Blue Like Jazz: The Movie

I don't agree with Donald Miller on 100% of every issue, but I am a big fan of the way he approaches almost every thought, his unflinching yet humble honesty, and his damn good prose. That's why when I heard money was being raised to turn his book Blue Like Jazz into a movie, I didn't have to think long about giving money to the cause.

Tonight, I had a casual Asian fusion dinner date with my lovely wife, and then had myself blown away by the very movie I helped (in a very small way) to create. When we walked into the theater 2 minutes before the previews started, I was somewhat anxious that we would turn the corner to see a sparsely populated room, but that wasn't the case--we were relegated to the lower, end-of-the-row seats because of the number of people in attendance. And I can honestly say I have never sat in an audience so engrossed a movie.

The last ten minutes or so of the movie is just a simple conversation between two of the man characters--Don and 'The Pope'--during which the entire audience was absolutely silent. The (what I believe to be exemplary) 1 hr 40 min build up to that scene firmly merited our attention in those closing minutes. The conflict is real, it doesn't occur overnight--it doesn't fully resolve (just like jazz) but it speaks one of the most poignant and honest professions of faith I have ever seen in film (and possibly in real life).

Even though the setting of the--shall we say--eccentric campus of Reed may cause some to deem this film to be "unrealistic," I think for most it provides a more solid justification for such catalytic change in Don's life, and allows for an entertaining little petri dish for him to experience and ascertain in one year what many don't until their forties.

The film is not flawless. But neither is life. It takes seriously the serious issues it wants to wrestle with, and has fun with what should be fun. Let me leave you with this, if you pay the 7, 10, or 15 dollars to see this movie you will:

1) Not be distracted by a famous actor, but by believe characters

2) Honestly feel like you are attending Reed for a year

3) Genuinely care about Don's struggle with faith

4) Think about the movie for days--whether you loved it or hated it

and

5) Not regret the price of admission.

So go see it. Wrestle with why the stars are swirling in the blue, like jazz.

Haters Gonna Hate, Lovers Gotta Love

"I know many young evangelicals barely have any stomach for controversy, let alone strong words about a serious topic. But if there is no way to be simultaneously bold and humble; if there is no way to be a gentle, caring person while still speaking in clear tones about hurtful error; if there is no way to correct those who oppose sound doctrine without being a moral monster; if there’s no way to love truth and grace at the same time, then there’s no way to be a biblical Christian. Judgmentalism is a sin and Calvinists can be jerks. But not every judgment is sinful and not every truth is cruel just because Reformed people teach it."
--Kevin DeYoung

In the context of my last post, I have found myself characterized by that first sentence: I barely have a stomach for controversy. While I will regularly debate things of theological weight, I find myself cringing and the helping hand I am lending to conflict. And there is a simple reason for my disdain: conflict sucks.

Conflict sucks even worse among Christians, because we are supposed to exemplify love (1 John 4). And this theological argumentative conflict does not appear to be helping that exemplification in any way. It literally pains me to hear the rough equivalent of theological hate-speech being tossed in either direction.

Yet, as DeYoung points out, there must be way to do both. The example of Christ clearly demonstrated both: from caring for the widow and orphan, or even those without faith, to his explicit and almost virulent statements toward/about the Pharisees. Jesus valued truth as much as he valued love, because they complement each other.

In my last post you can easily state Furtick is hating on haters, therefore becoming hypocritical. But I understand where he is coming from. There are people (and I think these are the types of people he is talking about) who carelessly and lovelessly criticize anyone in or out of their or the church who they decide deserves it. They are not demonstrating love. Likewise, those people who are infinitely emphasizing love and attempting to prevent conflict simply for the sake of peace are not demonstrating truth.

It comes down to a simple point: your theology. I do not mean Reformed or Liberal, Catholic or Protestant, Pre or Post Millenialist, but rather the way you view God and the way in which he has acted toward humans. If God is not a sovereign, just King, then your life could demonstrate mercy but without need, for why show mercy if there is nothing to be save from? Contrarily, if God is only a sovereign, just King with only a sliver enough of grace to save you, then your life could become focused on those who escaped that sliver.

However, if God is both sovereign and just, but slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love (as he identifies himself: Exodus 34:5-7) then we will find ourselves able (though not without difficulty) to live lives following Christ's example, fulfilling both love and truth.

Sippin' On Dat Hater-ade

When I first watched this video, my first thought was inclined generally toward the ways in which Furtick's argument seemed a little off base, and the small miscalculations he had made through the course of what he was saying. Then I realized that I was who he was talking about. I am a hater.

I don't know when exactly this happened, probably sometime around the time of my birth (you know, original sin, total depravity and all that). The thing about being a hater is, hate blinds you. Not only does it blind you to the object of your hate, but it blinds you to your own condition, it keeps you from grasping the sinfulness and the effects of your hate. Hate is subtle in your own heart but blatant in the face of others.

