Separation Anxiety

I'm a bit traumatized after watching the special on the wolf vs. bison on Frozen Planet, BBC. That's not to say that it wasn't good, on the contrary, the documentary was spectacular on all fronts. The team caught all aspects of the hunt, powerful animals engaged with a savage intensity in the need to survive. A couple moments caught my attention that made me contemplate the spiritual aspects of the material display. In the first half, a pack of wolves are hunting a herd of bison, trying to separate one from the group. After great effort and divisions, a calf is caught by two wolves and the pack just rips into it while the adults stood frozen in the sidelines. I thought, this calf is done for sure but all the sudden, the herd charges the pack, and snatches the calf from the wolves. I admit I cheered. Still, I the wolves are hungry, they've got to continue or they die. New strategy, new scene, wolves charge another herd of bison and, instead of standing together, the herd bolts, allowing their unity to thin and spread out. The wolves attack the hind legs of a huge bison and hang on for dear life. Now this bison is huge and alternately charges and tramples the wolves in return. The herd doesn't stop this time, there is no rescue. What's crazy about this scene is that another bison that had been separated as well, charges in fear OVER the bison and wolves, finishing the wolves attack on their prey. The fear of the one bison was the final blow to the already injured fellow herd mate. The bison dies. Now what does this have to do with theology? Here, I see Paul's theology in the later section of Romans playing out the unity of the church. I admit that the evangelical disposition is too often to see the church as a means to get to know God personally, rather than identity. We look at fellow Christians as those who will help keep us on the straight and narrow, and to help us with our personal walk with God. And to a large extent, that's true: the Church does all of that. However, the personal benefits is not the purpose and function of the Church. The Church is dynamically a unified whole. If we don't work in God-blessed unity, then we are easily scattered in denomination, theology, and congregation. We might breath a sigh of relief that it wasn't our church, our denomination that was taken down by the enemy. Indeed, we might feel a Pharisaical righteousness, that God would protect His theologically purest members. God forbid such hubris and spirit of division in the Church. When one is vulnerable, we should always seek to save the weak, the ensnared rather than trampling over them in our frantic rush to have 'nothing to do with that' church, denomination or whatever. The church needs to embrace grace. Not to say that denominations are not needed (far from it!) but that whenever and wherever possible, we should reach out, minister, give aid and suffer when our brothers and sisters suffer an attack, either from within or without. Because they belong to US, and the church belongs to Jesus.

It's a long road, baby, running away.

I just watched a film that I shouldn’t have watched because it just seriously screwed up what little sense I have about fairytale endings and sex. Hollywood, you’re smarter than me, you’ve got me pegged, you know how to ‘get me,’ I admit it. Resentfully and not without embarrassment. I’ve been listening to The Summit Church (Durham, NC) sermons on itunes and one point that I thought was interesting was the relation that men have with love and pornography. Normally, I make the blanket assumption that ‘not feeling love, not feeling like you’re ‘in love’ is primarily a woman’s struggle. I just think guys don’t really love like women do, that is, highly emotional. Not that men DON’T love, just that it looks completely different, feels different. That’s what I’ve been told all my life and from observation & I have no reason to deny that as a legitimate analysis. But the sermon said get a man whose mind has been informed by pornography and you will see a man who cannot ‘feel’ love. Obviously, it’s not just an eye struggle. It’s not just a lust issue, it’s a love issue. Of course, women aren’t off the hook. The movies we watch –like the bloody criminal fantasy, Friends with Benefits, that’ll do some mind formations as well. Guys will go into instant lust just watching it and girls will go into instant dream world. Wow, that’s just great. Ugh. Kill the machine and take a walk under the stars. Oh, wait. It’s Scotland = it’s raining. Orion’s not out to guide me tonight. Duuuude.

