Why Conviction is Better than Blah

Check out this video poem by Taylor Mali.

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

His articulation of the inarticulation of the masses is why I find myself increasingly drawn towards conviction as opposed to trendiness. It's why I grew out of Donald Miller and grew towards G.K. Chesterton (despite the fact that he regularly lambastes my own theological- Calvinist- views). It's why I have little room for Rob Bell and all of his "likes" on his Nooma videos, but I have all the room in the world for Tim Keller. It's why I have little tolerance for postmodernism and post-partisanship and pragmatism.

We all believe something. So let's stop lying to ourselves.

Book Standards

Let's face it, there are a lot of bad books out there. So many books vie for our attention, and so many books are written in so many fields of human knowledge. How is one to decide what kind of books he or she should read? I have a few thoughts.

Does it add to the field of human knowledge? Far too many books are recapitulations or hack reproductions of better works. If it doesn't enlarge the field of human knowledge, then it probably isn't worth reading. Generally, if an older book is still around, then it's probably worth reading because time is a good judge. It isn't a perfect judge, though.

Does some other writer say it better or represent a certain viewpoint better? While this is related to the last one, it is slightly different in it's application. To read Nietzche is a better pursuit than a current postmodernist. To read C.S. Lewis is better than reading almost all current books on Christian living (I'm looking at you, Brian McLaren and Donald Miller).

Does a book represent its worldview well? A book might proffer a worldview with which I disagree, but I won't waste my time on any book that doesn't represent some of the best that worldview has to offer.

Is the writing beautiful? Beauty is always a standard. Don't let postmodernism fool you into thinking that all art or writing is equally beautiful. The Brothers Karamazov is still considered one of the best novels ever. Go into Barnes and Noble today and you won't find any Dostoyevskys. I'm reminded of the scene from the first National Treasure when Nicolas Cage's character reads the Declaration of Independence in the National Archives. He reads an elegant section (but isn't all of it elegant?) and proclaims, "Nobody talks like that anymore."

Is it trite, meaningless, or reduced to pop psychology? If it is, don't read it. I'd put most political tomes in this category. In general, stay away from Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Al Franken, or most modern political tomes. They are narcissistic and not serious. Want to deal with serious political philosophy? Read John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, John Rawls, Alexis De Toqueville, William F. Buckley, and many others. Also, most leadership and self-help books fall into the category of pop psychology. Avoid these at all costs.

Is it narcissistic and overly (auto)-biographical? If it is, don't read it. This category relates to my last question as well as to the question on a book's worldview. Too much focus on the self is more a matter of pride than worldview. Biography is important, but it does not have to be narcissistic.

So, would you add anything else to this list? Would you disagree with anything I wrote? I'm curious to hear from you.

Misled by Moderation in Politics

I've recounted this exchange on this blog before, but it bears repeating.

Upon Obama's historic election in November 2008, a brilliant and earnest colleague asked a group of fellow pastors and me, "Do you think Obama's election proves a rush to liberalism for generations to come?" I spoke up first, "No, Obama got elected by appearing as a moderate, despite his statist views, and the country is largely reacting to the incompetence of the Bush years. This country is still, by and large, a conservative one."

I realize that I painted with a broad brush there, and conservatism must be qualified. Perhaps I was a little right and wrong.

I think I was right about the reaction to Bush. Obama's measurables- the ones that matter- are significantly down after a torrid start in Presidential politics. Furthermore, his "likability" is always higher than his "what do you really think about his policies?" category. On a side note, why does the first question even matter? (see my post on Neil Postman's book for the answer). In short, Obama's ideas are just not popular, which means that liberalism isn't popular.

But I think I was wrong about the influence of conservatism. After a year of Obama's governance followed by recent reactionary elections, I think I am convinced that much of America is in the uninformed mushy middle of nothingness in American politics. Christie's election to the New Jersey governorship, Brown's election of Ted Kennedy's old seat in Massachusetts (?!), and other "conservative" victories across the country in the past few months are evidence.

