Gavin's Various Musings

And People say Science and Religion Don't Mix

2009-04-18T09:00:00.001-05:00

I am amazed that this hasn't been published at normal news sites. Obviously, there is a vast, atheistic conspiracy to keep us from seeing the truth. You see, astronomers have actually discovered God up in the heavens. But they're keeping the truth from us. This should be the biggest story of century, but nobody's mentioning it. Here is the picture and it is amazing:

Of course, the evil scientists are trying to say that this is some sort of natural phenomenon, but we all know the truth. It's God's hand. And it looks like he's about to throw down some lightning bolts.

Now, perfectly seriously, this is an amazing picture. An article about it can be found here. And just to be clear, I'd don't actually believe it's God's hand. I was just channeling my inner fundamentalist for a second.

A Quick Question for the Governor of Texas

2009-04-17T09:30:00.003-05:00

How do you claim to be patriotic on the one hand and on the other hand hint at Texas seceding from the Union over spending issues? That's like saying you love your wife more than anything, but then threatening to divorce her if she doesn't make your favorite dinner every night.

What's really crazy about this is that it is clear that it is just rhetoric. And the governor never actually used the "secede" word, he just hinted at it pretty strongly in a couple different speeches that he gave in the last couple days: Link.

I say that the Union should go ahead and let Texas secede. Then people born in Texas won't be U.S. citizens. We can build a wall to separate Texas from the States. People from Texas would have to enter the immigration process to get jobs in America. The minutemen groups could patrol the Texas border to make sure that no Texans were illegally trying to enter America. We could even make Puerto Rico a state without changing to a 51 star flag.

Seriously though, it is an interesting mental game to consider what would happen if a state seceded and then compare that to the way we treat immigrants from other countries.

A Messy Divorce

2009-04-06T11:30:00.002-05:00

Okay, so I got an interesting chain email recently. Normally I don't read these, and I never send them on. But this one, though couched in humor, is actually quite disturbing. And what is even more disturbing is that it was sent to me by a really great, Christian guy who I know from another church in the area who I thought better than this.

Divorce agreement:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement: Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy!

Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide security. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U. N. but we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and over-sized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kumbaya or We Are the World. We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall Law Student and an American

P. S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

I'm a bit annoyed because I have a Subaru station wagon, so they called a couple things right I guess. But the one that really got me was the line, "we'll continue to believe that health care is a luxury and not a right."

Honestly? Health care a luxury for the rich? Something that we shouldn't assume we have a right to? So if someone is sick, has a chronic problem, can't get insurance, the health care system should just say too bad? If a baby is born with complications but their parents don't have insurance, we should just let the baby die?

How in the world does a philosophy that encourages a "culture of life" not want to improve the health care system and make it available to everyone who needs it? People on the right stand up quite strongly for the rights of unborn babies but once they're born, making sure they're taken care of is a luxury that they don't necessarily deserve? This is crazy talk. And yet it is very much where some are coming from.

It's funny that someone sent this to me. It wasn't someone in my church, but rather someone from another church in our area who I know. I'm sure they just found it funny, with all the stereotypes about liberals and conservatives. But the sad thing is that these beliefs are so strong in so many and this letter actually shows the regard that those on the right have for people who disagree with them. What was even more sad was that I then received two "responses" to this email where people responded to all saying something along the lines of "wouldn't it be nice" or "I only wish".

I only wish we could find ways to talk with each other about disagreements. Wouldn't it be nice if we listened to each other instead of putting words in each other's mouths? Mostly, what I really wish is that people didn't attack unknown motives of those around them, but instead tried to work together with those they disagreed with for compromise.

Update

2009-03-24T11:00:00.000-05:00

It may seem like I've given up blogging for Lent. Not true. Rather, I spent a couple weeks on vacation and before that just didn't have much that I felt I wanted to blog about. Perhaps it's because the political season is over and I haven't been keeping up with it as much. Perhaps it's because I'm on Facebook. Perhaps it's because things are so busy at Church. Whatever the reason, I just wanted to let my readers know that I'm here, and I have a number of blog posts ruminating around in my mind. So I'll be talking with you soon.

Slaves To Tradition

2009-02-12T11:00:00.002-06:00

Let me begin by saying that I love tradition. Tradition is a way of taking something that doesn't have meaning in and of itself and giving it powerful meaning. And in doing this we often find rituals or activities that we do to become more powerful. But at the same time I believe that traditions need to have meaning. When I sit down with a couple planning a marriage I like to look at the worship order and I like to look at the things they want to include and I like to ask them which traditions have meaning to them and which don't. I then encourage them to exclude the traditions that many expect to find at a wedding but which have no meaning to them. Which brings me to today's post.

