My Two Cents on Michael Jackson

Humans are creators of culture, and I think Christians should create the best kinds of culture. Sadly, too much contemporary Christian writing and music is poor quality. In our attempts to create an alternative culture to the popular masses, we have sacrificed too greatly in quality. In trying to create overtly "Christian" art, we sometimes fall prey to the cheesy, trite, and meaningless. Yet, Christians can produce art with Christian themes without something being overtly "Christian." And Christians should do this in literature, music, painting, dance, cinema, etc.

What I have just articulated is the difference between content and quality. Christian art should be of the highest quality, even if the content is not overtly Christian. The distinction must remain though: content and quality are two separate categories of art. In the world of art, one may approve of the content even if the quality is poor (see: most "Christian" music). On the other hand, one may acknowledge poor content but respect the level of quality. On a smaller (and yet still relatively huge) scale, this latter category is the category of Tupac, the Beatles, or Dave Matthews. These are heroes of quality even where content suffers. And, in my opinion, the biggest world icon and hero of quality must be Michael Jackson.

Now I must define "quality" again. Quality does not mean agreeable. You don't have to like pop music to respect it. As a matter of fact, I don't much care for Dave Matthews or Tupac, but their musical artistry is undeniable. And in this regard, Michael Jackson truly is the originator and king of Pop music. Now is Pop a form of music as high as Baroque? Probably not, but in Michael Jackson's large worldwide arena of Pop, he's the king. Was the king. Michael could dance, sing, and make visual/audible art like the best of them. His life may have been sad, but his art was beautiful (I can't believe I just typed that, but I believe it). Michael did, however, have some songs with quality content- I'm a particular fan of "Black or White" and "I'll Be There" (Jackson 5) myself.

In sum, we should lament the loss of culture makers of any stripe, regardless of content (or, almost regardless of content), and Michael's life and death should make us mourn for the figure he was.

To TV or not to TV?

I want to advise anyone reading this that I am going to have a relatively big argument in a small sphere. Here's what I mean: I'm talking about the nature and role of television (big argument) and how Christians conceive of using it (small sphere). This post is not about the secular vs. religious arguments for or against television. This post is about Christian vs. Christian arguments for and against television. Allow me to proceed:

Christian Arguments For:
We need to be relevant and current with culture. We must know the news. We must be in step with the 24-7 news cycle. We must be a watcher and commentator on the culture. We must know music and movies and popular tv shows so that we can reach younger audiences. On top of all that, sometimes television is just a good, mindless activity that allows one to unwind.

Proponents: Mark Driscoll, Nick Pollard and Steve Couch (ironic, I know) who wrote the book Get More Like Jesus by Watching TV

Christian Arguments Against:
The medium is the message: television not only presents us with info, it shapes how we receive that info. As a by-product, we become too image-oriented, and not word-oriented. We become too sensational, and not logical. We become too entertainment-obsessed, and not kingdom-obsessed. Furthermore, it's just a huge time waster when one could be much more involved in reading, pursuing face-to-face relationships, or any other worthwhile cause.

Proponents: John Piper (read his blog here), Douglas Groothuis (read his rejection of Pollard and Couch here), and Neil Postman (who I'm not sure is a Christian, but Amusing Ourselves to Death is a must-read).

It seems to me that there is a spectrum here, but by and large the arguments against are much stronger. Piper elaborates:

If you want to be relevant, say, for prostitutes, don’t watch a movie with a lot of tumbles in a brothel. Immerse yourself in the gospel, which is tailor-made for prostitutes; then watch Jesus deal with them in the Bible; then go find a prostitute and talk to her. Listen to her, not the movie. Being entertained by sin does not increase compassion for sinners....

I have a high tolerance for violence, high tolerance for bad language, and zero tolerance for nudity. There is a reason for these differences. The violence is make-believe. They don’t really mean those bad words. But that lady is really naked, and I am really watching.

Groothuis, of course, is excellent on the philosophy of TV (as is Postman for that matter). See the addendum to his book, Truth Decay, about the effects of television on our minds and our concepts of truth.

