Swept Me Away

I know a couple who had the Avett Brothers' song "Swept Me Away" as their first dance. I think it is a novel idea. What are the criteria for deciding what your first dance song should be?

It seems to me that it should be one that both of you like, but also one that is not just popular, but endearing and long lasting. Not that it has to be "timeless," but it ought to be one that you will always have around and will, say, teach to your children:



Your thoughts?

Francis Chan FTW

Here's an excellent video of a conversation between Mark Driscoll, Joshua Harris, and Francis Chan, on Chan's recent decision to leave his head pastor position at Cornerstone.

Check out Driscoll's question at 8:30...and Chan's response to it. So good:

What's Next for Francis Chan? A Conversation with Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris from Ben Peays on Vimeo.

Action: Figure It Out

I am a big fan of "looking before I leap," that is, thinking and analyzing the hell out of things before I get to doing them. Unfortunately, just because I am a fan of something doesn't mean it's the right way to go. Otherwise there would be a lot more Mt. Dew, bacon, people wearing superhero outfits, and babies.

Back to the question at hand: should we think things through beforehand? The answer is a definitely, but not. Let me explain. Most often when I think things through, I do so in order that I won't make a mistake in whatever action I choose to take. This is legitimate. That being said, because 97.65% of the time (exact statistic), the answer is not black-and-white obvious, and even if it is, the "thinking before acting" is just an excuse to come up with justification for choosing the wrong choice. Agreed? Agreed. Good then.

In my own life, (and I don't think I'm alone in this), the "thinking" process lands me in a place where I struggle with choosing how to act for an indefinite amount of time, leaving me doing nothing about the issue at hand. I wrote this line a while back, and have yet to formulate some poetry to surround it: "My inaction's action enacts the law of my heart." Again, let me explain. When we do not act, that, in and of itself, is an action. That's right, you heard me: Inaction is an action. And when we don't act, we are making a choice without the control of actually making a choice.

Many times, this seems like a very freeing experience: essentially I don't have to deal with the stress of making a choice because if I don't choose then the choice will be made for me. But in the end, this is everything but freeing, because I am thenceforth (heck yeah I used that word) bound to the choice my lack of choice choose. Make sense? Awesome.

Oh Potter, You Rotter

I have been prompted to write this because of the literal threat of a slow and painful death by a friend of mine. I was quite terrified. Almost as terrified as the time that basilisk attacked me at the urging of the memory of a dark lord who was contained in a diary.

Speaking of dark-lord-memory-induced-basilisk-attacks, I just finished the second book of the Harry Potter series: The Chamber of Secrets. You must understand: I am someone who all but swore to never read them, or in the very least decided to put every other book ever written in

front of Harry Potter on the "list of books to read." That's right, that includes Twilight and Joel Osteen's Become a Better You.

And yet, I took The Sorcerer's Stone with me to Summer Conference and then followed it up with The Chamber of Secrets, which I finished last night. I must say I have thoroughly enjoyed both of them. As a writer, I can appreciate the overall storyline, the epic and destiny-driven plot that does not overshadow the everyday experiences of Potter and his friends. The one bit of criticism I do have is that it is reminiscent of the TV show 24 in that there is a single major conflict each and every book. It may get repetitive. It hasn't yet, just the prospect of it is not great.

Other than that, I have highly enjoyed a thorough romp through Ms. Rowling's created world. I am not and have never been opposed to the concept of magic, wizards and witchcraft. At least, that was never my reason for not reading them...because it is fiction, after all. About 45% of the reason I never desired to read them was the fans. They tended to annoy me on a Twilight and Jonas Brothers level. Oh, yeah. The other 55% was that I had always disliked the prospect of witnessing the plight of an angsty teenager and his magical world. I wasn't wrong, per sé, but we'll just leave it at this: that which kept me away has drawn me in.

Being Right Isn't Always Right

Lately on his blog, Donald Miller has talked about civil dialogue, how having the right theology doesn't make you a Christian, and why correct doctrine is only half of what's important. This is something that has weighed heavily on me for quite a while.

