update

It's f***ing snowing in Kansas City in April! Don't they know it's baseball season!!

(Sorry for bleeping out the word up there. My mom would flip if she knew I used the word "freak" in my everyday vocabulary.)

Maundy Thursday

Peter or Judas?

My Friend Russell Easterwood

I just discovered the my friend Russell Easterwood has a new website. I know Russell through the Church and I very excited about this. I strongly urge you to check it out and possible buy some form of his art! I think at the moment he only has the cards he makes available. Check it out!

a philosophy of The Terminator

Since the end of January, I have been an ardent watcher of the new television show, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. So far this is really a decent show! I have to admit that I was a fan of all things “Terminator” because of the movies, so I am not convinced that the show will convert anyone necessarily. I agree that there is an inherent problem that arises when a TV show or film is based around some sort of time travel concept. Plus, they can be pretty cheesy! Nonetheless such problems should not detract what he overall depth of a story (just ask any LOSTies after last Thursday time travel episode, which was phenomenal).

Something struck me in last week’s episode of Terminator. In the closing monologue, Sarah Connor narrates these words.

“Science now performs miracles like the god’s of old. Creating life from blood cells or bacteria or a spark of metal. But they are perfect creatures, and in that way they couldn’t be less human. There are things machines will never do. They cannot possess faith. They cannot commune with God. They cannot appreciate beauty. They cannot create art. If they ever learn these things, they won’t have to destroy us. They’ll be us.”

Don’t assume right off the bat that I am making any one-to-one correlations between this narration and the Christian faith. Nonetheless, what I find most interesting about these words is the concept of humanity. This narration seems to suggest that faith/communing with God and the ability to create art are the primary characteristics of what makes one human. These words take on much more depth and significance when heard while watching the scene unfold. In the show Sarah narrates the last part of these words over a scene where Thomas, a human from the future, is watching Cameron, the terminator sent back in time to project John Connor, performing ballet. Thus, one understands the perplexity revealed in his face when he sees a machine, artificial intelligence doing that which most characterizes humanity, performing art; something beautiful. A friend of mine raised a very poignant question about whether or not Cameron was just repeating what she saw in her ballet class. As a machine/articificial intelligence, she has the ability to repeat anything she sees or hears.

Another interesting point to consider is the perplexity of Thomas’s face. Consider how the roles reverse when human’s become so bent on their own survival that they neglect to do the very things that make them human (as revealed in the quote). Perhaps in trying to survive against the machines/artificial intelligence, humanity has turned into them: cold, ruthless, and narrow-minded.

Rubik's Cube

I learned how to solve a Rubik's cube! Now it's a matter of speed. So far 3 minutes, 18.53 seconds is my personal best. Fascinating.

what do you think?

If you occasionally scroll my blog role and are particularly intuitive, you might have made the connection that my dad blogs! He is a pastor in Pasadena, CA at Bresee Church of the Nazarene. He has posted something over at his blog that is a particularly hot issue for a few people on the district with whom he is in conversation. He is asking for some comments regarding a quote that is of particular importance. So, head on over his way and help a pastor out! I have posted his post here, but comments there will ensure that he sees them in his email. It's real issues like these that make blogging particularly helpful. Thanks!

Wondering if anyone might respond to the following statement:

"A social justice that does not call forth repentance in persons is not the social
justice revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ."

Any feedback (pro or con) will be appreciated, as I am in an ongoing discussion with several people who wonder about the way the church is choosing to address issues that come under the umbrella of Social Justice. This quote came up the other day, and I really would like some feedback.

Thanks,
Rick

musica

What do you listen to when you study?

World?

I have been thinking about humanities relationship to sin as both victim and perpetrator. In my New Testament theology class we watch House of Sand and Fog, which was to serve as a way to see just how intertwined we all really are in this organic complex we call sin. The point of watching this movie was also to understand that sin as pride, or intentionally disobeying God, doesn’t come close to grasping the dynamics of sin in this world. I might post on the movie later, for now you just need to go watch. Ask yourself when the movie ends, “who sinned, this man or his parents?” You’ll understand when you get there.