An Interesting Play on the Word "Liberal"

"For some extraordinary reason, there is a fixed notion that it is more
liberal to disbelieve in miracles than to believe in them. Why, I cannot
imagine, nor can anybody tell me. For some inconceivable cause a "broad"
or "liberal" clergyman always means a man who wishes at least to diminish the
number of miracles; it never means a man who wishes to increase that
number. It always means a man who is free to disbelieve that Christ came
out of His grave; it never means a man who is free to disbelieve that Christ
came out of His grave."

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908

A true free thinker is one who can imagine miracles, not one who disbelieves them. A true free thinker is one who questions the irrationality of restrictive naturalism. A true free thinker rejects determinism and accepts a first cause (that being God). All the University elites and political liberals that pride themselves in being free thinkers ought to look in the mirror and really ask themselves whether the denunciation of the supernatural and the elevation of the State is really a path to true freedom. That would be a scary exercise in free thinking for them.

Part 3 of "Is God Out There?": Can we even know?

This is part 3 in a 3-part series that analyzes three aspects of our culture's view of the presence of God. Part 1 covered Twitter, and how humans universally desire to heard, acknowledged, understood, and known deeply. Part 2 went beyond technology to discuss how music communicates about meaning and the presence of God. Part 3 provides a little more of an answer to the philosophical questions raised in the first 2 parts.



I was talking with a very sharp college student recently. We were discussing the nature of truth, and being a naturally inquisitive person he asked, "Can we even know 100% what truth is? I believe in Christianity, sure, but what makes Christianity more true than any other religion that claims to be the true path to human freedom or salvation?" My friend was much more tentative than me to hold on to truth. Instead, he opted for the most absurd conclusion of our postmodern era, "Well, Christianity is true for me and that's why it's true. But another religion may be true for someone else."


This sentiment is shared by many in our epoch. Furthermore, the sheer magnitude of the task of surveying all the world religions and worldviews leaves many people in a state of spiritual apathy; a "so what" attitude towards the deepest questions of human existence. Can we even know God? Is God even personal? How can we even know that He's there if he is there?

A caveat: a blog is no place to survey the dozens of excellent philosophical proofs for the existence of a personal God. But many proofs do exist. Let us not be intellectually lazy in our pursuits of the most important questions. What follows is a brief survey on the many proofs for the existence of a personal God.

Anselm's Ontological Argument (from wikipedia):

Anselm desired to have one short demonstration, presented in Proslogion, his
famous proof of the existence of God. It is referred to as the ontological
argument... Anselm defined his belief in the existence of God using the phrase
"that than which nothing greater can be conceived". He reasoned that, if "that
than which nothing greater can be conceived" existed only in the intellect, it
would not be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", since it can be
thought to exist in reality, which is greater. It follows, according to Anselm,
that "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist in
reality.

Moral Argument: this argument might have been made most famous (or popular) by C.S. Lewis in his first "book" in Mere Christianity and his lesser-read but equally good book The Abolition of Man. In this argument, if right and wrong objectively exist (and they do- every human has a sense of right and wrong even if we disagree where those lines are) and exist universally, then it follows that someone has set those moral and invisible laws in the will of humanity.

Cosmological Argument (from Wikipedia): there are many forms of this argument, and J.P. Moreland states it well in his book Scaling the Secular City (uses the Kalam Cosmological Argument). I'll list both arguments from wikipedia below because they are good.

The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an
explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally
assumed to be God, is that explanation.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Many other proofs exist. And ultimately, the postmodern effects against truth are ridiculous. To say, "there is no over-arching meta-narrative" is ridiculous because this statement is attempting to be a meta-narrative. To say, "there is no absolute truth," is equally ridiculous because that statement is attempting to be absolute. Therefore, these philosophical argumentsfor the existence of God have to be reckoned with in our minds and souls. They should cause us to be moved deeply.

There is a God. He is out there. He is knowable. I rest my case. For now.