Gotye- Somebody That I Used To Know (feat. Kimbra)- official film clip (HD)

I don't get into all of Gotye's music, it gets a bit out there, but I have to give them kuddos for creativity. Esp. the posted video--clever, simple and stark. The lyrics are rough and dramatic too, which, I must confess, I love. However, "Somebody that I used to know" kind of drives me crazy though. It's not just them, of course. I keep hearing songs about people who are over THE EX. Look, you don't go on about how you are over your ex if you're really over them. If you don't care, you don't ever think about them. If you do think about them when all is quiet and the stillness drowns out all the noise of the day, then you're still dealing. You're pissed off, you're hurt, you're in denial, whatever. I get that. But 'I don't care' rubs me the wrong way because these are lies that people tell themselves and others affirm as the truth. As if saying 'I'm over it' makes it so. Give me a break. Ok, ok--I know that the 'lie' is both a) a coping mechanism. But coping mechanisms are crap jobs in themselves. Best to avoid them. And b) maybe the obvious pain of the song makes a lie of the statement to drive the point that they still are hurting. But people hurt you and life hurts and that's the deal. You don't ever get over it but though God's grace, the 'it' no longer defines your life. Life is beautiful. Ok, I'm stepping down from my soap box.

Edinburgh Footloose Flashmob

I so want to do this. Like RIGHT NOW.

Wanted: cat seeks giraffe to hang out

I’ve been in Edinburgh over the Christmas holidays, enjoying the layers of volcanic hills (also known as the Athens of the North) that compose the proper city center, particularly the Royal Mile and Princes Street. Along the walk, I pass the Omni Center and there are the two giraffe structures which have been dedicated with a significance of space and commendation. I think I understand why. In the animal image, a powerful metaphor is at play. Around the giraffes is the following statement: "Giraffes! - a People Who live between the earth and skies Each in his own religious steeple Keeping a lighthouse with his eyes." When I look at this creative work of the giraffe, it reminds me that God has called me, has chosen me, as 1 Peter 1 states, not by any natural talent (I have very little), but having been set a part for obedience, and the inheritance of salvation through Jesus Christ, to be keeping a lighthouse with my eyes. I see how I am fashioned by Christ to stretch up to Heaven and also keep my feet planted in the earth. My heart is in the Spirit and my work is in the body. I am a living soul with a body. Yet, to clarify, I don’t mean to imply any sense of dualism, (i.e., anti-flesh, pro-spirit). Rather the reverse because the Incarnation, which entered in space and time, was born, lived, died, and was resurrected and then ascended, has shown us that the material is good and meant to be engaged in a holistic work. Yet, in the classic struggle with sin, I am tempted to set up a kingdom here on earth, deceiving myself with good, natural orders like marriage, family, success, community, etc., that they are due more consideration and import than the foundation, the cornerstone of faith which is Christ. Of course, these earthly desires which are good in themselves are bent when my eyes fail as a lighthouse to mediate the light of Heaven in the dark landscape around me. The Christian who wants the benefits of God’s grace and yet not love HIM must ultimately stumble when confronted with 1 Pet. 1:8-9: “You love him, though you have not seen him. And though not seeing him now, and believe in him and rejoice with inexpressible and glorious joy, because you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” First, let me say that this passage is not making an emotional/ecstatic experiential claim. I really don’t see how such an interpretation could be rendered in light of many other passages in the New Testament which argues against basing our lives on our emotional whims. If ANYTHING, Peter and Paul and other NT writers make severe statements against those who seek to appease a childish temperament in place of maturity and service. This passage is not about how I feel or don’t feel at the moment. Having said that, there is a joy which no one can touch, not even myself, that secures God’s child BECAUSE he IS God’s child. In other words, no one can so hurt me, so wound me that I am devastated beyond hope. Why is that? Because we have a LIVING hope bound up, wrapped up in the Resurrected Christ Jesus. That means that while I can and do hurt, can feel loss, grief and other types of pain, it is not bound in an earthly end, because I am not completely bound to the earth. As God’s sons and daughters, we are spiritual temples, religious steeples that host the light of the world in our hearts and lives. That is why we can declare: "Then let us all with one accord Sing praises to our heavenly Lord That hath made Heaven and earth of nought And with his blood mankind has bought. Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel Born is the King of Israel!"