Lisa and I are having a baby in early July. It is our second and we're quite excited about it. At the beginning of the week we went in for an ultrasound. Now everybody likes to argue about whether you should find out if you're going to have a boy or girl. Some want to keep the surprise. They want to wait until birth to find out. They think it's old fashioned and traditional to wait. And at first I guess I thought this way about it. But then I began to think about it a bit more. The only reason that the "traditional" thing to do is to wait is that it has only recently become practical to find out what the sex of the baby is before birth. There is no medical reason to wait to find out. There is no psychological reason either. The only reason to do it is that it is the way it used to be done. So, waiting to find out whether you're going to have a boy or girl has become a false tradition. It has become something we do because we think there is meaning in it but really there isn't.

With our first baby, Bronte, we ended up not knowing she would be a girl. We had an early ultrasound and the tech couldn't be sure it was a girl. We thought it was probably a girl, but we weren't sure until she was born. There was no medical reason to have another ultrasound, so we waited. This time around things were a bit more sure, so we now know what we're going to have.

Some people are surprised that we know. Some people hold tight to the idea that you should wait. It seems that they're allowing tradition to rule them instead of finding meaning in tradition. We looked at the tradition of waiting and saw it as something that holds us back. Knowing what we're going to have allows us to plan better. It allows us to be better prepared. And it's fun to know as well, especially since we aren't telling everybody what we're having yet.

I guess I just want to encourage people to look at their traditions. I want to encourage people to look at the things they do and ask why. Look for meaning in the things you do, and if there is meaning then continue them and allow that meaning to have power. But if there is no meaning, maybe you don't have to hold onto them quite so tight.

Maybe someone can find meaning in waiting. We couldn't. So we didn't.

Playing Victim

2009-01-30T16:30:00.003-06:00

This week has been interesting on the television front. Two public personalities have been making the rounds on the talk shows trying to explain to the world why they have been victims. And the sad thing is that if you listen to them, without context, you can almost feel like they are victims. But then the pesky bigger picture enters the story.

Of course, the first of these is Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich. Instead of participating in the state senate trial to impeach him, he decided to spend the beginning of the week going from talk show to talk show trying to explain that he is being accused of crimes that he did not commit. Then, at the last minute, he decided that he wanted to make a closing statement at the trial, and he went before the state senators and told them that he should not be impeached. He complained that the system was against him. He complained that he had been presumed guilty without ever being given the chance to prove his innocence.

The second "victim" has been Ted Haggard, the evangelical Pastor who resigned from his church a couple years ago after a scandal broke about homosexual behaviors and drug use. He's been making the rounds promoting a new documentary about him on HBO and suggesting that the church abandoned him in his time of need. I caught a part of his Larry King interview last night and was surprised because he said the right things. He refused to get into details about other things he may have done, but at least admitted to the possibility of them, explaining that he was putting up boundaries about what he would talk about to the public, though he has talked with his therapists and his wife about everything. He said he was sorry to those in his congregation. He admitted to things that he had been accused of and didn't try to deny things that he had tried to deny before. It would be much more believable, though, if just last week, he hadn't denied things that he was now not denying. It was also odd to me that everybody seemed mostly interested in trying to classify him as homo-, bi-, or hetero-sexual, missing the real questions that need to be asked in his case.

Both of these "victims" were guilty of misusing their power, their authority, their office. And in doing this, they gave up their rights as "victims." Blagojevich says he wasn't given a chance to give his side of the story, but he refused to go under oath and do so. Haggard taught very clearly that homosexuality was deviant and sinful and then acts surprised that the church he founded held to his teachings when he could no longer live with them.

Both of these stories sadden me. Both of these men have fallen from grace in a horrible way. But worse, both have tried to change the storyline, tried to recast the story with them as hero instead of villain. And the scary thing, for me, is that it will probably work for some people.

A Quick Question about Socialism Fears

2009-01-27T10:00:00.001-06:00

So, I've heard a couple people say that they are extremely worried that our country is going to become socialist with President Obama at the helm. (I'd like to argue this point, but for the sake of the question I'm going to ask, I'll just take it at face value.) I've also heard people saying that they have thought about moving out of the country to get away from this Socialist future. My question is this: Where would they move? Where could you find a country to move to where the health care is not socialized?

A Quick Question about Wal Mart

2009-01-22T15:30:00.000-06:00

Why does Wal Mart refuse to sell music CDs with Parental Advisory labels on them and at the same time sell R rated movies? It seems like a strange double standard, that's all.

Accused of Idolatry

2009-01-21T10:00:00.010-06:00

I have occasionally found myself accusing those on the right of idolatry. I often see them mixing their Christian faith with some sort of American Imperialism and ending up with a civil religion that sometimes scares me. I saw this most obviously during the Republican National Convention this year where we were told to put our Country First and we were told about John McCain's conversion story, where he learned what it means to be an American.

This last week the other shoe has dropped (at least we aren't in the Middle East where it would have been thrown). People have been stating again and again that President Obama is not the Messiah. They have been saying that they are worried about the enthusiasm that so many have about Obama's Presidency, that people seem to think that he is going to fix all humanities problems.

As a strong supporter of President Obama and someone who is excited about what is ahead, I want to say that this excitement is not idolatry. I don't think that Obama is a Messiah. I don't believe that he can solve the world's problems, let alone our country's. But I am excited and hopeful about what is ahead.

