|
ThirdCorinthian
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Country: United States
State: Colorado
Metro: Colorado Springs
Birthday: 4/3/1980
Gender: Male
Interests: stories, faith, art, myths, soccer, Steve Martin movies, Chesterton, foosball, Sportsnight , Enya, how to walk on water, Paul, 42 , Steven Brust, Mafia , how McDonalds can make a profit on their value meals, where Lutherans went wrong, music mixes, great authors, bass guitar, my sister Susanne, how to write the great Christian novel, how to make the great Christian movie, the Monroe doctrine, The Princess Bride , card games, Ultimate Frisbee, and--of course--the most important year in a man's life.
Expertise: 19th century English poetry , Danish, origami, procrastination, the English language, how to lose a girl in 10 days, Spanish , Spades, Ultimate Frisbee, 2 Cor 4:16-18 , the back of my hand
Occupation: Artist
Industry: Nonprofit
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
AIM:  Maussimo12
Member Since:
2/2/2005
|
|
| Rewriting the Graphic Novel Bible has been the most fun thing I’ve ever done at work. But it’s also really challenging my faith, my Bible knowledge, and my storytelling. There are just so many narrative gaps. Usually I’m able to fill them by reading one of the SIX commentaries I have. But some questions I seem to be the first one to have ever asked. So I’m going to start throwing my toughest questions out there to all my Bible-knowing friends. Several of you may be tempted to answer one of these questions with, “Because it was God’s plan.” Please don’t be that guy. God’s plan is fulfilled through humans, and through human motivations. Samson didn’t burn the Philistines fields because it was God’s plan. Yes, it was part of God’s plan, but Samson did it because the Philistines had just stolen his wife. Do you see the distinction? I’m looking for a consistent plot, not just God’s divine nature. I already know that part. So, here we go: - Why didn’t Jonathan fight Goliath? 1 Samuel 17:1-11
After all, he was brave, believed in God, and had killed many Philistines himself. Previous chapters in 1 Samuel show that Jonathan was willing to do brave things because he believed the Lord was with him. So when the Bible says “everyone in the Israelite army was afraid to fight Goliath,” does that include brave young Jonathan? Shouldn’t Jonathan have been the first to step up and slay the giant in the name of the Lord? He didn’t know David was going to show up to the battle. - How did Michal know Saul was planning to murder David that night? 1 Samuel 18:11
I don’t understand how Michal’s subterfuge worked? 1 Samuel 18:13-16
I mean, picture it: You’ve been sent to kill David, his wife stops you at the door and says he’s sick. So you say, “Oh, sorry ma’am, we didn’t know. We’ll come back to kill him once he’s healthy.” NO! You’d break down the door, and kill him, whatever his state of health is. - Also, what good did making a fake-David mannequin do? 1 Samuel 18:13, 1
Seriously, fake-body-under-the-covers works for making parents believe you haven’t snuck out past curfew. What earthly good does it do for men who are coming to kill you. At most, it buys you an extra 3 seconds for your escape. I would love any ideas or suggestions. Don’t necessarily exclude yourself because you’re not a Bible scholar. I need creative suggestions that can fill in the details of the scant narrative skeleton that the Bible gives us. | | |
| I like music videos. A lot. Which is interesting when you consider my music-less background. My parents never really had favorite groups that they raised me on. And, growing up in the Philippines, there was only one radio station in English—the Oldies station. To this day, I can sing all the lyrics to any pop song made before 1969. But I never got into the groups themselves, and never developed an emotional relationship with any songs or their singers. This led to a moment of supreme embarrassment in youth group. My Freshman year, the DCE (as part of a hypothetical situation) asked me to name the musician I'd most like to see in concert. And I couldn't think of a single living musician except for Weird Al Yankovic (the only album I owned).
But also in youth group was where I saw my first music video—Michael W. Smith's "Secret Ambition." And, yes, to look back at it, it's kind of cheesy, (and why does Jesus have an '80s-style perm?), but this video brought The Passion to me long before Mel Gibson got saved. That was the first time that music became emotional for me, and it took a music video to do it.
Since then, I've had a soft spot for music videos. Done right, they add to the meaning of a song. Unfortunately, they're all too often done wrong. But a new video just came out that I really like. Thinking about it, I've realized that you can break music videos down into a few basic types:
- The Concert - "Hey, the band already played this song at a concert, with cameras rolling! I just thought of a way to save money!" Groups who are good live can sometimes pull this off, but generally it's just as boring as watching someone play music, without even the benefit of the "contact high."
- The Concert with Pretentions - It's still basically just the band playing or the singer singing directly to the camera, but with some cool imagery, collages, and artsy shots mixed in. This is the most common type of music video that you'll find.