To Dream the Impossible Dream

On the wrong side of love is a bad place to be. Yet be careful: Oswald Chambers writes that "one of the most cruel ways of killing natural love is by disdain built on natural affinities." (Jn. 15:15) Love is not sentimental. Love is not feelings alone (although the power and passion should not be dismissed by any means).For the saint, love is the most practical thing. Our theology is worked out in relationships, even when it sometimes seems prudent to end them. But that should be done carefully: Sometimes, it isn't. Dear friend: TRUST God. Yet remember this: He won't make us trust--whether we're too afraid to take the risk of loving another or to afraid to stick it out when the odds are against you both. Fear is too often the motivating factor which is repackaged as "God's plan." Abandonment is a cop-out for cowards and there's no place for that in the Redeemed. Still, deal generously and remember the rich young ruler, and Jesus'remarkable words which received all of the NON-action of response. Yet Jesus, LOVING him, watched him walk away. He didn't call him back. He just gave him His words, hard as they were, and watched him walk away. Listen, I know you friend, that you want to grow. Dwell in HIS presence and although your struggles will continue, if your commitments are based in the Word then your delight will be that of the blessed man (ps. 1). Your cistern will be pure, and your heart will be satisfied. Another's inadequacy will no longer be your frustration. When you finally do learn to love, you'll have the confidence of spirit and truth. That will be your inheritance. Zeph 3:17. Friend, keep your chin up and love as he has loved us. Fight for the right and dream the impossible dream!

How I get my kicks or what I do instead of working on my essay...

Cultivating fantasy to the danger of living

So I hated the film 'One Day' or at least swore not to watch it again unless I had a bottle of B&B's or Bailey's (I'm not fussy) but at least it avoided regular pitfalls of Hollywood's addictive sex-love-excitement setup. See http://www.seattlecat.com/joyofmovies/columns/000429.html (A cut from Steve Lansingh's article: "The cinematic medium mirrors our life, but the world of movies is more exciting and visceral than our own. When we begin to confuse the worlds or expect them to operate the same, we run the risk of creating unrealistic — and perhaps harmful — expectations for ourselves. For all the danger that sex, violence, and profanity bring to moviegoers, at least viewers are aware of it. When watching a sexual scene, we can guard our minds against it. If there's a lot of violence, we can recognize it for its shock value without assuming that violence is acceptable. As humans with free will, we can choose not to mimic the profane language. But the fantasy world is a danger that we rarely talk about, something we rarely consider. It may, in fact, be more dangerous because we have not built any defenses against it. A "clean" G-rated film can have just as many negative effects as a violent R-rated one — perhaps even more, since we are unaware of how we are being manipulated. A steady diet of films that reinforce romanticized love, materialism, or stereotyping — negative attitudes already within American culture that are reinforced subconsciously — can change the way we think, the way we act toward others, and even how we perceive God. They are the hidden dangers of the cinema. The cinema's greatest danger lies not in the content of the films but in the medium itself. Film creates a fantasy world, a world that sucks us in and entices us. We want to see stories about the unusual or extraordinary, not three hours of some guy watching TV in his underpants, which happens in reality. (Andy Warhol's "Sleep" is an eight-hour long film of a man sleeping, which perhaps most closely reflects real life, but is still set apart from reality because the director has chosen who the actor is and where to point the camera and direct our attention.) Film usually gets rid of the small, quiet moments of life and concentrates on the crisis and drama. It creates a world that is visceral — it must because it communicates with only two of the five senses. Film intensifies its images and sound in order to overwhelm the whole viewer. This fantasy world of the cinema moves faster, looks prettier, sounds better, and is more exciting than ours. But what is the danger of a fantasy world? If we ask the average person on the street whether movies are like real life, chances are he or she will say "Of course not." From a rational standpoint, moviegoers are likely to distinguish between reality and fiction. But the fantasy becomes dangerous when we start to wish that our world were more like the movies, or when the movie reinforces a harmful value that is held in the real world as well."