Obama has already started the process to put an end to gitmo. Yesterday he put the military trials on hold at gitmo, signifying the change of plans for what is going to come there. I know that many have said that gitmo was a necessary evil, but it was an evil perpetrated by our own government and I am glad to see it go.

Obama recorded a message for an environmental conference that met in November in California. During his message he shared his plans to take climate change seriously. He showed that he is going to approach science honestly and not pick and choose.

These are just two examples of areas where I believe his policy is going to make our government a better government. I like his philosophy of government. He is already getting in trouble with some progressives because he seems too "moderate" for them... wanting to work with those on the other side of the aisle. We will have to wait and see if this continues. But in his inauguration speech he made a powerful statement: It isn't whether government is too big or too small... it's whether it works that counts! He wants to find a way to make government work. I'm excited about that possibility.

And then there's the historical symbolism of his presidency. This also has nothing to do with him being a Messiah. It has less to do with him at all than what it says about our country. We have elected a man to be President whose parents weren't allowed to be married in every state of the union when he was born. We elected a man to be President whose father wouldn't be served in some restaurants in D.C. sixty years ago. With the horrible history of slavery in our country, we have said that we are heading in a new direction now. This is one of those hinges of history, and it is worth celebrating. It is worth celebrating how far our country has come. It is not the end of the journey, but it is truly worth celebrating. And celebrating it is not worshiping President Obama.

So, lay off people. Let us celebrate. Let us look with hope towards the future. Let us be excited about the direction in which President Obama wants to take this country. Don't mistake our excitement for hero worship. Don't mistake our joy for idolatry.

And those who are celebrating, make sure that you aren't going too far. Make sure that you realize that our President isn't a miracle worker. Make sure that you don't fall into the trap of idolatry which others have fallen into on the other side.

Some Fun in Honor of the Inauguration

2009-01-18T21:30:00.000-06:00

So the website is called Obamicon.me and it's a bit too much fun. Especially if you've got a collection of unusual hats and a webcam to play with. Unfortunately, you have to register with an email address to save any pics. But it is a lot of fun.

Dear Santa,

2009-01-07T08:30:00.000-06:00

First of all, thanks for a wonderful Christmas this year. Last year's was pretty horrible with Bronte getting sick on Christmas day and vomiting over everything, but this year's definitely made up for it.

Bronte was so very cute as we opened presents. She was more interested in opening things that were weird shapes and didn't really care as much who they were to and, for that matter, what was in them. It was exciting being able to experience Christmas through her eyes this year, through the eyes of a 21 month old.

It was also nice having Lisa's parents out. Bronte is really enjoying being able to spend time with Grandma Kathy and Grandpa Chuck.

Now for the reason I'm writing. Please, next year, send less presents. I know we said we'd be cutting down this year (and actually I believe we did), but we really don't need all the stuff. Yes, the Buster Keaton hat was cool. I'm looking forward to wearing it out and about. And the Batmobile hotwheels collectables were fun. Bronte actually thinks they're pretty neat too. But really, we just don't need all these things. So next year Santa, let's limit ourselves with the gifts. Let's allow Christmas to be about family spending quality time together and be about some of those traditions that we want to pass on and be less about getting (or even giving) presents.

More than that, let Christmas be a time where we can celebrate the Incarnation; the coming of our Lord, Jesus; God's amazing graciousness and humility in sending his Son.

I hope you have a good 2009. Have a good break until next Christmas.

Take care, and again, thank you,

Gavin

A Lesson from King Alfred the Great

2008-12-12T11:30:00.003-06:00

I enjoy historical fiction. Especially historical fiction written about the dark ages in the British Isles. There is just something about that time and that place that interests me. It started when I was a young boy interested in King Arthur and Robin Hood. It developed in high school when I read The Pendragon Cycle by Stephen Lawhead, re-telling the legends of King Arthur in a realistic and historically accurate (mostly) way. Since then I've read a number of books telling of the British Isles between A.D. 400 and 1000. Some of the highlights have been Credo by Melvyn Bragg, Island of Ghosts by Gillian Bradshaw and Lawhead's new series re-telling the legend of Robin Hood but placing it in Wales a couple hundred years before it usually is set. One other series I have been reading is Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Chronicles. I am currently reading (among other books, I read more than one book at a time usually) the fourth book in the series: Sword Song.

One interesting thing about historical novels set in the dark ages in Britain is that they usually deal with Christianity in some way. Lawhead is a Christian writer and usually portrays Christianity in his books in a positive light (though usually there are Christians who are bad also, and often the priests and monks are corrupt). Credo by Melvyn Bragg tells of one of the central religious discussions of the sixth century and you see Christians who are in it for themselves and others who are trying to seek God's will and you see these people on both sides of the issue. But Bernard Cornwell's books are written in the first person by a character during the reign of King Alfred the Great who is definitely anti-Christian. The protagonist in his series worships the gods of the Vikings and doesn't think much of Christianity. It is interesting to read the story because it makes you wonder how much this is the view of the author and how much it is just the character he has created.