How could the American public elect one of the most liberal Presidents ever (liberals would likely dispute this claim) and then a year later the more liberal parts of the country are electing Republicans? What can account for such inconsistencies in the American public?

First suggestion: Americans don't read. They had plenty of opportunities to read Obama's plan. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do on the economy, healthcare, Palestine, and so many other issues. How can you be displeased with someone you voted for when that information was known beforehand?

Second suggestion: Americans don't have real commitments and values. We follow what is in vogue. One minute large government liberalism looks appealing because people don't have jobs, homes, or healthcare. "Wouldn't that be awesome if someone else paid for it?" Another minute we realize our civil liberties are at stake. "I don't want the government to force my hand in the commerce of health insurance."

Third suggestion: We idolize people instead of values because the television. When was the last time the more ugly candidate won in a Presidential election? Also, Scott Brown is certainly more telegenic than Martha Coakley. In sum, we are attracted to charisma, but we don't wrestle with the substance until someone starts governing.

Our inconsististies in voting is probably a result of all of the above. Political commentators would call this American voting ethic "pragmatism," and pundits on each side rush to claim the word. I even heard Dennis Prager say yesterday on his radio show that Americans vote for what works, and "we clearly know that this Administration isn't working." Obama has rushed to have the word placed upon him as well and Time Magazine couldn't be happier to oblige.

But I could not disagree more with whatever we call pragmatism. While I do think unregulated markets create more wealth than regulated markets do, that should not be our determinant in casting a vote. What we need is principle and ideals in social and economic policy, and there are too many unprincipled people out there. For instance:

Do you believe that a human life is really at stake in the womb? If you do, then you should create protections in government for human life. If you do not, then kill at will, by all means.

Do you really believe a smaller government (governments by their nature cannot be efficient, so let's stop using that word) is better to create individual and civil liberties or not? If you do, then you'll always be suspicious of a government's claims that it can do more than it really can. If you don't, then create utopia already.

Do you really believe that wealth can be built and not merely shared or re-distributed?

Do you believe that government can protect some things that are inherent rights to exist, such as the Bill of Rights? Does the Bill of Rights assume that both the Draft and abortion should be illegal?

Do you belief that luxuries and quality-of-life issues should truly be handled by the government? Is healthcare really a right?

While public policy is always nuanced, the answers to these simple questions really moves us in one of two directions. Moderation is not a virtue, then. It simply is a substitute for an uninformed or unprincipled electorate.

I say we have that debate from the core of our convictions. Let's have that debate between the utilitarian views of liberalism and the life and individual liberty ethic of conservatism. Let's have that debate between free-market capitalism and socialism. Maybe then we'll be able to answer, from a philosophical standpoint, the role of the government in commerce. Maybe then we'll see the virtue in some political positions and the evil in others.

All you people in the middle stay out of the way.

Ascent Denver

I hear that the new economy will resemble more of a long tail (as on a graph) than a tall skyscraper. As people's interest become more varied, there won't be mass interest in anything anymore. The decline of newspapers and broadcast television are pronounced examples of this phenomenon.

If anything, church worship is mirroring this decline, and Protestant churches struggle to find the right balance, mix, or philosophical commitment to musical form. Mainline churches (United Methodist, many Lutheran denominations, Prebyterian Church USA, etc.) seem to stay stuck in stodgy worship forms that don't give life to the people. But many evangelical churches seem dead (and I mean dead) set on mimicking only what comes across Christian radio. Perhaps there is a better way forward?

I'm not advocating that churches have the ability to be all things to all people, especially in preferred styles of music. But I do think a church service should be intelligible to all people (the appropriate word is "intelligible"- IE a non-Christian may still think praying to an invisible God is weird and uncomfortable, but at least they'll understand it) and challenging and encouraging to Christians, in particular.