there's a mad monster under my bed

So the picture is a bit of a laugh (I know I burst out laughing when I first saw it!) but it also (in a cheesy way) comforts me. The past month has been a non-stop hammering device against my sense of order and peace. I feel like a kid with a bad case of monsters under her bed. And I'm no Boo from Monster's Inc. Yet, when I had to draw my sword last night to confront the madness, God reminded me from Psalm 119:41-72 that this trial is good for me. I should be grateful! It's good because my frustration, doubts and yes, even bitterness which I harbor, must be shaken out of their dormant state if I am to be healed. Of course, sometimes the healing is just as painful as the wounding. Still, it's not that sin wasn't there to begin with, it's just that the monster was sleeping (sometimes fitfully).Alanis Morissette's Flavors of Entanglement has two songs which sum up the experience and the relationship: Tapes and Madness. Good stuff. (Yes, they are on youtube.) Anyway, I have O. Chambers's My Utmost for His Highest which I've been going through for 10 years now. Time for a re-post of the message! 12-14-2011 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled . . . —John 14:27 Whenever we experience something difficult in our personal life, we are tempted to blame God. But we are the ones in the wrong, not God. Blaming God is evidence that we are refusing to let go of some disobedience somewhere in our lives. But as soon as we let go, everything becomes as clear as daylight to us. As long as we try to serve two masters, ourselves and God, there will be difficulties combined with doubt and confusion. Our attitude must be one of complete reliance on God. Once we get to that point, there is nothing easier than living the life of a saint. We encounter difficulties when we try to usurp the authority of the Holy Spirit for our own purposes. God’s mark of approval, whenever you obey Him, is peace. He sends an immeasurable, deep peace; not a natural peace, “as the world gives,” but the peace of Jesus. Whenever peace does not come, wait until it does, or seek to find out why it is not coming. If you are acting on your own impulse, or out of a sense of the heroic, to be seen by others, the peace of Jesus will not exhibit itself. This shows no unity with God or confidence in Him. The spirit of simplicity, clarity, and unity is born through the Holy Spirit, not through your decisions. God counters our self-willed decisions with an appeal for simplicity and unity. My questions arise whenever I cease to obey. When I do obey God, problems come, not between me and God, but as a means to keep my mind examining with amazement the revealed truth of God. But any problem that comes between God and myself is the result of disobedience. Any problem that comes while I obey God (and there will be many), increases my overjoyed delight, because I know that my Father knows and cares, and I can watch and anticipate how He will unravel my problems.

Art & The Trinity

My classmates and I were looking at how artists have tried to create models that conveyed the very complex and abstract concept of the Trinity. The link shows one of my favorites: it's a Hungarian artist's contemporary model and uses light, smoke and refraction. From the Father's light forms the Son made evident by the smoke (Holy Spirit). Definitely check out his blog video: http://trinitymodel.blogspot.com/

Poetry, Body, and Sex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlJFvxad1_A&feature=player_embedded So the link isn't posting properly (I don't get this). But seriously, copy and paste the link to check out this man's street poetry on sexual healing.