So when I watch someone call out haters, and make the implicit connection to what they are saying to who I am, my hate kicks in. Now, this is not to say that I agree with everything Furtick has to say, but I at least think he has a point: as someone who is Reformed, proudly and adamantly so, I have a grave tendency to cast down small judgments on others from my throne of theological supremacy. And that is not right.

Good theology, orthodoxy, is important. Yet, equally important, is love. When Christ came into the world, he did it to do two things: share the love of God, and provide a correct theology. He cared for, healed, and helped people, demonstrating the mercy of God on earth. But he also told them what was up. Forcefully.

Christ came from a position of infinitely more correct theology--you could argue that he was the only person on earth who had a completely 100% correct view of God. And yet, while he called out those whose views were wrong and destructive, he simultaneously showed grace and mercy. I think I could do with a little following of his example.

I'm Talking About Love

I have a problem. I talk about my fiancée all the time. At least three conversations per day include a phrase such has "Well, my fiancée was telling me..." or "Elizabeth and I were talking, and..." or "Elizabeth said the other day..." or something similar. I mean, I do talk to her every night, for at least an hour, in addition to multiple texts and sometimes calls throughout the day. It also could be the distance: being 412 miles away from each other, I want to make her a part of my everyday life, and talking about her is just one way to do it.

I think the real culprit, though, is love. I love my fiancée (You say: "Well I'd hope so."), and as we are 151 days away from being joined in holy matrimony, she is becoming an ever increasing part of who I am. So in one sense, I am not talking about her more, but I am compensating for her growing influence in my life.

Now you may be wondering why this is a problem. Well, it kind of isn't. As I already mentioned, I love my fiancée, and highly enjoy talking to and about her. The problem is, because my love for her and the growing importance she has in my life constitutes more talking about her, that there is a noticeable absence of such talk about God.

People who regularly talk to me may notice I engage in theological conversation a fair amount, readily repeating the latest blog or thought from Piper, Driscoll, etc., or how I don't agree with ----'s theology, or ----'s interpretation of the Bible, but how often do you hear me say "Well, God was telling me..." or "I was praying, and..." or "I was reading God's Word the other day and it said..."? What this says to me is that God does not have a growing influence in my life--that I do not love him--at least not to what would be a good degree.

So talking about Elizabeth is not the problem, but not talking about God is. What's comforting, though, is that in both cases, the amount of talking I do about the other person does not affect how much they love me. Both Elizabeth and God, though I deserve neither, will love and pursue me no matter the quantity nor quality of what I say about them. That is a blessing.

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.

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.

"Float On"--Modest Mouse

While I don't really listen to them a whole lot, and this was an overplayed hit, I still like this song by Modest Mouse. Part of that is due to the music video. It isn't really "pretty" or necessarily analogous to the song, but I can appreciate it artistically and from an purely entertaining perspective.

Also, I think the message is a good one. Especially at this time, because by the time this is posted I will have be running on substantially less than the necessary amount of sleep recommended for 21-year-old males.

Seriously, though--why do we stress so much about school, relationships, work, etc. We are all going to float on. Things are temporary and life is too. James 4:14 says our list is "a mist," and we are supposed to live as sojourners in this world, we are not of this world.

While I don't think Modest Mouse is looking at it from that point of view, you can still revel in the truth of the matter.

Not to Get Political, But... [Part 2]

[View Part 1]

This is going to be short, I've realized there's not much more to say. I've already said that Glenn Beck is despicable, not in the good way either.

It would be one thing to simply espouse conservative viewpoints in an aggressive manner. It would be another to rail against someone who was inciting violence and hate. But when you decry Jim Wallis as a Marxist (among other things), a man who is the president of Sojourners, a ministry dedicated to helping people, you're just despicable. I will refrain from stronger language.

Also, Beck's claim that he must be saying something right because of the opposition is also defunct: There was huge opposition from people in the U.S. and in the various European countries to the atrocities of Fascists in Europe, but did that mean Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini were "really on it?" I think not.

Finally, a friend shared this verse with me on yesterday's post. Yet another passage of Scripture (Mormon scripture, too) that directly contradicts Glenn Beck's idiotic rantings:

"Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy."
--Proverbs 31:8-9

I don't want to get really political or anything on this blog, but this is the first time in a long time that something political has absolutely impassioned me enough to have to say something about it.

Not to Get Political, But...

I don't think this is a political issue. I think it is an inherently theological one.

Now, just as a caveat, I would like to inform you that, if pushed to it, I would probably declare myself politically conservative, or at least conservative-moderate. I also don't have huge issues with Fox News as a network (a view that may change the next few years), like many liberal-minded people do.

That being said, Glenn Beck is nothing short of one of the most despicable "journalists" (if you can call him that) I have ever witnessed. Recently, he has equated the ideas of social justice with communism, and actually had the audacity to tell Christians to leave their churches if their church supports it.