On the other hand, the character has some powerful critiques of Christianity that Christians need to deal with and need to understand if we expect to reach the world around us. The main character is friends with King Alfred's oldest daughter. He is happily married and has known her since she was a little child. He sees her much like a daughter. At 13 she is married off to the main character's cousin for political reasons and it becomes clear quite soon that her husband is beating her regularly. The main character is appalled and, knowing that Alfred truly loves his daughter, tries to get Alfred to put a stop to what is happening. But Alfred and his priests respond by saying that his daughter needs to learn to be obedient to her husband, for this is what the Bible says. Alfred says that a child's willfulness and disobedience should be beat out of her. This is what he has been taught by the priests. This is what he believes the Bible says. He didn't do this himself with her, but her husband has the right because he is her husband. One of the priests gives a sermon in front of a group of Saxon leaders where he talks about the importance of wives obeying their husbands in all things as she sits there, the only woman in the group, with her face bruised and battered. The character (who is reminiscing as an old man looking back at these events) comments that he has heard that the priest is being canonised for sainthood. And then he states that he cannot imagine going up to heaven to spend eternity with that evil man.

Of course this is a fictionalized account. But the truth behind it is quite real. Christians have much to apologize for. When we lift people up and put them on a pedestal, we need to be careful about what that is saying. We have turned a blind eye to many injustices perpetrated by our own people and encouraged people to just look the other way. This is wrong. It is evil. It is not of God.

More than that, it is truly something that turns people away from God. People today wonder why some of their children have turned away from faith. They wonder why people they know are so bitter and angry and resentful towards the church. This is the reason. It is because the church has not stood up for what is right. It has taken the political issues and pushed them and ignored so many other places where injustice rules. We aren't going to be able to be a true witness to God until we acknowledge and do something about the injustice that we are responsible for.

A Great Quote about the Environment

2008-12-05T10:30:00.002-06:00

Fresh Air with Terry Gross is an interesting show to listen to. It's on NPR and it could be considered one of those shows that gives NPR it's liberal reputation. Terry asks difficult questions and pushes people in their answers, though you can often tell where she is coming from with the questions she asks and she has gotten in trouble in the past for being a harder interviewer with more conservative guests. Bill O'Reilly, for example, walked off in the middle of her show because he didn't like the tone of her questions.

But at the same time, there are some great interviews that really get you into the heads of different people, and she is definitely worth listening to. This last Tuesday she interviewed Rev. Richard Cizik, the chief lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals. He has gotten a lot of grief from other Evangelicals for being too "liberal" and this interview definitely shows how he could be construed that way. He comes down in support of civil unions for gays. He is definitely pro-life, but he is willing and anxious to work with pro-choice leadership to reduce abortions (including increasing contraceptive availability). He is anxious to put an end to nuclear proliferation by getting rid of all nuclear weapons. He disliked so much of what Sarah Palin represented because he believes that she showed a lack of humility in her faith. And he is strongly focused on the environment.

And yet he speaks eloquently from a Christian perspective and talks about why these things are important. He is definitely an Evangelical and represents more and more what the younger Evangelicals are interested in. It is truly worth listening to the interview here.

But my favorite quote from the interview, and the reason for this post:

"As a Christian, we can't claim to love the Creator and then abuse the world in which we live. To do so is to claim to be a fan of Shakespeare and then burn his plays."

Good stuff! A great way to help us as Christians understand our role in caring for the world around us.

Confessions of a Pastor Outcast

2008-12-03T14:00:00.000-06:00

So, I finally signed up for Facebook and it has been fun catching up with some old friends from High School and College. It's kinda odd, though, because less than a week into this process I've already got almost 80 "friends". In truth, I am a pretty anti-social guy (funny for a pastor, but true) with very few friends. I don't do terribly well at holding onto friendships when I move away from people. Facebook might make it a bit easier, but it is still kinda weird and a bit phony.

But re-connecting with some friends from High School and College reminded me of something: I'm a bit of a nerd, I'm pretty geeky and quite a dork. (If I lived near my sister, I'm sure she'd remind me of this fact daily.) I automatically tend to reject something that is popular, often precisely because it is popular. I get on well with unpopular folks. I tend to vote against the incumbent. I'm attracted, for example, to the goth movement because I see in it a group who are very intentionally stepping outside the norms that society has set up.

All of this is basically to say that there is a part of me that wants to reclaim the label "Outcast." And there's a part of me that wants to see the church reclaim this label. I want to see church that is not produced or fake or unnaturally sunny but a real place where real people (warts and all) meet and bring their real problems and ask their real questions.

This could be a scary church to visit. You might not always feel comfortable there. It wouldn't necessarily fit the current models of church growth and church health. And yet it could be a place for people who don't necessarily like church. It could also be a place for people who aren't liked in church.