I'm thankful to be a part of a church that has this vision for church services, and also a church that has the ability, talent, and willingness to pull off various forms of worship. Our first service is historically Presbyterian and liturgical- offering vibrant worship in the form of traditional (in the post-Reformation, Western European sense) instrumentation: organ, choir, and sometimes brass and strings. Our second service we call "convergent," and not contemporary, because it contains modern instrumentation but it still contains new melodic styles to old hymn texts that are combined with liturgical elements. I have, as a musician, particpated in both services before: trombone in the first service, guitar and keyboard in the second service.

And even in this liturgical bent, we can still rock out. And we will rock out this Sunday evening, January 24, at 6:30pm. If you live in Denver, please consider coming. You might even see yours truly on stage, playing the keyboard.

Movie Review: The Book of Eli

Disclaimer and Explanation: For those who have not seen the movie and wish to do so, I recommend that you do not read this post as many details of the plot including its resolution will be revealed. This post is written with the substantial input and co-authorship of Eric Emeott.

Is the Bible the most important book in world history? Do its truth claims mean more to human existence than anything ever written? Even more, could God have possibly revealed himself truly through the occurrences of history and the resulting record of the Bible?

These are the questions that the movie The Book of Eli addresses with intriguing results. The story is set in Western America in a post-apocalyptic world where we see a man (played by Denzel Washington-we don’t know his name is Eli until the end of the film) on a journey of survival. He is rummaging for food and water as he goes about killing smaller animals. It is not until a little later that we realize this man is on a mission, a mission to the West, where some unknown salvation awaits.

On his journey Eli encounters many obstacles. Naturally, he runs into bandits and looters, but his biggest enemy is a man named Carnegie who knows the power of his mission. That mission is not just that Eli will get to the West, but that he will get this book to the West. Carnegie knows that power of this book: “It’s not just a ___ book, it’s a weapon aimed straight at the hearts and the minds of the weak and desperate.” Carnegie and Eli are thus set at odds for the remainder of the movie.

What is in this book that is so important? The careful observer will know 10-15 minutes into the film. That’s because Eli recites the book’s contents often, and as the movie goes along his references go from more obscure to more overt. By the middle of the film, Eli recites the 23rd Psalm to his companion. It is at that point we realize that Eli is carrying the world’s last known Bible, as all the world’s Bibles had been destroyed in the war that wrought the apocalypse. People blamed the war on the Bible and its followers, and so they were destroyed (Does that mean this is the first insidious message from Hollywood that the Bible and Christianity aren’t responsible for all the world’s known atrocities?).

Without giving away the end of the movie or it’s more nuanced conflict, I do want to note how much this movie is bathed in Christian symbolism. Eli has apparently been traveling for 30 years or so, and much of it in the American West desert, which harkens Moses and Israel. By the end of the movie, Eli finally gets to leave that desert and get to the West, where he has to cross the Bay and get to Alcatraz where salvation awaits. This moment harkens Joshua and Israel’s entrance into the Promised Land by crossing of the Jordan River. Eli eventually is accompanied by a girl named Solara as they shepherd the Bible to the West, which harkens Mary and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem with the Christ-child in womb. And without giving away too much of the plot, a major motif is how we walk by faith and not by sight.

Furthermore, the movie is bathed in Scriptural references. Eli quotes Genesis before a major bar fight. Eli quotes the Sermon on the Mount to explain his giving away of the book. And on top of Scripture, Eli also prays throughout the movie.

The movie also plays on a profound light and dark motif, but you’ll have to wait until the end to really discover why. Let’s just say it relates to faith and sight. Of the 3 nights we are with Eli, we only physically see him wake up twice. However, both of these times he is sleeping in shadows/darkness and it is beams of sunlight that actually move into the darkness that are the actual things that wake him up for him to continue on his journey. In addition to this, we often see him look up into the sky, directly at the sun as if he is looking for direction. The sun always sets in the west and that is where he followed it, to the west. I think the sun is somewhat a representation of God. It led him on his journey, it woke him up constantly, and people were always wearing sunglasses if they were in the presence of the sunlight.

But by the end of the movie, Eli makes it to the Promised Land, Alcatraz. Alcatraz is essentially a haven for world culture and civilization. It includes a major library and a printing press. And it was God who told Eli to go there so that the Bible could be preserved.