Glamour beauties

(Re-posting since the link wouldn't link) On the C.L.: Are You Ready to Start a Body Image Revolution? Oh, Wait--You Already Did! Comments (215) Post a comment Wednesday, 09/30/2009 11:55 PM As the editor of this magazine, I've been proud of plenty of portraits we've published--from fashion designers to First Ladies and beyond. But I'm especially proud of a shoot you'll see in our November issue--not because of the work that went into it, but because of the important work it kicks off. Oh, and did I mention the whole fun, fabulous thing was your idea? Here's the photo: seven beautiful women, all three to five sizes larger than the models you generally see in magazines. We'll get to the reasons for that in a minute, but for now, let's just spend a minute soaking up their gorgeousness! Lovely, right? Now here's the backstory: About two months ago, Glamour started receiving letter after letter about the exuberant smile--and naturally curvy tummy--of a model who'd appeared in a small photo on page 194 of our September issue. ("This picture is absolutely amazing," wrote one. "Finally, a picture of a woman with a rounded, squishy, real belly!") I wrote here about the reader reaction, and about "the woman on page 194" herself, 21-year-old model/singer/softball player Lizzie Miller, who went on to be interviewed everywhere from Oprah Radio to Access Hollywood. But the most important conversation took place right here on glamour.com, where over 1,000 of you posted your own joyous reactions to a figure with curves. "Lizzi, you are radiant," wrote one. "Shine on, sister." (Men loved the picture too: "I speak on behalf of all men: she is stunningly beautiful," went one typical comment. "Please, make more of her.") Reading the comments, it was hard not to notice that many ended with the same two words: "More, please!" Matt Lauer put it pretty bluntly to me on the Today Show: "Cindi, you know we've had these types of segments before where a photo like this...sparks a lot of positive comments and you know what, the editors of the magazines come in and go, "It's great, it's great!" and then we go back to skin and bones. Is this gonna change things?" It's a fair question--but the answer is, at least at Glamour, yes. Don't get me wrong: I'm proud of this magazine's longtime dedication to photographing women of all sizes. But can we do more? Of course--and that starts here. As you'll read in our November issue, Glamour is committing to featuring a greater range of body types in our pages, including in fashion and beauty stories (traditionally the toughest areas for even the top "plus-size" models to crack). I know that seems like it should be the easiest thing in the world to do. And you'd be perfectly entitled to wonder why "plus-size" models are so uncommon in magazines and other parts of the media to begin with. I'll try to answer a few of the questions you've asked most: What's up with women like Lizzie Miller being called "plus-size," anyway? As Genevieve Field writes in our November issue, most "plus-size" models actually aren't plus-size humans. It's one of the perversities of the modeling industry that women are moved into "plus" divisions once they're anything larger than a six. (They actually have to wear cutlets and padding to model plus-size clothing.) Strange but true. And why don't you see more "plus" models in fashion stories? Well, lots of reasons, but partly because the clothes are so flippin' small. The "samples" we borrow for shoots are generally cut to fit a size zero-to-four frame. (If we just went out and bought bigger sizes from the store, those styles would be off the racks and unbuyable by the time you saw them in Glamour.) Why do designers cut so tiny? Beats me, but Glamour plans to cheer on those who work with us in glamorizing women of all sizes from now on. It's not always easy for them: When designer Mark Fast recently put three size 10-ish models on his London runway last week (all looking highly hot), two of his top creative people reportedly quit in protest. Whatever! Mark's apparently going on to do a line for Topshop. Happy ending. Is showing larger-size women...unhealthy? It's a serious question: Amid the cheering for Lizzie Miller on glamour.com was a distinct strain of criticism from readers who worried the photo promoted obesity. First things first: Lizzie's not obese. (At 180 and 5'11, she's maybe a couple of pounds overweight.) But more than that, I don't buy that showing women in a variety of sizes will discourage heavier ones from maintaining a healthy weight. Glamour assistant editor Margarita Bertsos--who wrote about her own 75-pound weight loss for Glamour--said it best: "This photo in no way sends a message to me that I should quit taking care of my body... It has the complete opposite effect on me, reminding me to love myself, treat myself well (and that INCLUDES a healthy diet and exercise), and showing me that I can and should smile in my nakedness and belly rolls, because I'm worthy of that kind of that unabashed self-love right this second. We all are!" Amen. To be clear, I'm not on the "real women have curves" bandwagon here, arguing that only bodies like Lizzie's are "real"--and that slender women are all unreal waifs who should just eat a cheeseburger and get over themselves. Turning the tables so we can bash one type instead of another isn't the answer. Celebrating the fact that we're all born different is. Think about it: In real life, women of all shapes and sizes have crazy sex appeal and killer confidence. Why should our own pages look any different? We'll do our best to live up to this standard in the future: shooting models who diverge in every way from the cookie-cutter norm. Is it a retreat from fantasy? Of course not: If we wanted unadulterated reality, we could just print everyone's driver's-license picture. But I happen to think that a fantasy every reader can have a piece of is the most powerful fantasy of all. Thank you for encouraging us to try to provide it, and for pointing the way forward here. Your words inspire me daily. Now tell me, what did you think when you first saw the group photo above? And how much reality, and how much fantasy, do you want in a magazine, and from the media? PS: FYI, to those of you who took the time to contribute to my editor's letter, a while back, thank you! You'll see some of your (awesome!) comments in the November issue on newsstands next week. More on the Body Image Revolution: Read the feature story: These Bodies Are Beautiful At Every Size Photo Gallery: See The Models Who Bravely Bared It All Get Body-Confidence Secrets From Plus-Size Model Crystal Renn (featured above!) The blog post that started it all: The Photo You Can't Stop Talking About: Meet "The Woman on p.194" More Ways to Get Glamour: Subscribe to Glamour magazine! Follow me on Twitter! Friend Glamour on Facebook! by Cindi Leive Categories:Beauty & Health,Body Image,Happiness,Self Image Keywords body image, body image issues, crystal renn, female body image, healthy body image, ideal body image, mark fast, media and body image, plus size, plus size models, positive body image Read More http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/vitamin-g/2009/09/on-the-cl-are-you-ready-to-sta.html#ixzz1gGWPbBml

