting of family members from donor money, weird theology or inadequate leadership accountability, these are not the people to complain to.
“Raise up your students to hear My voice, to go where My light is dim, where My voice is heard small, and My healing power is not known, even to the uttermost bounds of the earth. Their work will exceed yours, and in this I am well pleased” (the prophecy Oral Roberts claimed God gave him that led to the founding of ORU).
Roberts' vision in founding the university that bears his name was a noble one, but I wonder if the "light" he speaks of has been dimmed by association with people with cavalier attitudes toward sound doctrine, ethical fund raising and ministry accountability.
I'm a Delinquent Parent
In dealing with the absence of a full-time graphic designer on my team, I'm learning a few basic functions of Photoshop. Here's some practice: Maddie leaping from the top of a 30-foot waterfall. Really, she and her brother were jumping from the dining room table, while our exchange student Min Hee took pictures of them. What's the worst that could happen?
23 August 2007
Two [Not Entirely Unrelated] Stories
First, Pentecostal pastor Thomas Wesley Weeks III beats up his wife, televangelist Juanita Bynum, after an attempt to reconcile their faltering marriage fails. Then, co-pastors Randy and Paula White announce to their church that they are divorcing.
Unrelated stories? Not really, when one considers the similarity of the couples' situations--and the apathy with which their high-profile peers in the charismatic/Pentecostal community faced them.
Within months after the $1-million Bynum-Weeks wedding in '02 (second marriages for both of them) officiated by none other San Antonio pastor John Hagee, they were selling DVDs of the event on TBN and had put together a curriculum and book called Teach Me How to Love You. They were welcomed by prominent churches to conduct marriage seminars, and Bynum had styled herself as the "Dr. Ruth of Christendom." (In this disturbing clip of one of Bynum/Weeks' seminars, Weeks encourages a couple to have sex in an elevator, to spice up their marriage.)
Did anyone pull them aside and encourage them to give their marriage more time before promoting themselves as experts of matrimony?
Then, there's the Whites. Like the Weeks, they had both been married and divorced before meeting each other. The ministries of both husbands had been eclipsed in recent years by that of their more-prominent wives. Both couples had become so sought-after that they were living in separate locales to better accommodate the demands of their individual ministries.
Yet, even as their marriages were crumbling beneath them, their ministries were fully booked. Among other engagements, Paula is scheduled to host the "Satisfied Woman" event in Orlando the end of August and speak at John Hagee's Cornerstone Church in September. Juanita's recent schedule is chock-full of engagements from teaching at women's conferences to hosting TBN's "Praise the Lord."
Sure, I suppose the couples could have hidden their troubles from those closest to them, but it's probably just another situation in which "the show must go on." Both couples had built ministries on their larger than life personas. (Don't believe me? Count the number of times their pictures appear on the front pages of their Websites.) There were employees to pay. Jet fuel to purchase. Offerings to take. With that many people looking up to you, it just doesn't pay to be real.
Unrelated stories? Not really, when one considers the similarity of the couples' situations--and the apathy with which their high-profile peers in the charismatic/Pentecostal community faced them.
Within months after the $1-million Bynum-Weeks wedding in '02 (second marriages for both of them) officiated by none other San Antonio pastor John Hagee, they were selling DVDs of the event on TBN and had put together a curriculum and book called Teach Me How to Love You. They were welcomed by prominent churches to conduct marriage seminars, and Bynum had styled herself as the "Dr. Ruth of Christendom." (In this disturbing clip of one of Bynum/Weeks' seminars, Weeks encourages a couple to have sex in an elevator, to spice up their marriage.)
Did anyone pull them aside and encourage them to give their marriage more time before promoting themselves as experts of matrimony?
Then, there's the Whites. Like the Weeks, they had both been married and divorced before meeting each other. The ministries of both husbands had been eclipsed in recent years by that of their more-prominent wives. Both couples had become so sought-after that they were living in separate locales to better accommodate the demands of their individual ministries.
Yet, even as their marriages were crumbling beneath them, their ministries were fully booked. Among other engagements, Paula is scheduled to host the "Satisfied Woman" event in Orlando the end of August and speak at John Hagee's Cornerstone Church in September. Juanita's recent schedule is chock-full of engagements from teaching at women's conferences to hosting TBN's "Praise the Lord."
Sure, I suppose the couples could have hidden their troubles from those closest to them, but it's probably just another situation in which "the show must go on." Both couples had built ministries on their larger than life personas. (Don't believe me? Count the number of times their pictures appear on the front pages of their Websites.) There were employees to pay. Jet fuel to purchase. Offerings to take. With that many people looking up to you, it just doesn't pay to be real.
Two [Not Entirely Unrelated] Stories
First, Pentecostal pastor Thomas Wesley Weeks III beats up his wife, televangelist Juanita Bynum, after an attempt to reconcile their faltering marriage fails. Then, co-pastors Randy and Paula White announce to their church that they are divorcing.