As someone who is heavily reformed, I tend to take the arrogant Calvinistic approach to theology, constantly critiquing people's views and pointing out the errors in the way the think about God. That being said, I have also found it in myself to really appreciate groups or individuals who effectively communicate the Kingdom to the world.

In one of his posts, Donald Miller says "We commonly believe that the Evil One wants us to teach bad theology, and I suppose he does. But what he wants to do more is to have us teach right theology in a way that devalues human beings, insults and belittles them, and so sets them against the loving message of God." That sounds like someone straight from The Screwtape Letters (which I am reading by the way).

In my experience, I cannot deny the absolute validity of this idea. But what to do with it--do we abandon correct doctrine for the nuanced idea of "just loving people?" I think not. But I do think there is room for some preliminary bending of our of steadfastly stubborn grasping to it.

You see, when Christ came to earth, the two things he did was love/serve people, and spread the truth/correct their view of God and how they should relate to him. Some denominations nail the loving and serving half, but are weak on the theology (in my opinion). Many reformed believers, on the other hand, nail the theology (and don't we know it) but fall horribly short from our brothers and sisters in the "to look after orphans and widows in their distress" part.

I think what it really boils down to is that we really need to realize that methodology is part of the message (something Miller gets at in this post), if not most of the message. Because no matter how true something is, the methodology is what people more often pay attention to. If we present the right truth in a way that affirms rather than detracts, and honestly and humbly attempt to consider other points of view, I think it will make Jesus smile a little more, and maybe even chuckle.

...and Found?

If you didn't know that the series finale of LOST was last night, then please inform me where the the rock you have been living under is located, because is sounds like a wonderfully secluded place.

I don't frequently discuss television on this blog, but I am going to start. I started watching the show in the first season but got disenchanted with it in the third, because there was no foreseeable end to the maddening questions and plot twists. But I ended up picking it back up in season 5. So I missed an entire season, who cares?

If you have no idea what is going on, I won't be a narciLOSTssist and tell you that you MUST watch it, that your condition as a functioning member of culture is dependent upon it. But it is good stuff.

As for the finale, I was pretty satisfied. While they didn't answer a lot of questions I was hoping they would, that's not their purpose and they've set no precedent for it. Their job is to present a complete story, and they did just that.

The two concessions of my overall approval of the show are this:

1. There are some things that seem a little sloppily done. For example:
• Michael/Walt all but disappearing after season 2.
• Some of the early series statements: Aaron being important/foreboding, Jack's tatoos, etc.


2. While they didn't necessarily answer all of your questions, and that's fine, they did leave out some info that wouldn't have necessarily answered our questions, but would have left the viewers with the ability to come to their own conclusions. I'm talking about the real importance of the island (if the smoke monster is dead, who cares about the island? [unless you give us another reason to]) and what the smoke monster really was.

Other than that, I think that as a whole, LOST was an unparalleled television event.

Hipsters

Seems like everyone these days are hating on hipsters. Not that I don't approve. Here's one of the better videos. "For the love of M. Ward!"



[Tip o' the Hat to Abraham Piper]

Yet Another Video

I find it just a tad sad (rhyme FTW) that when I can't think of something to say on this blog, I just post a video. Here's a video:

Gravité from Renaud Hallée on Vimeo.

[Tip o' the Hat to Tripp Crosby]

Nashville Flood

While I have been gone for a while, I have not been completely out of the loop. I was quite surprised to hear about the flooding in Nashville, maybe because I never associated Nashville with anything but music and art.

Anyhow, here is an excellent video by Michael Deppisch depicting the flood Nashville has been experiencing over the month of May:



[Tip o' the Hat to Rachel Middleton]

My Recent Absence

I don't know why I feel obligated to tell you this, but, as you may have noticed, I have not been blogging for about the past 1.5 weeks. Not that you care, I mean, I obviously did not feel obligated enough to update with anything.

Here is an update, however: I will be gone for another week, I am leaving at 6:30 this morning for RUF's Summer Conference in Panama City, Florida. It will be great fun, I suppose. When I get back I plan to start back up blogging with some notes from the various seminars and sermons I hear while I am there.

Well, see you on the other side.