beauty in the flesh

Head’s up: this will be a meandering note. It is not an argument, a proper criticism in any shape or form or whathaveyou. So lately I’ve been surrounded by artists, theologians, critics, and fellow academic students who have thought carefully about body, beauty, and ethics. In my acquaintance, I have several students that would advocate nude portraits and who have either modelled or would be open to nude modelling. Now, these are very average-looks people: Not without some attractive features but certainly not glamorous models. Nor are they clearly seeking some sexual thrill from sitting naked in a room with all eyes on them. One argued that it’s a liberating experience. For my friends, both male and female, they see it as a way to come to terms with their bodies, not to see the body as flawed but worth looking at with attention rather than apathy or criticism. Nor is it meant for being a focus of lust, but rather to see the body as good, whole, as something even beautiful in it's 'fleshiness'. It is not for lusting or an issue of lust. Sexual desire is something else, not completely unrelated but not identical either. Often these desire, beauty, and lust are confused. For example, I just saw the film ‘One Day’ starring Anne Hathaway and there was one scene in particular that stood out. The male lead, Dexter, is coming on to his friend, Emma (Hathaway’s character) and announces that he finds her attractive. For the longest time, years actually, he wasn’t sure but this night anyway, he was feeling it. However, he qualifies his feelings that he pretty much fancies everyone, that he feels like he’s “always just having been released from prison.” The images of bodies in his mind are fixated on what he had built as his standard and expectations of conforming to beauty. Emma was attractive…but he had always seen himself with “someone more his type.” Yet, this is a romantic movie so yes, over a decade of life kicking his head out of his assets, his desire for Emma’s beauty increases. The challenge to their relationship was him having to wrestle with his own insecurities and lack of confidence in himself which had always led him to seek trophies in places and beauties. As he grew in beauty and wholeness, the more his desire for beauty increased. As he desired more of beauty, the more he desired Emma. Now, I doubt Dexter ever stopped desiring other women but his motivations changed. It was no longer his struggles that ruled him, but his commitments. This is the story of a a boy growing up. One Day is essentially the story of a cute guy becoming a good man. Took him twenty years, but who's counting? Anyway, so when I watch this film, side bars of culture commentaries run through my mind such as the following (see below). Basically, I hope that men and women will learn to see beauty, not the enticement for lust, in all its forms, both for themselves and for one another. May the desire for beauty increase forevermore!

15 Minutes to Puzzle Complex Life Questions

I'm never early. Typically, I'm five minutes late. Not MORE than that--anything past 15 minutes is just rude, but I have conditioned myself to believe that I can do ONE MORE THING before I need to leave. It's not that I'm lazy--I'm actually task (yet not so much time) oriented. Thus, I grew up with my mother telling me that I would be late for my own funeral. This morning, however, I found myself with an excess of 15 minutes before I needed to be at work. Some of my type A friends would say that that means keep on trucking over and don't dilly dally. But I'm a Beta--we like to set our own agendas but don't mind overmuch if others take the lead. As long as they know what their doing, of course. But I digress. So, I had some time to spare and lo--serendipity! Barnes and Noble was across the road. What else is an addict to do? Now, how can you possibly have a grand time in 15 minutes or less in a bookshop? By hitting up the Humorous, Nonsensical and Odd section. I read a practical guide that I'm sure to need once I go to Scotland (Raising Unicorns: Your Step-by-Step Guide to Starting and Running a Sucessful-and magical!- Unicorn Farm), and an alternative to positivism: All My Friends are Dead. I next contemplated purchasing an Alex Beard Nautilus Impossible Jigsaw puzzle set but I hadn't any friends to give it to, which was disappointing. I don't know why I have the urge to buy things like that. Just like those polar bear bookends made of glazed marble: I gave all my books away once I bought a kindle! Oi!: The things one contemplates in 15 minutes. Anyway, I wasn't more than 5 minutes late to work. Honest.

Faith without illusions: an honorable mention

So I was at my home away from home, (also known as Barnes & Noble) this evening and I found this book Faith Without Illusions by Andrew Byers. Now, I don't normally spend a lot of time in the Christian Inspiration section because, let's be honest, too many of those books aren't theologically sound. You've got Mormon, New Age, etc. crammed in along with the latest apocalyptic sell and a myriad of superficial devotions. I'll confess that I've been tempted to re-enact Matthew 21:12 when I see some of these cheap marketing ploys. You want real Christianity? Get in the word of God. Park your seat in front of it and skip the excuse channel. As a relevant aside, I've been attending The Summit in Durham, NC. Our pastor, J. D. Greear has been going through a series on the Gospel, and the main exposition comes from John 15. Since it has been on my mind. I'll share the prayer that we've been challenged to make a part of our daily lives at the end of this post. Anyway, I'm POSTING the mention of this book because Byer's book actually seems like a descent primer for the young believer who also needs to beware of building up illusions that aren't based the Holy Scriptures but are really false ideologies. If you've already read it or are reading it, let me know your thoughts, eh? GOSPEL PRAYER 1. In Christ, there is nothing I could do to make You love me more; nothing I have done that makes You love me less. 2. You are all I need today for everlasting joy. 3As You have been to me, so I will be to others. 4. As I pray, I'll measure Your compassion by the cross and Your power by the resurrection. www.jdgreear.com