- The Soundtrack - This hit song was also used in the latest hit movie. And the movie already blew millions on filming emotionally and visually provocative scenes. An opportunity for piggybacking. Celine Dion was the mistress of this:
And for all you Twilight fans: "Decode" by Paramore
Finally, a personal plug, from my favorite movie: Enya's music video for "Exile"
- The Playboy Challenge - Unfortunately, it is proven gold to just find a hot chick to dance around in your video. Pretty much every music video from the '80s reveled in this, along with most R&B. This is the second most common type of video.
- The Block Party - Every rap and hip-hop video EVER. Let's just gather all our friends, all our buxom and scantily-clad lady friends, and jam out in somebody's backyard or "in da club." Generally features cars, cleavage, and booty shaking. And if the song has a misspelled title, you can definitely bet lots of people are gonna be "rollin' with the homies."
- Any Excuse for a Dance Routine - Basically every N*Sync, , 98 Degrees, Britney, Usher, Christina, and Michael Jackson video. If you like choreographed dancing (yes, yes I do), then these are the videos for you.
- Somebody was on Drugs - After this video is over, you don't understand any of what went on. Except that somebody involved in the creative direction (and/or the musicians) was in an altered state of consciousness.
But finally, the best kind of all....
- The Story - This isn't necessarily a literal acting-out of the song. At its finest, The Story music video adds a new facet, a new layer of meaning to the original song. When a song has been made better, the music video has reached the pinnacle of distinction—it becomes art, instead of just a marketing tool.
Daniel Powter - "Bad Day" This video is a romantic comedy done in three minutes. Two forlorn and lonely artists miss each other by minutes as they follow their daily humdrum routine. But a penchant for quality graffiti finally brings them together. The song by itself may be saccharine, but the video and song combine to be a charming, feel-good experience.
For a stirring country example, there's Brad Paisley and Allison Krauss' "Whiskey Lullabye." A haunting tune, literally acted out as a WWII drama. Ricky Schroeder plays a GI who comes back from the war to find his true love cheating on him.
Dido's "Thank You" video is a sweet and unique little thing. They lifted a key line from the song ("Even if my house falls down now, I wouldn't have a clue.") and used it as the climax of the plot. The production crew actually built that cute purple house in the middle of a downtown block, and then they actually demolished it.
A video that personally speaks to me is "Here's to the Night" by Eve 6. An example where I just thought the song was okay until I saw the music video. For anyone who has romantic regrets from their high school years, this video is sure to be poignant for you.
Anyway, I'm writing about this topic because a new video just came out that I think will become a classic. It's for the song "If I Were a Boy" by Beyoncé Knowles. I've never been a particular fan of Beyoncé or Destiny's Child. But I'd already taken note of this song for being a well-written—if bleak—description of common gender dynamics in our society. This video fleshed out the concept even more with a compelling story, and a really good twist at the end.
(Grammar note: I also appreciated that the title of the song was grammatically correct. It's rare to see the proper conjugation of the conditional verb tense of "to be" in today's illiterate culture.)
| | |
| Well, it turns out that the U.S. government is extending its socialist principles into yet another area of society. This current plan wants a government program to provide the basic minimum of services to all citizens. They insist that private entities will still exist for those who can afford to pay for their services. The government-backed portion may be less efficient or may not cover as many services as private companies, but the president hopes that extending this basic right to all people is worth having yet another unwieldy government program.
That’s right. I’m talking about the U.S. Postal Service.
Seriously, why doesn’t the USPS get any of the flak that government health care does? As near as I understand Obama’s plan, his healthcare functions on the same principles as the Post Office. The government’s program is there so that everyone can always send a package cheaply. If you want better service, you go to FedEx, UPS, or any of a variety of private carriers. And that’s what Obama wants to mirror with health service.
Many people deride government healthcare as welfare and being just another handout that will keep poor people poor. But the fact is, health care has become a liability to the middle class. The majority of small business entrepreneurs can’t afford to provide health care to themselves or their employees. The majority of bankruptcies in this country arise due to unforeseen medical expenses.
I’d like to move and travel, doing the Lord’s work wherever He leads me, but I can’t, because I couldn’t afford private health care at the same time. I would love to pursue my goals as a writer, and work towards becoming a full-time writer. But I can’t quit my current job to focus full-time on writing, because I have to have health care.