Unrelated stories? Not really, when one considers the similarity of the couples' situations--and the apathy with which their high-profile peers in the charismatic/Pentecostal community faced them.
Within months after the $1-million Bynum-Weeks wedding in '02 (second marriages for both of them) officiated by none other San Antonio pastor John Hagee, they were selling DVDs of the event on TBN and had put together a curriculum and book called Teach Me How to Love You. They were welcomed by prominent churches to conduct marriage seminars, and Bynum had styled herself as the "Dr. Ruth of Christendom." (In this disturbing clip of one of Bynum/Weeks' seminars, Weeks encourages a couple to have sex in an elevator, to spice up their marriage.)
Did anyone pull them aside and encourage them to give their marriage more time before promoting themselves as experts of matrimony?
Then, there's the Whites. Like the Weeks, they had both been married and divorced before meeting each other. The ministries of both husbands had been eclipsed in recent years by that of their more-prominent wives. Both couples had become so sought-after that they were living in separate locales to better accommodate the demands of their individual ministries.
Yet, even as their marriages were crumbling beneath them, their ministries were fully booked. Among other engagements, Paula is scheduled to host the "Satisfied Woman" event in Orlando the end of August and speak at John Hagee's Cornerstone Church in September. Juanita's recent schedule is chock-full of engagements from teaching at women's conferences to hosting TBN's "Praise the Lord."
Sure, I suppose the couples could have hidden their troubles from those closest to them, but it's probably just another situation in which "the show must go on." Both couples had built ministries on their larger than life personas. (Don't believe me? Count the number of times their pictures appear on the front pages of their Websites.) There were employees to pay. Jet fuel to purchase. Offerings to take. With that many people looking up to you, it just doesn't pay to be real.
Unrelated stories? Not really, when one considers the similarity of the couples' situations--and the apathy with which their high-profile peers in the charismatic/Pentecostal community faced them.
Within months after the $1-million Bynum-Weeks wedding in '02 (second marriages for both of them) officiated by none other San Antonio pastor John Hagee, they were selling DVDs of the event on TBN and had put together a curriculum and book called Teach Me How to Love You. They were welcomed by prominent churches to conduct marriage seminars, and Bynum had styled herself as the "Dr. Ruth of Christendom." (In this disturbing clip of one of Bynum/Weeks' seminars, Weeks encourages a couple to have sex in an elevator, to spice up their marriage.)
Did anyone pull them aside and encourage them to give their marriage more time before promoting themselves as experts of matrimony?
Then, there's the Whites. Like the Weeks, they had both been married and divorced before meeting each other. The ministries of both husbands had been eclipsed in recent years by that of their more-prominent wives. Both couples had become so sought-after that they were living in separate locales to better accommodate the demands of their individual ministries.
Yet, even as their marriages were crumbling beneath them, their ministries were fully booked. Among other engagements, Paula is scheduled to host the "Satisfied Woman" event in Orlando the end of August and speak at John Hagee's Cornerstone Church in September. Juanita's recent schedule is chock-full of engagements from teaching at women's conferences to hosting TBN's "Praise the Lord."
Sure, I suppose the couples could have hidden their troubles from those closest to them, but it's probably just another situation in which "the show must go on." Both couples had built ministries on their larger than life personas. (Don't believe me? Count the number of times their pictures appear on the front pages of their Websites.) There were employees to pay. Jet fuel to purchase. Offerings to take. With that many people looking up to you, it just doesn't pay to be real.
20 August 2007
Nate and the Race Debate
Nathan (9) has never had much time for racial distinctions. But today, he had an interesting question as he watched our African-American neighbors on their morning walk. The husband was carrying a golf club to ward off the errant loose dog:
Why is that guy carrying a stick? Does he still think it's the time when people didn't like brown people?
Why is that guy carrying a stick? Does he still think it's the time when people didn't like brown people?
Nate and the Race Debate
Nathan (9) has never had much time for racial distinctions. But today, he had an interesting question as he watched our African-American neighbors on their morning walk. The husband was carrying a golf club to ward off the errant loose dog:
Why is that guy carrying a stick? Does he still think it's the time when people didn't like brown people?
Why is that guy carrying a stick? Does he still think it's the time when people didn't like brown people?
19 August 2007
Reverse Contextualization?
A Dutch Roman Catholic bishop is advocating the word "God" be replaced by "Allah" in order to generate greater acceptance and understanding among Muslims:
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God," he said. "Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? What does God care what we call him? It is our problem."
This is not a new idea. Since the word "God" in Arabic is "Allah", Christians in Arabic-speaking contexts use the word in reference to the God of the Bible. Christian missionaries to Arabic-speaking countries have wrestled with the potential confusion of using the word "Allah" in communicating the gospel. But I don't imagine Bishop Muskens is advocating this change to accommodate the ex-Muslim seekers flocking to his church.