Reason and Sentiment in Art

(Charis-Kairos (The Tears of Christ) 80x64", Mineral Pigments, Gold on Belgium Linen--Makoto Fujimura " Charis (Grace) Kairos (Time), takes the methods I developed for my Soliloquies series which exhibited my large scale works with Modernist master Georges Rouault's paintings. Taking Rouault's indelible images as a cue, I decided to start with a dark background, to illumine the darkness with prismatic colors. I write in the introduction to the Four Gospels' project by Crossway: "I painted the five large-scale images that illuminate this volume, The Four Holy Gospels, using water-based Nihonga materials (Japanese style painting), with my focus on the tears of Christ (John 11) - tears shed for the atrocities of the past century and for our present darkness." (Makoto Fujimura) To my delight, I'm discovering that there is a growing interest in contemporary and modern artists among evangelicals. Still, many of my peers are uncomfortable with what they would argue is essentially an emotional medium of without regard for reason. However, and to an extent, I agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the massage. Now, I'm not advocating postmodernism, ambivalence, or religious relativity. I simply pose the idea that we ought to consider each work and the context of its presentation with an open mind. For example, one of the most internationally respected Christian artists, Makoto Fujimura, abandoned the comfort of realism and instead communicates to the broken and isolated of New York City through abstract expressionism. Yet the beauty in his works speaks to the soul and affirms the truth of propositional sacred statements,making soul sense of the cerebral data. I forget who said this but one composer is quoted to have said that if he could communicate the truth with 'real' words, he needn't bother with music. Emotions and experience are not the truth's enemy. The abstract is the sense that our vocabulary is ill-equipped to rationally apprehend. Of course, sensations may be good or they may be evil. But whatever they are, they are powerful. As such, must Christians submit to the premise that abstract expressionism must ipso facto abandon the basic principles of rational engagement that initiated the clearest formation of the Enlightenment? I don't see why that should be the case. Writing from the mid-nineteenth century, Victor Cousin wrote a powerful statement that when there is a beauty of reason engaged in sentiment produce a true sense of humanity: "It is a singular, but incontestable fact, that as soon as reason has conceived truth, the soul attaches itself to it, and loves it. Yes, the soul loves truth. …..Sentiment follows reason, to which it is attached; it stops, it rests, only in the love of the infinite being. In fact, it is the infinite that we love, while we believe that we are loving finite things, even while loving truth, beauty, virtue." A true artist engages the brilliance of reason and intuition. The mind is never suspended: Intellectual effort is required through discipline to technique and through meditative attention on God. And by abstract’s nature, invites mystery and vulnerability. While prudence determines what is appropriate for the public, abstract’s persuasive language enjoins community.

An Ode to Helena-Moriah

An errand yesterday evening sent me back a good twenty years as I drove through the fields and forests of Timberlake where I was raised. Driving with the convertible top down and U2's Joshua Tree pulsing the rhythm and beat, I played with a smile and let it win. It felt good to visit the homeland. It's interesting how returning to a place at different points in life help ease the journey onward to someplace new. Sometimes I think we avoid places or people, afraid that we'll end up back at the beginning. As if the world just stopped and you're still back there and, like singer laments, she's running to stand still. But I've come down my Carolina road too far and the choices and experiences that I've made have fashioned a confidence that childhood monsters can't terrify anymore. I'm not running, I'm just living and loving the journey. That knowledge tucked in my pocket lent a nostalgic sweetness in the fading summer light and I let the memories roam. With the song of the crickets and katydids rising from the tobacco fields, I sang along an ode to my Helena-Moriah. The buck and doe held attendance in the growing shadows as I passed by on an old country lane and I thanked God for making a home for me in His presence. In an odd continuity and discontinuity, I'm coming home and I'm passing on. For now, I'm moving my hat to a new sunrise, a new time and song. I'm reminded to keep alive the brightest memories of Helena-Moriah Rd. And as I passed the lone old oak tree in the middle of the field, I went on singing With or Without you but not meaning a word of it. Praise God.