Some of the negatives of the movie include explicit violence, although violence is not glorified by the film. Eli only and ever fights out of self-defense. There’s also some strong language and some minor sexual themes. The biggest negative is that once the Bible is re-printed, its lasting image is placed on a bookshelf by the Quran, which seems to devalue the Bible to some degree by comparison. But the Bible is in the center of that shot, and much bigger than the Quran. Perhaps the writer is making a comparative statement of importance and worth in world history?

But these negatives aside, every person who wants to deal with the seriousness of religious claims should see this movie. While the movie never explicitly mentions the chief and central point about Christian truth-claims (namely that of Jesus’ death and resurrection and atonement in the place of all humanity), it piques the mind enough to find out for oneself. But I do not want to devalue this message. It’s why the book was written in the first place.

So is the Bible the most important book in world history? Do its truth claims mean more to human existence than anything ever written? Even more, could God have possibly revealed himself truly through the occurrences of history and its record in Christian Scriptures?

To those questions, The Book of Eli gives a resounding “yes.”

Pluralism Means that Ignorance Wins

If you remember from my blog post commenting on Britt Hume and the Tiger recommendation, you know that I prefer a rigorous, open, and honest dialogue with people of other faiths and political dispositions. Too often, though, we substitute true dialogue for cliches and empty pluralism. Consider this quote from G.K. Chesterton. He's dealing with a traditional argument against the Catholic Age of Europe (usually referred to as Christendom), and notes that modernism fails us more.

The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it.

G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, 1905

How often are Christians or Atheists or Buddhists unnecessarily offended by the mere mention of someone else's worldview? How often do we hear of the need for "pluralism" when so often that becomes a euphemism for elimating the Christian view in any conversation? How often must Americans be subjected to a secular and naturalist worldview in the television media and the public schools?

Remember that no one can escape their own worldview. Everyone has one. Insititutions have them too. So let's not pretend there's no such thing so that we can just go on having a conversation removed from religious or philosophical influences.

We have beliefs. All of us. Let's discuss them. For pete's sake, let's use our liberty to debate ideas in the public sphere.

Prayer Not For the Self Alone

Update: Upon reading this blog post again, I realize that I did not clearly state my own view on prayer labyrinths. They indeed can be used for good, but I take opposition to the way their use was described in this article.

If prayer at its very base is a conversation, one would not get the clue at all in this article, from my hometown Denver Post. The article is about the small but significant resurgence of the ancient practice of prayer labyrinths. It's really a fascinating article, so if you don't read the article here's some extended quotations:

"The labyrinth reflects back to you whatever you need to discover," said psychotherapist and Episcopal priest Lauren Artress, who will anchor a conference on following sacred paths in Arvada on Jan. 15-16.

As a member of two professions dedicated to changing people, Artress considers the labyrinth to be one of the most powerful tools of transformation she has encountered.

"We're always told what to believe, what to do. We're told. We're told. We're told," she said. "The labyrinth evokes our own deep intuitive wisdom about ourselves. "...

Every sacred tradition uses the metaphor of walking a path to find one's spiritual center and to experience the divine, Artress said. To be human is to invoke symbols and metaphors. "You have a meaningful life when you live a symbolic life," Artress said.

One of two things seems to be happening here. Either Artress is misrepresented and under-quoted, or she's a pantheist. Her language certainly arouses suspicion.

A labyrinth helps you discover "whatever you need to discover." Also, Atress places a strongly negative connotation on the suggestion that we're always told what to believe. Those tellers must be ignorant or liars or both. After all, and this one's the kicker which makes me question her Christian conviction, the individual self knows what to believe. Some reactions:

Jesus told us what to believe about himself. Namely, that he was fully God in human form and that he came to die as a substitionary sacrifice for humanity. Is he a liar?

There's concrete truth in Christianity. God is creator and redeemer. He is three persons in one essence. Jesus was and is God, and is the second person of that divine Trinity. Shouldn't prayer be directed towards Him? And not to the self?