He may be acting in ironic prescience, in light of the fact that, within the next 30 years, the Netherlands could be the second Muslim nation in Europe ... behind France.
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God," he said. "Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? What does God care what we call him? It is our problem."
This is not a new idea. Since the word "God" in Arabic is "Allah", Christians in Arabic-speaking contexts use the word in reference to the God of the Bible. Christian missionaries to Arabic-speaking countries have wrestled with the potential confusion of using the word "Allah" in communicating the gospel. But I don't imagine Bishop Muskens is advocating this change to accommodate the ex-Muslim seekers flocking to his church.
He may be acting in ironic prescience, in light of the fact that, within the next 30 years, the Netherlands could be the second Muslim nation in Europe ... behind France.
Reverse Contextualization?
A Dutch Roman Catholic bishop is advocating the word "God" be replaced by "Allah" in order to generate greater acceptance and understanding among Muslims:
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God," he said. "Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? What does God care what we call him? It is our problem."
This is not a new idea. Since the word "God" in Arabic is "Allah", Christians in Arabic-speaking contexts use the word in reference to the God of the Bible. Christian missionaries to Arabic-speaking countries have wrestled with the potential confusion of using the word "Allah" in communicating the gospel. But I don't imagine Bishop Muskens is advocating this change to accommodate the ex-Muslim seekers flocking to his church.
He may be acting in ironic prescience, in light of the fact that, within the next 30 years, the Netherlands could be the second Muslim nation in Europe ... behind France.
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God," he said. "Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? What does God care what we call him? It is our problem."
This is not a new idea. Since the word "God" in Arabic is "Allah", Christians in Arabic-speaking contexts use the word in reference to the God of the Bible. Christian missionaries to Arabic-speaking countries have wrestled with the potential confusion of using the word "Allah" in communicating the gospel. But I don't imagine Bishop Muskens is advocating this change to accommodate the ex-Muslim seekers flocking to his church.
He may be acting in ironic prescience, in light of the fact that, within the next 30 years, the Netherlands could be the second Muslim nation in Europe ... behind France.
28 July 2007
What Color Is Jesus?
For me to disagree with something said by John Piper is pretty unusual. In this very brief audio clip at the Desiring God blog (and I don't know the context, so I hope it represents the fullness of what he was saying), Piper suggests that artistic representations of Jesus should be racially diverse, since we don't know what Jesus looked like and we should strive to emphasize that His incarnation encompassed all people groups. I wouldn't necessarily call this a strong disagreement, because I have several art books in which Jesus is represented as Asian, Native-American, African, etc. I like these pictures, because they remind me of the eyes through which other cultures see the gospel.
However, these artistic representations have their limitations--and may even be misleading. Why? Jesus' incarnation is inextricably connected to His prophetic role as the Jewish Messiah, therefore to represent Him as anything other than as close an approximation as we can get to a 1st-century Jewish man is to misrepresent Him. He is an historical person, not a subjective idea around which our cultural perceptions may be wrapped.
His Jewishness was that which identified Him as the Messiah to those Jews who accepted Him, that which gave Him a right to claim to be the Son of God, to heal, to cast out demons, to be raised from the dead. Had He been a woman, a gentile, born anywhere but Bethlehem, of anyone other than a virgin, He would not have been the Messiah.
This does pose a challenge to contexualization in mission. The idea of importing a foreign god into another culture is distasteful--and some missionaries have been guilty of foisting a white, Anglo-Saxon Jesus on the people groups they are attempting to reach. But Jesus' role as the redeemer of the nations is inseparable from His role as the redeemer of Israel, and this historical/theological/biblical reality should not be ignored in our attempts to make the gospel understandable to those who have not heard.
However, these artistic representations have their limitations--and may even be misleading. Why? Jesus' incarnation is inextricably connected to His prophetic role as the Jewish Messiah, therefore to represent Him as anything other than as close an approximation as we can get to a 1st-century Jewish man is to misrepresent Him. He is an historical person, not a subjective idea around which our cultural perceptions may be wrapped.
His Jewishness was that which identified Him as the Messiah to those Jews who accepted Him, that which gave Him a right to claim to be the Son of God, to heal, to cast out demons, to be raised from the dead. Had He been a woman, a gentile, born anywhere but Bethlehem, of anyone other than a virgin, He would not have been the Messiah.
This does pose a challenge to contexualization in mission. The idea of importing a foreign god into another culture is distasteful--and some missionaries have been guilty of foisting a white, Anglo-Saxon Jesus on the people groups they are attempting to reach. But Jesus' role as the redeemer of the nations is inseparable from His role as the redeemer of Israel, and this historical/theological/biblical reality should not be ignored in our attempts to make the gospel understandable to those who have not heard.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)