Health care is not a “throwing money at the poor to let them stay lazy” issue. It’s crippling our companies. One of the main reasons GM says it can’t compete with foreign auto makers, is that it can’t afford the high costs of health care for its employees. Offering a government-backed alternative to health care will force private insurance companies to be competitive, both in pricing and breadth of coverage. Right now, private health care companies are beaurocratic, and can take months (and years) to screw over their supposed clients. Their clients can’t go to any of their competitors anyway, so there’s no reason to provide quality or timely service. Competition is the cornerstone of capitalism, and right now the health care companies have no competition. Let’s let the government give them a reason to better themselves.
And keep in mind, please, for the comments: this is different than socialized medicine. We’re not talking about making all doctors work for the same salary, or forcing all hospitals to work for the government. We’re talking about another health care company, backed by the government, to ensure that everyone has access to health care. And all the numbers I’ve read show that this will lower costs for all consumers. It’s a healthy way to go.
| | |
| In my last post, I talked about the double-standard between moral governmental behavior and the individual behavior that the Bible calls each of us to. In follow-up personal conversations that I had, I finally clarified my political ideology to myself. I’ve been claiming that I’m a Republican, but that doesn’t mean what it used to. So I’m now going with Libertarian—the government being hands-off as much as possible. But, as I hope I’ve made clear in my latest posts, Republicans and Democrats both want extremely hands-ON government—the only difference is what issues each party thinks government should meddle in. So, when I’m faced with two parties that want to expand government control, I go with the one that is least hypocritical, and more closely follows what I consider to be moral and political priorities. And, as I also hope I’ve made clear, I am fine with other Christians who disagree with me about those priorities. It’s the demonizing of those who disagree by many Republican Christians that I have a problem with.
But now on to what I’m seeing is the second fundamental philosophical difference between me and many of my Christian friends: I want Christians to stand for something positive, when we’ve come to be labeled in this country as only standing for negative things.
Personal confession: I am a negative person, by inclination. I can mask this by being funny and outgoing. But as a few friends pointed out during our most recent political season, I very easily turn negative on those who disagree with me. Also, as my new wife has figured out, my reflex reactions are generally negative in nature. And this isn’t good. It alienates friends and saps my influence with people. While most of you would agree that this is something I should try to overcome as an individual, I don’t hear enough recognition of the corporate Church having the same problem. Yet this negative reinforcement is something that Jesus Himself spoke out against.
One great example: the Golden Rule has existed in negative form for as long as humans have had laws. Hammurabi’s Code, the oldest surviving collection of laws, commanded, “Don’t do anything to someone else that you wouldn’t want him to do to you.” But Jesus made it new by making it positive. “Do to others what you would have them to do to you” (Luke 6:31). It’s the difference between not hitting your sister, because you wouldn’t like it, and giving your sister a backrub, because you know you would like it yourself. Which one leads to a more loving relationship?
Merely obeying the negative letter of the law leads to Sunday morning Christians, but following the positive spirit of the law helps bring Christ’s kingdom into existence here on Earth. Positive morals are the only ones that—by their very nature—cannot be obeyed hypocritically. Negative morality—and legislation— can be obeyed externally, with nobody the wiser about your true heart condition.
Christians tend to take refuge (like the Pharisees in Jesus’ time) because they don’t break any of God’s laws. Good job! You’re upright, you’re respectable, and gosh darn it, people (other Christians) like you! But living for God’s kingdom won’t simply let us hide behind our outward living.
All of this to say, my goal is to reclaim this fallen world for Christ and His kingdom. But, frankly, it won’t happen by passing laws against things. Rather than making a negative, proscriptive mark on our country, I’d prefer that Christians quit trying to outlaw things we disagree with, and make a positive, joyful mark by living in such a way that people are forced to respect us, instead of labeling us as agents of intolerance. I’ve said it before, a law against homosexual marriage is nowhere near as effective as Christians focusing on having better, happier, God-ruled marriages themselves. And we absolutely fall short in that regard. It’s easier to legislate others than to live abundantly ourselves. And Christians shouldn’t be taking the easy way out.
One last thought for you to mull over in the comments. (And I really would love to hear what you think about this.) Paul says,
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13, emphasis mine)
I take this verse as saying it’s pointless for us to exercise judgment on those who are not believers. They don’t respect our source of authority anyway. Why should we expect those who don’t believe in God to agree with His moral conduct, when we haven’t shown them any of His love?
Let’s get away from judging and legislating, and get back to loving people into a true relationship with Christ.
| | |
| It's become clear to me that there are a couple of bedrock, yet unspoken, principles that are muddying the water of our recent conversations. (How's that for a mixed metaphor?) The first, which will be the topic of tonight's post, is the Bible's model for how government should interact with faith.