Furthermore, the notion that we ourselves are our own leader towards divine truth is outright idolatrous (Romans 3, Ephesians 2, John 6, and John 10). Even more, the idea that we are encouraged to "experience the divine" is imprecise and misleading. Quite frankly, it sounds too much like pantheism.

My purpose is not to embitter other seeming Christians against myself. My purpose is to point out a lack of truth and bring truth to it. The more fuzzy we are with our religious language, the less we actually believe in anything. Jesus and salvation ultimately will not matter if we don't actually know concretely what they mean. An experience with the person of Jesus still matters, but let's not elevate experience over knowledge in our quest for truth and understanding of God.

After all, what God has already revealed about Himself is sufficient.

Tele-Presidents

Neil Postman, writing in 1985, has this to say about television's affect on our political discourse:

"As I write, the President of the United States is a former Hollywood movie actor...Although the Constitution makes no mention of it, it would appear that fat people are now effectively excluded from running for high political office. Probably bald people as well...Indeed, we have reached the point where cosmetics has replaced ideology as the field of expertise over which a politician must have competent control."

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, 1985

I hear conservatives rail against Obama for being an empty suit, a stylized persona mediated through a teleprompter. And sadly, in many ways, they'd be right. But I also hear liberals rail against Sarah Palin for being a pretty face. All style, no substance. And sadly, I think they'd also be right.

Campaigns don't provide a clash of ideals, where good ideas and rigorous ideology are debated. The only proof you need is that soon after Obama's inauguration, most of the country disagreed with his politics but approved of the job he was doing. In short, they liked his face, but not his positions. But for what other reason should we elect a President than for his positions or ideology?

The implications of television are deep embedded in our culture. Democrats, who own the numbers in the House and the Senate, still can't pass the healthcare legislation they want because they want to be re-elected (by conservative districts). But why would the public elect folks to office with whom the sincerely disagree with over major issues?

The answer to these mystifying questions is that the television decides who is more telegenic. And the more telegenic person wins. After a Presidential debate, the commentary is rarely on the policies and ideas, but always on how someone "looked" or "sounded." Image is more important than ideas.

Postman accused this decadence in American politics even of the great conservative hope, Reagan. And he was right. Reagan was guilty of all kinds of poor logic and incomplete public discourse. And Obama is worse. He'll actually say one thing in a speech and do quite the opposite (see most of his decisions on foreign policy). For centuries, this phenomenon was called lying.

Television hasn't just underminded our public debate, it has made us susceptible to believe outright lies.

There's very little solutions to stem the tide of this cultural wave. Even our newspapers are more enamored with horse races than the actual ideas of a campaign. The only seeming solution is to turn off the tv and read more. Don't watch internet video, but read a politician's actual platform on their website.

And care about the truth, not about what you like or dislike.

Lions and Tiger and Hume, Oh My!

On Sunday, Brit Hume, Fox News commentator, suggested that Tiger Woods become a Christian because the Christian faith offers a better path to forgiveness and restoration (the implications were both for now and eternity, it seems). Here's Brit Hume, explaining himself to Bill O'Reilly:




I can already hear the postmodernists up in arms. And it doesn't really matter what kind of postmodernist you are, either. Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, or others who subscribe more to relativism than to the rigors of their own professed worldview would be and are offended by Hume. "How dare he promote his own faith on television!? You wouldn't want an atheist or a Muslim doing the same thing, would you?"

Well, yes, I would. If we actually had an honest dialogue about truth claims and what different worldviews said about God, humanity, and human liberation/salvation, we'd actually be discussing something real. By perpetually avoiding the religion topic or pretending that all world religions or worldviews are the same, we've watered down religion and public discourse in the process. And for that matter, if all we're suggesting is that Tiger Woods go to counseling and take some pills, then we've already fallen prey to a more naturalistic worldview anyways. Why should naturalism always win?

Imagine if we actually had an honest evaluation of worldviews on television. Let's take the Tiger Woods example. How does each faith respond to his circumstance? (If I misrepresent anyone's view, please let me know. While having a cursory knowledge of many worldviews, I cannot claim to be an expert in most of them).