Now, back to what I was saying about being a victim and a perpetrator. I just received an email from Nazarene Compassionate Ministries. It’s one they send out to everyone who is interested. This email stated the good news that the Church of the Nazarene has surpassed one million members in world mission’s areas. It’s good news the many are becoming followers of Jesus. However, I am concerned about the disunity inherent in the language. The “world” of “world missions” completely excludes the United States! I am not really going to go into this. I just wanted to point out that when we create statistic like this we further fuel our participation in this organic complex of sin. We create opportunities to be the victims of sins ripple effects. Likewise, we become the perpetrators that oppress those who are forced to identify themselves as the “world” of “world missions” by placing our selves (the U.S. Nazarenes) at the top as the ones who have all the answers, thus the one’s who can be missional.

I will hold my comments about the decline in U.S. Nazarene membership for another day.

The First Day of Spring

Today's poem is brought to you by my friend John Swanton. John has been a faithful part of Trinity Church of the Nazarene for a few years now. His faithfulness to God and the Church challenges me every time I think about him. I am grateful for his friendship. While he is a baseball fan, his desire to serve God much exceeds his love for the game. And he's from Boston! Note, this poem was penned yesterday, which applies to the context.

Todays the day, so splendid in deed.
The first day of spring, so to me heed.
Though snow may fly and cold be bitter,
so do report pitcher, catcher, and hitter.
It comes upon us quickly and did sneak
our calender so useless and oblique.
What say you all? It's February still?
I hear your doubts and pray that you will
Regard not that weekly ledger you keep,
but look towards the ballpark, what fortune it shall bring
For today is surely the first day of spring.

Indeed, John. Indeed.

non-profit's

As my last post indicated, I am taking a class on non-profit management. I thought it might be helpful/interesting to find what all my readers (ha ha) think in general about non-profits. So, what are the pros and cons of non-profit organizations? How do they inform our ecclesiology? How does our ecclesiology inform them? Are there underlying assumptions about participation in the state that is problemactic for the Church? Can non-profits become that which transcends state participation, thus becoming a witness to the state by subverting it's "power?" These are just some thoughts. Feel free to post another good question if you don't have any answers. I love me some good questions!

insomnia

I was in a class tonight on non-profit management where we were discussing Nehemiah 2:1-5, particularly that part about Nehemiah being sad in his heart. Our topic for the evening was on being passionate and purposeful. We considered a working definition of love as insight, or perception of the situation, anger/outrage at the injustice, and identification with those oppressed and marginalized. Our teacher asked us a question that I will now ask here.

"When have you ever had a sleepless night? When were you so angry/outraged that your whole being was affected?

So...

Big LOST Questions

LOST kicked off its fourth season on Thursday. I, however, decided that I had better not watch the first episode and attend the last day of class for my Spring module. Big decisions have to be made! So, I watch the episode today at a friends house which sparked a conversation about some of the questions that we had about the show and what we thought might happen in the end. The conversation made me wonder about the bigger, overarching questions that we all have about the show. I got to wondering just what are the questions people are asking that would need answering if the show was going to provide some sort of closure. Here are a few we came up with. Did I miss any? I'm sure I did.

What is the Island?
How do you get to the Island?
Who is Jacob?
What does 4 8 15 16 23 42 mean?

There are of course more poignant questions so feel free to ask those as well.

Who is Penny?
Did Desmond travel in time?
What does Lock really know?
Who is Ben?

What are we going to do today, Scott? Try and subvert the empire!

In light of a class I am taking on Colossians, I thought it might be fun to offer various ways one might subvert the empire. I am open to any and all suggestions. And please, be creative.

oh wait, you're sad again

So I have been thinking a lot about deconstruction in the past month or so. I got a wild hair (that’s for you Brandon) to read a book summarizing the life and thought of Jacques Derrida. After my brain finished imploding, I was ready to entertain John Caputo’s What Would Jesus Deconstruct? I really enjoyed this book! All of this leads me to what I have been reading in the book of Philippians.