Part 2 of "Is God Out There?": The Worldview of David Gray

This is part 2 in a 3-part series that analyzes three aspects of our culture's view of the presence of God. Part 1 covered Twitter, and how humans universally desire to heard, acknowledged, understood, and known deeply. Part 2 goes beyond technology to discuss music, and in particular, David Gray.

The best artists are culture-makers. And a good culture maker is one who expounds a worldview that connects with the mileau he or she resides in. David Gray is one such artist. He writes with a musical beauty and lyrical profundity that can inspire the depths of a person's soul. Yet despite such beauty, his worldview has depressing and ultimately empty conclusions. One might even wonder if Gray believes that people have souls. Now I recognize that one song does not reveal the entire worldview of a person, but his message in "Ain't No Love Guiding Me" is powerful and it attempts to be comprehensive nonetheless. What follows is a run through of Gray's lyrics and some of my thoughts in response:

Maybe that it would do me good
If I believed there were a God
Out in the starry firmament
As it is that’s just a lie
And I'm here eating up the boredom
On an island of cement
Give me your ecstasy I'll feel it
Open window and I'll steal it
Baby like it’s heaven sent

This ain’t no love that’s guiding me

Gray clearly states that to believe in God is following a lie. That is a statement of absolute truth- God does not exist. At first though, one cannot tell if Gray is flaunting this truth or lamenting it. But Gray makes a crucial point that many Westerners miss: belief in God and moral behavior or intimately linked. The fact that there is no God is a basis for the whole song, and thus for his whole worldview: love cannot guide David Gray. On the other hand, the music is so melodious and intimate and Gray's voice so earnest that makes the listener feel Gray's pain. Perhaps its both then. Gray flaunts the fact that God doesn't exist and laments it simultaneously. The next verse:

Some days i'm bursting at the seams
With all my half remembered dreams
And then it shoots me down again
I feel the dampness as it creeps
I hear you coughing in your sleep
Beneath a broken window pane
Tomorrow girl I'll buy you chips
A lollipop to stain your lips
And it’ll all be right as rain

This ain’t no love that’s guiding me
This ain’t no love that’s guiding me

Then Gray turns to human relationships. He thinks that relationships bring deep joy but then reminds himself of the brokenness that occurs even in human relationships. He presents many unpleasant images to point out that fact, and again concludes: "this ain't no love that's guiding me." As Gray seeks to repeat this line, one cannot help but feel Gray's despair at his atheistic worldview. He is trying to maintain some kind of irrational existentialism, as if life can still have meaning even if God or love cannot guide him, but his search continues to prove fruitless as he presses on.

No it ain’t no love guiding me
No it ain’t no love guiding me
No it ain’t no love guiding me

This ain’t no love that’s guiding me
This ain’t no love that’s guiding me

This is where the music takes over. Where Gray had been repeating "this ain't no love..." in low and quick tones, he turns to this chorus here where he soars a high and drawn out melody. The music is incredibly beautiful at this point, but it proves misguided. In Gray's pursuit of existential beauty without meaning, even musical beauty lacks meaning no matter how beautiful it is. And make no mistake, Gray's music is beautiful. But Gray isn't done searching for meaning just yet. He goes to nature next:

On winter trees the fruit of rain
Is hanging trembling in the branches
Like a thousand diamond buds
Waiting there in every pause
That old familiar fear that claws you
Tells you nothing ain’t no good
Pulling back you see it all
Down here so laughable and small
Hardly a quiver in the dirt

This ain’t no love that’s guiding me

He points out a descriptive and beautiful scene from nature and then reminds himself that "nothing ain't no good." His search for meaning is over. Even the rapturous chorus isn't worth repeating. There is simply no love guiding Gray. Despite the incredible sadness and atheism in the song, Gray is a brilliant artist. He depicts his worldview lyrically, melodically, and dynamically. Gray realizes that his quest for meaning and search for truth has the most profound affects on his life- the biggest effects of all, really. If only apathetic Westerners would realize this fact. It's just that Gray came to the wrong conclusions.