The church I went to in seminary had a gentleman who was a member who was totally and completely tone deaf. All churches have them. But he would sing out at the top of his lungs and clap along with songs totally out of beat and truly bring down the worship experience for everybody else there. Talking with him one day, he mentioned the fact that he was asked to leave the previous church he was at because of this. Talking to others at the church, they grumbled about him: why couldn't he just sing a bit quieter, he must know how off he was. And yet I rejoiced that he worshiped with us and praised his God with his whole voice and his whole heart.

I've got to believe that there are more out there like me. More who dislike what's "in". More who are quite sick of the way that Christianity has melded with American society, sometimes bringing out the worst in both. More who are ready to be outcasts themselves and reach out to outcasts with Christian fellowship.

Church for the outcasts! It's what we need more of.

Buster Keaton: Creating the Look

2008-11-25T11:00:00.001-06:00

The story of Buster Keaton's entrance into cinema is pretty well known and accepted. He was in New York, about to begin work on the stage. He ran into a friend who was working for Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle and was invited to the studio where Arbuckle was filming his new short, "The Butcher Boy." Buster Keaton showed up and was invited to participate in the film. He said yes, but first he tore apart a camera to see how it worked and help himself understand it better. Keaton brags that he was able to do his first scene in front of the camera in one take, and many claim that they can see glimpses of his brilliance in that first scene.

But there is something else you see in that first scene: his trademark porkpie hat! This somewhat shocks me. If the story of his introduction to movies is true, then he sort of happened into the industry. You would expect that certain things done in his first picture wouldn't carry through the rest of his film career. Actually, this is definitely true. Keaton is known as "The Great Stone Face" because of the fact that he keeps a straight face throughout his pictures, choosing not to smile or laugh at the antics he goes through. And yet, the early Arbuckle films he was in had him laughing and smiling quite regularly. Obviously, the "Stone Face" was something he experimented with and then adopted. But the porkpie hat was there from the beginning.

Buster Keaton's porkpie hat is central to his character. It doesn't show up in every movie he did. His most famous (and spectacular) picture is "The General" and since it is a period piece, there is no porkpie hat. And "Steamboat Bill, Jr." only has a short (and quite funny) cameo of it. But the hat is a part of his look, his costume, his persona. He made the hats himself out of a good stetson fedora, wetting them with sugar water and crafting a look that was unique and a part of who he was. And it seems that Keaton made a whole slew of these hats through his career, as they would get ruined or taken as souvenirs while he filmed. And yet this central part of Keaton's look, of his character seems to have come as a fluke when he decided to film a scene in a Roscoe Arbuckle film.

What kind of small decisions do we make that end up having profound consequences on our lives? When do we make a small choice, thinking it unimportant and then find out that it changes everything about our future?

Buster Keaton decided to go with his friend and see a movie being made. He decided to wear a porkpie hat as he filmed that scene. And life changed quite drastically for him from that point on.

Problems at the Movies

2008-11-18T16:00:00.004-06:00

READER BEWARE: THE FOLLOWING IS A PARTICULARLY GEEKY POST!
JAMES BOND AND STAR TREK ARE BOTH REFERENCED.

So, last night my wife and I hired a babysitter for our 1 1/2 year old, and headed out to see Quantum of Solace. I've been excited to see the movie for quite a while, and we've been planning this for a couple weeks. Getting a babysitter (especially on a Monday night) is an unusual thing for us, and the planets all need to align for it to work. Our first glitch was that the theater that is closest to us (a town about 25 minutes away) that has only three screens decided not to open the movie on opening weekend (instead they had this Kirk Cameron "Christian" movie, Fireproof, so here's the pastor, resenting the "Christian" movie for making my life more difficult). So instead we went to the theater that is about 40 minutes away (this is the problem with living out in rural Iowa).

So, got to the theater, got popcorn and sat down for previews. No Star Trek. (Many theaters had a preview for the new Star Trek movie coming out next spring attached to Quantum of Solace, but not ours.) Oh well, I guess I'll just watch it online (and find the preview disappointing online).

The volume was a bit loud but we could handle it. It's kinda sad, but at bigger theaters now, I actually bring earplugs because they often have the sound turned up too loud. They seem to think that louder is better. So far, we haven't needed to do this in the theaters around us, as they don't follow this louder = better mindset, but perhaps we'll start.

The movie started and all else was forgotten. Bond was definitely back: angry, silent, and on a personal mission. Some have complained that this doesn't feel like Bond at all, but the truth is that this Bond is much more like the one in Ian Fleming's books. I sat back and enjoyed the movie, intense though it was. Until, about forty-five minutes into the movie when the sound starts popping. It sounds like there is a short in one of the front speakers. We put up with this for about five minutes as they try to fix it. Then the movie is turned off and they offer us free tickets to come back in the future. I've got to say, I'm feeling about as angry at the situation as James Bond seems to be on the screen.

The sad thing is that I imagine that I'm going to probably try to see the movie again in the theater. My wife said she'd probably be willing to wait for it to come on video, which actually will make it easier cause we don't need to deal with a babysitter then. The theater offered us two tickets each for the inconvenience, but when you think about the babysitter cost and the time and gas spent getting there and back, we're out more than that.