“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

OMG! (That’s, “oh my God!” for all you non IMing, Google-chatting folk). Paul, you’re so crazy! As if we could ever be so presumptuous to not fear and tremble before God. But then again, it is God who is at work. And perhaps we are a bit presumptuous, or smug in our perceptions about the world. And because we can’t box God in a corner (God is unboxable; He can’t be boxed), we have to allow Him to roam free a bit. Therefore, our salvation must be worked out with fear and trembling because it God, the unboxable, who works it in us. Our presumptions must be constantly challenged (deconstructed, if you will). And for what? To enable us to will (desire) and work (perform) for His (God’s) good pleasure. God works salvation in our lives for his own happiness! But God, "if it makes you happy then why the hell are you so sad?" Oh yeah, the whole fear and trembling thing. But in all reality, the whole fear and trembling thing really isn’t cool these days for us postmodern - folk - who - want - to - be - on - an - aimless - journey - with - no - absolutes - who - still - talk - way - too - much - as - if - they - have - something - to - say. Wait, that's not fair to Christian postmoderns (who still talk way too much!) Oh wait, your sad again.

I suppose you might say that if you want to see deconstruction applied to the Christian life (can deconstruction really be applied at all) find the one who fears and trembles before God.

re-imagine

The good news of the gospel is that we can re-imagine the world. We can see things the way they are; the way God sees them. It’s difficult to re-imagine the world when your next-door neighbor had their car stolen right out of their driveway not one hour after she had arrived home. Why do the folks who can’t afford to buy a new car have to be the one’s who have their car stolen in the first place? The older cars are easier to break into, I suppose. However, the reason she is driving a 1990 Buick in the first place is because she can’t afford to buy a “better” car because they cost too much. And so it goes. I’m trying to re-imagine the world right now. All I can think about is what I would have done if I had shown up in the middle of the act. I can’t seem to re-imagine the situation as God might see it. I can't seem to re-imagine the world.

Any thoughts?

I read this today in a commentary on the book of Philippians by Stephen Fowl. I suppose, in light of his statement, my perception of "the result of ecumenism" is that it is a positive thing. But, it is likely that I am missing an aspect of ecumenism that influences his thoughts. Note his use of "Catholic." I assume that by capitalizing the word he means to imply Roman Catholics and, thus, non-Roman Catholics. If Fowl is a Roman Catholic then his statement makes sense according to his tradition (he teaches at Loyola College in Maryland so there is a good chance he is Roman Catholic). To be non-Catholic, thus non-Roman Catholic, is to be outside the church. I believe, however, this point is debated in Roman Catholicism. If that is what Fowl implies, then as a member of the non-Catholic category I would disagree with this statement. I tend to think under the assumption that to be Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, especially Nazarene, is to be catholic (small "c"), as in universal. If, however, my general assumptions are what Fowl means to imply, then I would agree with his statement because if ecumenism results in the fact that catholics and non-catholics are true Christians then the end result would be universalism. Anyways. Any comments?

"The problems of a divided church as we know it today are really the result of ecumenism. The more Catholics and non-Catholics, for example, recognize each other as true Christians, the greater the problem of their division, the sharper the pain of this fracture" (74).

The Golden Compass

[SPOILER ALERT: Don’t even think about reading beyond this point if you don’t want to know anything about the books or film.]

I went and watched The Golden Compass last night. If you don’t know anything about this movie, it is based on the first book in a series by Philip Pullman called His Dark Materials (which I mentioned in my last post). I really don’t feel like rehearsing the whole tension surrounding Pullman’s atheism and how he is going to bring Christianity to its demise . . . blah, blah, blah. You can Google all that, or check out a conversation over at Faith and Theology (scroll down, the conversation took place on December 4, 2007). If Pullman was going to do that he would have done so eleven or so years ago when the first book came out, not last week through a movie!