Fight Club, Light Speed Monsters and Invisibility Cloaks

Overcoming the speed of light to unleash the Hyde within? 

Invisibility, another super power that people have desired for thousands of years may just yet be the plausible outworking of science and ingenuity. I have always found it interesting that the desire for invisibility is almost always enjoined to that of increasing one's fame and personal glory. The flip side of the coin of such an innocuous ability defies the everyday experience and begs the hungry soul to embrace unregulated or uncontested freedom. It's almost schizophrenic, if you think about it. One side respecting order, social responsibility and soul integrity. The other, operating under the cloak of ego, anarchy, and unrestrained self-interest. Call me crazy (no pun intended) but I connect the above pattern of the personal war of invisibility with the film Fight Club. It may seem random  to connect invisibility cloak theoretical development with Fight Club's protagonist and Tyler Dirt but the motivations of Dr. Jekyll and the monstrous Hyde coincide within every man and should this actually become a practical, effective garment, I see shadows in the side vision. It seems that man is always trying to overcome light but to what end? Of course I love that an undergraduate is tinkering on the idea in a lofty physics vault at St. Andrews. Makes me feel just bloody great. 

see also : Light speed hurdle to invisibility cloak overcome by student

Tuesday 09 August 2011

 http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archive/2011/Title,72428,en.html

We don't eat

It bothers some of my friends that I rarely listen to "Christian" music. I counter criticism that secular and sacred are indivisible to the Christian. If art is anything, it is spiritual. Let everything be to God's glory. Further,  the obvious reason for avoiding the mass production of current "Christian" music is that it tends to be theologically inane, and an embarrassingly aborted attempt of creativity and depth. Not all of it,  I grant, but too much. Of course I don't swing to pendulum uncritically support "secular" quality either. I listen to classical, swing, indie, rock, and a great many singer/songwriters. I listen closely to music and frequently look up lyrics to read the words that the beat obfuscates in rhythm and feeling. Sometimes I'm embarrassed how carried away I was with a melody to such stupid words. Other times, I'm drawn in all the more to the questions that I missed in the hearing, the seeking artist's vulnerability, because the sound was either too good or unremarkable. Sometimes, it comes together and I just want to share with others. Case in point, The Civil Wars nail judgment and human folly in Barton Hollow. Mumford & Sons give voice to the questions, passion and regret of our hearts.  Another, an Irishman, James Vincent McMorrow, recently released a brilliant album, Early in the Morning, that reflects biblical themes in several of his lyrics. I'm still going through his work but here's one of my favorites that I can't stop playing We don't Eat :

If this is redemption, why do I bother at all

There's nothing to mention, and nothing has changed

Still I'd rather be working at something, than praying for the rain

So I wander on, till someone else is saved

I moved to the coast, under a mountain

Swam in the ocean, slept on my own

At dawn I would watch the sun cut ribbons through the bay

I'd remember all the things my mother wrote

That we don't eat until your father's at the table

We don't drink until the devil's turned to dust

Never once has any man I've met been able to love

So if I were you, I'd have a little trust

Two thousand years, I've been in that water

Two thousand years, sunk like a stone

Desperately reaching for nets

That the fishermen have thrown

Trying to find, a little bit of hope

Me I was holding, all of my secrets soft and hid

Pages were folded, then there was nothing at all

So if in the future I might need myself a savior

I'll remember what was written on that wall

That we don't eat until your father's at the table

We don't drink until the devil's turned to dust

Never once has any man I've met been able to love

So if I were you, I'd have a little trust

Am I an honest man and true

Have i been good to you at all

Oh I'm so tired of playing these games

We'd just be running down

The same old lines, the same old stories of

Breathless trains and, worn down glories

Houses burning, worlds that turn on their own

So we don't eat until your father's at the table

We don't drink until the devil's turned to dust

Never once has any man I've met been able to love

So if I were you my friend, I'd learn to have just a little bit of trust

Let me know what you think, what you've discovered, eh?