Lisa and I used to go to the movies a lot, before Bronte. We enjoyed them on a regular basis. Having something like this happen would have been annoying, but we would have survived it quite easily. But now getting away has become a chore and we truly seek to value the time away we do get. The evening was a true disappointment.

The worst part is that I was really looking forward to the movie.

The Problem with Mixing Religion and Politics

2008-11-05T15:00:00.001-06:00

On NPRs Speaking of Faith (which airs locally during our church service, so I listen to it on a podcast), Steve Waldman (founder of Beliefnet.com) talks about the founding fathers and some of their views on how faith and politics should interact.

Waldman caught the essence of the problem I have with the religious right and their political gains. He talked about how James Madison criticized George Washington's speeches as having too much religion in them. He went on to say that the problem with that is not that it is going to turn people against George Washington, it's that it's going to turn people against religion. People are going to look at Washington's invocations of God as being political. If you're opposed to Washington's politics you find yourself getting annoyed at the religious rhetoric itself.

Waldman continues by saying that polls today are showing that one of the effects of the prominence of religious conservatives today is that it has soured a generation on Christianity, not on politics.

Check out the Speaking of Faith website for the full discussion.

James Madison had it right. Christians need to approach politics with humility and grace and love. Christians haven't done this. The amount of hatred and bile I've heard from Christians in their attacks of Obama have soured me on my own faith. And watching people (who are disappointed in the election results, fairly so) refuse to acknowledge the amazing thing that happened last night is quite sad. We are told to pray for those we don't agree with. We are encouraged to support our government. Christians, please don't allow your mistrust and anger at Obama to keep you from giving him a chance. Don't look for a reason to despise him the way you did with Clinton. Christianity in service of politics is dangerous. People allow themselves to put aside their values for the sake of reaching the goal they desire.

Yes We...

2008-11-05T12:00:00.000-06:00

DID!

Now I just pray that the energy that went into electing Barack Obama will be channeled to truly righting the wrongs in this country, to making it a better place.

If the tone and themes in McCain's concession speech and Obama's acceptance speech are any indication, we are definitely on the right track.

I Voted!

2008-11-04T10:30:00.001-06:00

Just saying...

Though I found out that the first 50 people who voted at our polling place didn't have their votes counted. The machine that counts the paper ballots wasn't working properly, so their ballots were locked up in a safe place (on the machine). At the end of the evening, it will be unlocked and those ballots will be counted.

Not really a huge voting problem, but proof that small snags happen and it seems that in this case, they were handled quite well.

Now it is just time to wait and see what ends up happening.

Buster Keaton: Musings on the Meaning of Success

2008-11-04T11:00:00.003-06:00

As I've been reading about Buster Keaton recently, I was surprised to find out that some of his most famous movies didn't do terribly well when they first came out. The General which is now considered not only his masterpiece, but one of the great movies in cinema history, was considered a failure when it first came out.

Not only that, but the common feeling today is that sound movies ruined Keaton's career. The argument is that he never was able to make the transition and his sound movies of the 1930s just weren't comparable to the great silent movies he made in the 1920s. And yet, the sound movies he made in the 1930s (which he didn't like terribly much, and which he didn't direct or produce) actually made far more money than the movies he made in the 1920s.

This leads me to wonder what makes something successful. If you base success only on the amount of money made, then Buster Keaton was his most successful in the 1930s, where he worked under contract for MGM and didn't have creative control over his pictures. And yet, almost anyone who studies film history would argue that Keaton of the 1920s where he had independent control of his own pictures is the true success.

The same issue of success is talked about today in so many areas. One such area is the area of church. A church is deemed successful if it grows in number. It is considered to be failing if it is declining. But I wonder if in doing so, we are missing the point of what success really is all about. If a church is growing in numbers but not staying true to its vision, there is something wrong with it.

Buster Keaton, in the 1920s, was true to his vision. He directed his own movies and came up with his own gags. Sometimes these became overly expensive, and sometimes the movies didn't do as well as they could have. Out of the big three silent comedians: himself, Charlie Chaplin & Harold Lloyd, he came in a distant third in the money he made off the movies. And yet his movies were true successes, true art pieces. To realize the artistry of Buster Keaton, we are required to redefine our measures of success. But this is probably a good thing, as basing success purely on financial gain can lead down a dangerous path.

Keaton's downfall wasn't the coming of "talkies". He did fine in talking pictures. No, his downfall was the control that was taken away from him. If MGM had trusted his instincts and allowed him to make movies his way into the 1930s, we could have seen many more masterpieces from him.

Movie Musings: Buster Keaton

2008-10-24T16:30:00.009-05:00

And now for something completely different.

In high school my life was changed by the movie Benny & Joon. In retrospect, that may be a sad state of affairs, but there it is. Watching Johnny Depp emulate silent film stars Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin was absolutely amazing. And I became fascinated with Buster Keaton in specific.

Here was a true artist of the craft. He did amazing stunts and his movies played with your mind as well as tickling your funny bone.

In college I clowned a couple years for a carnival our college put on for the community. Buster Keaton was my inspiration. I couldn't stop talking about Buster Keaton with my friends who probably thought there was something wrong with me.