There is a God who is there. He is personal and all-knowing. He knows each person and loves them deeply, despite their deepest wrongs and brokenness. He is there. He is not silent. He still speaks, and he still wants to know those he has created in the most personal way.

For the most profound writings on this subject (and indeed even some language that I borrowed in the preceding paragraph), see Francis Schaeffer's writings, and particularly The God Who is There. You will not be disappointed with Schaeffer.

Part 1 of "Is God Out there?": How Twitter is Like Prayer

This is part 1 in a 3-part series that analyzes three aspects of our culture's view of the presence of God. Part 1 covers Twitter and how humans universally desire to be heard, understand, accepted, and known deeply.

So I caved to the Twitter craze. I love the "connection" it brings to other people. I love the fact that I can sync it with my cell phone and with Facebook, and thus kill many birds with the one stone.

But Twitter can bring a false connection. If I spent all of my time on Twitter telling people what I'm doing, well then I wouldn't be doing anything, would I? And, if I spent all of my time on the internet, I wouldn't really have friends, would I? That's the irony of social networking: sometimes the more we're networked electronically, the less we are networked in real life. Real friendships suffer. But with that said, since being on Twitter for 2 days, I had an epiphany: Twitter is like prayer.

Think about it: I constantly hope for more people to follow me. Maybe they'll think I'm important. Maybe they'll actually care what I'm doing. I must admit that in the last few days I have tweeted in the hopes that somebody out there was seeing it. Maybe somebody out there cares. And that's the essence of Twitter, human beings want to be known. And not just known, but known deeply. We want to know that there is a place for us to be accepted, loved, and wanted. That's why we crave for relationship. And it's even why we crave for followers on Twitter and friends on Facebook.

That universal desire is a lot like prayer. Gallup and other poll organizations regularly report that around 90% of Americans pray. Forget that many of those people are not Christians and do not claim to believe in a personal God. People still pray.

Neither atheism, nor new age, nor Islam, nor many other religions believe in a personal God. People who subscribe to those worldviews may still maintain prayer in some fashion, but ultimately prayer cannot be interactive in those worldviews in the sense that a personal God will not interact back with the person who prays. And even still, peoply pray.

To be known deeply, to offer a picture into our lives, to have someone else listen in our despair-- these are universal human desires. The personal God that establishes Christianity does know, does pay attention, and does listen to us. Twitter is imperfect, but Jesus is perfect. Thank God!

Following the President to Buchenwald

Today the President was in Germany touring a former concentration camp in Buchenwald, Germany. It was a somber moment as the President, Germany's chancellor, and Elie Wiesel spoke to commemorate the atrocities there. (Transcripts of their speeches on the White House blog).

Elie Wiesel had some poignant words that left me questioning some things. (A brief video here). Excerpts:

"I was so hopeful. Paradoxically, I was so hopeful then. Many of us were,
although we had the right to give up on humanity, to give up on culture, to give
up on education, to give up on the possibility of living one's life with dignity
in a world that has no place for dignity. We rejected that possibility and we
said, no, we must continue believing in a future, because the world has learned.
But again, the world hasn't. Had the world learned, there would have been no
Cambodia and no Rwanda and no Darfur and no Bosnia. Will the world ever
learn?..."

Wiesel's words reminded me of something I read in Chesterton's Orthodoxy where Chesterton notes that the only obviously provable doctrine in Christianity is the depravity of humanity. Sure, there are proofs for the existence of a deity and Christianity definitely presents a rational, historical account of God entering the human scene. The depravity of humanity, however, is immediately provable simply by watching the news or driving in a car alone. Humanity is deprave despite ever present arguments for the goodness of humanity.

I don't think that means Wiesel doesn't have the right to be hopeful, but its just that his hope is in the wrong place. Neither presidents, nor the desires to avoid war, nor the modern mirage of progress via technology or health will ever deliver humankind from its greatest problem.

War will always threaten. Genocide always a potential. The destruction of life seemingly infinite. All of this unless humankind places its hope in the right place. The object of hope must be in a good God who saves the people from our own depravity.