The Bible makes clear distinctions between rules for the individual and rules for the government. Let's look at a couple of examples:
- The Bible says it is a sin to kill, and yet most Christians (and God, seemingly) have no problem with the death penalty. Why? Because the government has powers that an individual should not have.
- Jesus makes it clear that peace was a top priority. This is especially important when you consider that the Jews expected the Messiah to be a mighty war leader who would topple the Romans. Yet he counseled turning the other cheek, which is what angered so many. So why is it okay for governments (now, and in the Old Testament) to go to war instead of turning the other cheek?
- All life is sacred, right? Especially the "innocents." Isn't that why most of you say pro-life is your top priority? Then why did God authorize genocide, including babies and children? Again, because there are different standards for governments and individuals.
Let's be clear—I am not saying that God is wrong. I am not attempting to judge him for genocide. (I'm content with judging the angels; they got some 'splaining to do about the Redneck Wedding TV show.) I am trying to point out that God clearly has different standards for individuals than for governments. Remember Jesus not condemning the Roman government like he was "supposed" to? He simply left it at giving to Caesar what is Caesar's. And aside from God's explicit delineation, we, as modern-day Christians, make our own separation between what God says for us, and what God says for governments. Examples:
- The Bible says not to covet. So do any of you have a moral problem with our government's Eminent Domain law, which lets them force you to sell your property if they want it instead?
- The Bible says to share with those in need, yet it seems that most of you don't want the government involved in "spreading the wealth."
- The Bible says that marriage is sacred to God, and that a divorced woman should be cast into the street. Yet for all the Anti-Gay Marriage agenda, I have yet to hear a single Christian say that divorce should be made illegal (except in cases of adultery, of course). Why should one be legislated against, and one not? Don't they both desecrate marriage?
- God says usury is a sin, yet we live under a (supposedly) Capitalist government, that lives and dies on credit and interest. In fact, our government's president, George W. Bush, in the wake of 9/11, told us that the most patriotic thing we could do as Americans was......to buy things. On credit. How many of you have car loans or mortgages? You're probably glad those are legal, even though the Bible is against them.
- Not believing in Jesus is a sin. And it's the big one, people! That's the one that gets you into hell. The other sins can be covered, if you believe in Jesus. So should it be illegal in this country to be a Muslim, a Jew, a Mormon, an Atheist? None of them believe Jesus is our Savior, the only Son of God.
Again, I'm not endorsing or condemning any of these points. I'm simply trying to point out the double standard we Christians operate under. There are parts of the Bible that we are HAPPY our government ignores. And there are parts our government ignores where we just don't care. But you gotta ask yourself: Is sanctity of life an important government agenda? Then why would you vote for someone (like McCain and Bush) who legalizes torture? If sanctity of marriage is a government issue, then why don't we vote against a candidate because he's pro-divorce?
My other point is this: we do not live under a Christian government. We don't. And, as someone who has spent time in an official Christian country (Denmark), I can tell you it's bad. Faith and religion become meaningless when government forces them on you. This is something that James, Christy, Tyler and others agree with when we talk about socialism and the government giving money and health care to poor people; they say it should be voluntary charity. But Christians seem to forget about that when we talk about gay marriage and abortion. Why should the government force Christian standards of marriage on gays? Do we force Christian standards of marriage on Muslims or atheists? Wouldn't the church itself be more effective by modeling Christian marriages that are more joyful, more intimate, and more holy than the world's? Wouldn't we be a better witness if the world were able to look at our blessed marriages and wonder why theirs felt so bleak?
I have to say, in general, I agree with (what used to be) the Republican stance: the smallest government possible. Don't meddle with anything you don't have to, especially religion. It's best left to the church. And Christians do their best "legislating" by simply living according to 1 Peter 3:15. And when we're talking about socialism welfare, Right-wing Christians agree with me. But then they do a sharp left turn for their own personal moral soapbox, and demand that the government involve itself in other moral issues.
The problem is, there is one place where God absolutely mandates for the government to meddle in a moral issue: socialism. I've spent this whole blog making the point that a moral government has (and should have) different standards and agendas than individual Christians. But this is not true when it comes to helping poor people.
Take a minute to read Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15:1-4. Focus on the instructions concerning poor people, and those who were forced to become slaves due to poverty. Keep in mind these were governmental laws. This passage is not saying that individuals should do these out of a personal faith and love for God and man; you could be legally prosecuted for not financially helping the poor. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are God's lawbooks for a nation; when Deuteronomy ends by saying that there should be no poor in the Land of God, he means that as a government's responsibility.
If you are one who advocates for the government to pass laws and make moral issues a priority, you must start with the government taking care of poor people. There is the strongest evidence in the Bible that this always has been and always will be God's top governmental priority. | | |
|