I got ahold of two of Keatons movies on video, The General and Steamboat Bill, Jr.

The General is the story of a train engineer whose train (and girl) are stolen by the enemy during the Civil War. He goes after the culprits and gets the train and girl back. Keaton's inginuity is on full display in this movie. When he is chasing the soldiers who stole the train, they are putting things on the tracks to try to slow him down. He finds ways to get rid of the things on the tracks that are absolutely amazing. And then once he is on the run with the train, he is able to find a much more efficiant way to slow them down as they chase him. And the grand finale is truly spectacular for its time. A train crosses a bridge as it collapses. It was the most expensive stunt in its day.

Steamboat Bill, Jr. tells of a young college age student who goes to see his father who he had never met. His father is a steamboat captain and truly from a different world than this young man is and you watch the two of them learn to deal with each other. Of course, there's a rivalry between to captains, a love story with the daughter of the other captain and then a surprise twist when a hurricane comes through and the movie turns into a disaster movie. This movie is most famous for the scene where Keaton is standing in front of a building and the wind pulls the front of the building down. He happens to be standing where the window is and survives miraculously. It's an amazing scene when you realize that there was no trickery here, just detailed planning.

Anyway, I just discovered that a new edition of The General is coming to DVD. It looks amazing. Check out the trailer for it here. I'll wait for you. Watch it and be blown away by the wonder that is Buster Keaton. Or check out this YouTube compilation of a number of Keaton's gags.

Here's a bit from one of Keaton's movies where you see the brilliance of his physical comedy (as well as the danger of the stunts he did).

If you're interested, you can find The General at the KINO homepage or, it seems, at any online retailer.

Final Debate Thoughts

2008-10-16T09:00:00.002-05:00

John McCain in many ways gave his best performance last night. He pressed the attack to Obama, and though Obama had a good answer to each and every attack, they did seem to be piling up. McCain spoke with such conviction about Obama's evil tax plans that I'm starting to believe that Obama is going to raise my taxes (though I make nowhere near $250,000 a year, so he won't).

But I think McCain faltered when he went on the offensive about attacks. Asking Obama to apologize for (or repudiate) John Lewis' comments comparing the rhetoric on McCain's campaign trail to rhetoric that he heard back in the days of George Wallace was a bit much. You really don't want to draw attention to the facts that there were people at one of your rallies calling for the death of your opponent.

I watched this and was hoping for Obama to strike back hard. I wanted to see him put McCain in his place and come down strong against the connections that McCain has (including the fact that he just spoke as a guest of honor at an ACORN meeting three years ago). But Obama didn't do this. He showed that he is a better man than me. Instead he chose to take the high road. He clarified the issues that McCain brought up, explaining his relationship (or lack of one) to Ayers and made it clear that he wasn't interested in talking about these issues, that the American people didn't want to hear them going back and forth about these issues. But McCain wouldn't let it sit. He continued to attack, he continued to smear. And Obama talked about how when the campaign is over we need to work together. One candidate last night showed the ability to talk about ideas without getting angry. One candidate showed the ability to reach across the aisle and have discussions with people you disagree with.

This is how Obama ended up winning the debate. He made McCain look desperate. He made him look angry and petulant. He made him look like he was holding a grudge. Usually, in politics, it's the candidate that takes the low road that wins. McCain felt the full brunt of this back in 2000 in the primaries against George W. Bush. But this time it seems like the high road is the place to be.

Oh, and the other danger with spending a whole debate attacking your opponent is that if I had only watched this debate, I would have definitely come away with a much clearer understanding of Obama's plans than McCain's. Going into the debates a month ago, I wasn't expecting it to be Obama/Biden 4-0. I honestly worried that Obama wouldn't look as good on stage with McCain as he does at his rallies. But in the end, Obama and Biden did win each of their debates quite strongly. Now we'll see how the next three weeks play out.

Eschatological Politics

2008-08-21T09:30:00.004-05:00

After Barack Obama's trip to Europe and (specifically) his speech in Germany, many in the evangelical community started talking about him in "anti-christ" language. They pointed out that his popularity around the world and his "liberal" standings on so many issues sure made him look like the fictional "anti-christ" that they had created out of a few Bible passages: popular, charismatic, talking about peace, trying to do things through government that only God can do. The McCain campaign put out an ad that referred to Obama as "the One", making him look like some sort of messiah wannabe. And Hal Lindsay (who has proven his credibility so well over the years) came out and said that Obama is not the anti-christ, but he's a good precursor to what the anti-christ will look like.

I mostly dismissed this talk as the general scare tactics used by the religious right to get people to vote their way and figured that I could leave it at that. And then I watched part of the religious forum hosted by Rick Warren this last Saturday. It seems that the most talked about question and answers were on the question of evil. The two candidates were asked whether evil existed and how we should interact with it. Obama gave a theologically powerful answer. He talked about evil in this world and how it permeates so much of this world. He told us that we can never expect to defeat evil because only God can do so. But that shouldn't keep us from constantly fighting evil when we come across it in the world around us. But he talked about evil in Biblical terms: not flesh and blood, not people, but a force, a principality, a power that is in this world and that we will always struggle against.