Having read the first two books and being almost half way through the third, I found the movie lacking in a lot of ways (surprise) in terms of a what makes a good movie (granted I’m not specialist). Movies tend to lack when they try to stay close to the text, but maybe not. I’m sure there are examples of successful interpretations from book to movie (anybody got one?) The movie forced the relationships and moved too quickly through some of the character development in order to get to the next action scene. To be fair, I really enjoyed watching the action scenes and comparing them to how I saw them in my mind when I read the book. This allowed me to enjoy the film only because I already knew what was going on, as if I had an insider view. But movies shouldn’t work that way. The movie critic’s were right, though. Nicole Kidman did a spectacular job playing Ms. Coulter. While, the screenplay writers didn’t quite capture the whole character Pullman created in Ms. Coulter, Kidman did a remarkable job displaying the tension between a mom torn between the Magisterium (the bad guys whom she works for) and her daughter. The very first scene in which Ms. Coulter is introduced is a dinner scene at Jordan College where Lyra (Coulter’s daughter) lives. Mind you, she is only twelve. It captures Coulter’s captivating presence among the Jordan scholars as well as how she dazzles Lyra into her confidence. I was particularly impressed with how the background music just draw’s you into the tension. This was a remarkable scene! Also, Iorek Byrnison, King of the ice bears, and the witch, Serafina Pekala, rocked! They will be fun to watch later.

In the end, however, I would save your money till the movie hits the redbox. Read the books, they're way better.

Plus, I have a feeling you won’t get the full affect of the controversy surrounding Pullman’s “agenda” unless you read the books. I just don’t think the movies will have the juevos to say what Pullman said. I might post on Pullmans ideas later, but not now.

boycotting and the bottom line

I guess it was about a month ago when I first received an email from, for the sake of broad generalizations, a concerned conservative evangelical regarding The Golden Compass, newly released in the theaters today. This movie is based on the first book in a series called His Dark Materials by author Philip Pullman. Since then I have being trying to pay attention to how this will unfold. What has sparked my interest in all of this is really nothing new and that is the reality of boycotting. Does boycotting really do anything? I wonder how much one buys into a culture that determines value based on the bottom line (i.e. money) when one boycotts? In other words, if the Church basis its witnesses in boycotting are we not affirming a worldview that determines worth based on monetary value? Think about it this ways: should one ever come across a restaurant that publicly embraces some sort of racist exclusion, perhaps a boycott would be appropriate. On the other hand, if one finds themselves on the inclusive side one might want to stop by from time to time in hopes of persuading the restaurant owner to a different perspective. If the world determines worth based on monetary value then perhaps the only language the Church has to communicate the gospel is in boycotting. If this is true, however, then boycotting is never the bottom line because it is too negative, too destructive. If the Church feels that it has actually overcome the beast based on what it boycotts then we are truly deficient in our witness. True?

they run for the sake of running

"It takes an adult to be immature. Children are new and full of energy. With the freshness of the renewed earth, their innocence is explosive. they know no doubt. In the gratuity of their being, they run for the sake of running, and not for the sake of arriving somewhere. They are pure elan. That is why they are irresistible."

Wyclef Jean, Nazarenes, and Amy Grant

I read this in the current Rolling Stone magazine.

Rolling Stone: As a hip-hop kid from Haiti, how did you get into rock music?"

Wyclef Jean: My father was a Nazarene preacher, and his English wasn't too good. He went all over America as a missionary, and one day he comes back with a cassette by a rock band called Petra, this Christian rock band. I'll never forget it. We started listening to Christian rock: Petra, Stryper.

RS: Stryper? Really?

WJ: Yeah, of course! I also had, like, Amy Grant. That was part of our church culture. Then I was like, "You, man, we got to start listening to some other shit." So we started listening to Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Pink Floyd. And my dad would accept it because he couldn't speak English. If I was listening to Metallica, he would say "What's that?" And I would say, "It's Christian rock!"