Christianity: Tiger Woods has offended both God and his fellow humans. He should seek forgiveness from both of those places. And no matter how much he tries to be a better person, he cannot by his own will. He simply must admit his weakness and trust in Christ for his ultimate redemption.

Buddhism: Both pleasure and pain are illusions. Tiger should seek a higher plane of consciousness and remove himself from all desire. It was his desire for erotic pleasure that has brought him so much pain in the first place.

Islam: The Holy Book does not forbid polygamy. In many cases, it is encouraged. Tiger's only mistake was to not make these women his spouse before having an affair with him. But as it was an adulterous affair, Tiger must be put to death according to the laws of the Qu'ran. At least that's what occurs where Shar'ia law is practiced.

Atheism: Big deal. Marriage is a process constructed by humans. It is simply a construct of our own sociological patterns. What Tiger did was wrong, sure. But let's not crucify him for his mistake or suggest that his answer is spiritual. This is all there is.

I admit that this is a simple list. But it remains true nonetheless. Let's have that panel. Let's debate the truth-claims of world religions. For my money, Christianity will always have the most appropriate theological and philsophical response to the human condition. You go, Brit Hume!

The Year of Chesterton

Suppose I said (as I do say) that every government ought to be checked by an opposition; suppose I said (as I do not say) that free international exchange is demonstrably better than all this economic nationalism. Suppose I said that recognised majority rule is better than random minority rule; suppose I said that Democracy as a failure is better than Dictatorship as a success. I could say all this, and much more, and remain a quite ordinary and orthodox member of the ancient Church. But I could not say it, over a great part of the modern world, without being punished by the modern State. Rome with its religious authority would not silence me. But Fascism with its secular authority would silence me. Bolshevism with its secular authority would silence me. Hitlerism with its secular authority would silence me. When I began to live and (alas) to write, all the other Liberals had inherited a huge legend that all persecution had come from the Church... I appeal to all my fellow-Liberals to admit that the facts have flatly contradicted this idea.

G.K. Chesterton, The Well and the Shallows, 1935

Chesterton wrote this before WWII and the Cold War. He was more right than he knew. It's quite amusing that these tired and incorrect arguments still get used by new atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. They posit that religion in world history is responsible for the most horrible atrocities.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would also note that more evil has been done by admittedly secular, atheist governments than religious ones. Besides, a government will usually act on behalf of its worldview.

Secular, atheistic governments that don't value human life will not hesitate to destroy life (see: USSR or Nazi Germany). Radical Islamic governments (who read the Qu'ran accurately, I presume) who really view non-Muslims as infidels, are encouraged to spread Islam by the sword as supported by their holy scriptures. But when a supposedly Christian government does such atrocities, it is acting contra to it's worldview. It possesses a worldview that is in contradiction with unjust war, for instance. The core of the worldview is the concern, and Chesterton is right to point the inconsistencies of this old argument. He's right about a great many things.

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you probably have noticed that I am fond of reading G.K. Chesterton. What you might not realize is that I didn't read a single paragraph of his until 2009. April of 2009 to be more precise. Since then, I've read several of his works, both fiction and non-fiction. That list includes: Orthodoxy, (many of) The Father Brown stories, The Man Who Was Thursday, The Napolean of Notting Hill, Manalive, The Everlasting Man, and The Well and the Shallows.

I love his prose, his use of logic, his wit, and grand themes. Not many write or think like he does anymore. As such, I commit myself to more reading of Chesterton as a tonic against much of the shallow Christian literature of the day. Already purchased and waiting for reading: Heretics, The Flying Inn, biographies of Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis, The Ball and the Cross, and many more I can't think of right now.

I encourage you to join me in this adventure. Even if you vehemently disagree, you will be entertained. My first suggestion for non-fiction: Orthodoxy- a compelling approach to the beauty and truth of Christianity. My first suggestion for fiction: The Man Who Was Thursday- a weird but quick and fun read sure to whet the appetite.