And then we came to McCain's response to the same question. Evil is real and we must defeat it. Further, evil is Osama Bin Laden and we shall hunt him down to the gates of hell if that's what it takes (though, strangely enough, the gates of hell aren't a safe place for him to hide, but it seems Pakistan is). There are a couple of things that are just totally wrong with this answer. First, evil is not a person. As I mentioned above, Paul tells us in Ephesians 6 that we contend not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities. To limit our battle with evil to a battle with one person is just wrong. Second, evil cannot be defeated by human might. To believe that it can is unbiblical and delusional and idolatrous. One of the arguments I've heard against Obama's message of hope is that he is trying to solve the world's problems by human means instead of allowing God to do it. But McCain here is claiming that we can defeat evil. Which of these two campaigns is asking government to do more than it possibly can?

Looking at the two answers given during the forum and looking at the response by the Christian audience, I would tend to say that McCain was much more the anti-christian style of leadership. Of course, I'm not going to call him the "anti-christ". I don't believe in a character as seen in Left Behind that will fill that role. I see the "anti-christ" more as a spirit or system or principality that draws people away from Christ. And the kind of Christianity that McCain espoused fits that spirit of the "anti-christ" much more than a large crowd listening to Obama. And the proof of this, to me is that the audience at Saddleback Church ate up his answer. They loved it. They cheered and applauded and bought into his earthly kingdom that can do what only God can do. And sadly, he was doing the very thing that so many have accused Obama of doing, trying to make government replace God in people's lives.

Watching the forum I was left with a couple questions: Why are Christians so bloodthirsty? Why do pat, simple answers play better than a thought out discussion of the questions of faith? Why is it that when people said that Obama sounded like a college professor, this was meant as an insult?

A Quick Question for John McCain

2008-07-19T10:00:00.000-05:00

How come, when you go to South America and Mexico, it is as a statesman gaining information on our neighbors to the south, but when Obama goes to Europe and the Middle East it is all political? Isn't that a bit of a double standard?

And for that matter, if you become President, will you have to go to Iraq or Afghanistan every time you need to make a military decision there, or will you be able to make your decision in America without being "out of touch" with what is going on in each of those wars?

I guess your rhetoric just doesn't make terribly much sense to me, that's all.

Political Idolotry

2008-09-03T09:00:00.000-05:00

I think I understand a bit more why so many Republicans saw Obama's stage last Thursday as a "temple". It's because they truly do see politics in religious terms. What brought this out to me so clearly was watching Fred Thompson's speech last night.

First, there was the Passion of the McCain. Fred Thompson shared John McCain's war stories with us, not talking about his heroism as much as talking about his suffering and the many difficulties he faced. Of course, the center of this was McCain's five years as a P.O.W. These years were described in graphic detail to all of us, with a sort of detail that truly reminds me of the movie The Passion of the Christ. I was expecting Thompson to turn to us and say that "McCain suffered for you." But before he even got to this, Thompson told of the horrible accident on the aircraft carrier that McCain was stationed on where many lives were lost. Again, the focus was on McCain's suffering and the character that suffering brings. But seriously, after watching Fred Thompson talk about the Passion of the McCain I find myself wondering who it is that has the messiah complex in this election.

But that's not what scared me about Fred Thompson's speech. You see, he went on to encourage us to take McCain's campaign slogan to heart. He told us that McCain puts "Country First" and so should we. This is truly what scares me and makes me worry about the many Christians that are on the Republican bandwagon. Joe Lieberman actually had a good definition of what puttin country first could be about: He said that putting country first meant that being an American is more important than being a Republican or a Democrat. I can go with that. But that's not what Fred Thompson was saying. Thompson was suggesting that we really need to put our country first in our lives. This is plain and simply idolotry. The Ten Commandments that the religious right are so enamored with begin by telling us that we are not to put any gods before God. That includes our country. In the New Testamanet Jesus takes all the law and prophets and sums them up in two commandments: Love God with all you are and love your neighbor as yourself. Again, nothing about country.

It's fine to be patriotic. But as Christians, our country isn't supposed to be first. Our first allegiance is to God. Our second allegiance is our neighbor. Then there's our family and the greater Christian church somewhere in there as well. Then, maybe, we come to our country. Putting our country first is truly idolotry and it is an American civil religion disguised as Christianity.

And then, Fred Thompson ended his religious message by saying "God bless John McCain and John bless America!" Now I'm pretty sure this isn't what he meant to say. He stumbled over that second "John" and I had to rewind a couple times to make sure I heard it right. But it is what he said. Again, scary.

We aren't electing a messiah. We aren't called as Christians to put our country first. And John McCain's suffering as a P.O.W. is a horrible thing and does show much strength and bravery, but it doesn't bring us salvation. This speech reminds me the dangers of mixing religion and politics. Somehow, the politics seem to always win.