First, where the heck does Glenn Beck get the idea he has any authority to compel Christians to do anything. His Mormon faith is not a branch of Christianity (an argument for another time) and even if it were, he is nowhere near the position of minister.

Second, if you take even the slightest glance at the Bible, both testaments make a strong emphasis on caring for the poor, and instituting social justice. Observe:

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
--James 1:27 (closely preceded by a warning to bridle your tongue--ironic? I think not).

But that's a little ambiguous, yes? How about this:

"The righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"
--Matthew 25:37-40.

I don't know how you can get much clear than that. There are also old testament examples of social and economic justice. Not to mention probably the greatest commandment Christ gave--love your neighbor as yourself. If you were poor, destitute, unable to pay for basic health or living costs, I think you would honestly desire help, so why is even talking about doing that considered dangerous?

Part 2 of this to come tomorrow. [See it here]

They're Both There

While my theological excavations have been somewhat lacking of late, I came across a recent post by Steven Furtick, from the middle of his church-wide undertaking of the entire New Testament in 30 days. He is talking about how often opposing theological viewpoints are both to be found in Scripture. He says,

The sovereignty of God…
and the free will of man.
They’re both in the Bible.

God’s promise to prosper and bless His children…
and the certainty of hardship and suffering in the life of a believer.
They’re both in the Bible.

The mandate to preach the Gospel…
and the responsibility to care for the poor.
They’re both in the Bible.

And he's right. While as a reformed individual, I would like to take the more conservative of each of these viewpoints, I cannot deny the prevalence of seemingly contradictory opposing viewpoints in scripture.

I am often tempted to smooth over those that support free will or social gospel, to explain them away while consolidating and re-affirming the validity of Ephesians 1-2 or Romans 8.

Why do I do this? Easy as pie: because I'm a prideful, arrogant pr*ck. Why do so many people do this? Because pride is #1 favorite pastimes of those who claim humanity as their species of choice. I want to be right, you want to be right, we all want to be right. Except for Jesus, because he is right.

I have been coming to a prolonged epiphany that there is more to God than I used to know. (Surprise, surprise!) Now, I still hold firmly to reformed theology, but I am beginning to see how an unyielding grasp to doctrine often results in an unwillingness to do God's work--namely, loving people.

...more to come in this train of thought at a later date.

Dug Down Deep Video

I know I have mentioned Josh Harris' new book Dug Down Deep several times, and seems a little hypocritical that I haven't obtained and read it yet, but whatever.

Before the book came out, Josh had a short-film contest about the book, and this is one of the finalists. I like it as an artistic piece and because of what it is saying, a passage from the introduction that struck me before. Enjoy, and if you like it a lot, go vote for it on the website.

Fulfillment In Jesus Is A Myth

That's right, I said it. You will never be fulfilled by Jesus here on earth. If want to hear the explanation to this seemingly heretical statement, you are going to have to watch this video:



From what I understand, this is a major gist of Donald Miller's new book A Million Miles In A Thousand Years. I want to read it, bad. And I agree.

Jesus is the climax of my life, but not while I am here on earth. Not until glory. If he is the climax in this life, then what's with all this troublesome and ridiculous and difficult crap I have to deal with!?! That is no falling action. That's a crappy denouement. And God doesn't do crappy.

Covenant Theology. Ish.

I don't really find this irreverent. (Please tell me if you disagree). Maybe a little racist? But everyone's a little bit racist. Stereotypes are a real time saver.

Moving on--I do appreciate the irony of the covenant coming up for renewal:



Once, again, the Onion delivers comedic gold.

On a more serious note, though, I find it interesting that most people in modern culture find it difficult to grasp the concept of an everlasting covenant, or a bond of the sort. Just look out how the word covenantal has fallen out of use. My spellchecker is even telling me it isn't a word as I type this.

Why do you think people don't take the idea of a covenant seriously?

Brit Hume--The Next Christian Hero?

After witnessing the blind, idiotic support that many Christians lent Carrie Prejean after her same-sex marriage answer to a Miss USA pageant question, I wonder if what Brit Hume had to say about Tiger Woods need for redemption will cause him to be exalted to quasi-martyrdom status? He and Bill O'Reilly discuss:



He seems much more calculated and level headed about the whole comment and idea than Ms. Prejean was (and probably still is) about her statement. I do think he said the right thing, I just hope that Christians don't make him a modern day Stephen.

Another interesting thing to think about is why all the negative feedback? There is the reason he gives, which is Biblical, but does that really make sense in a society that expounds the rights of free speech? I think not. But do you think so? Or think not?

Dug Down Deep

This is a short promo video for Joshua Harris' (of I Kissed Dating Goodbye fame) new book Dug Down Deep. I am very interested in what he is talking about it in this book. I'm pretty sure I'm going to pick it up. Sounds similar to stuff I am learning about.

Jehovah Loves Java

That's the title of this particular strip of the webcomic Max vs. Max:

Now, this is some funny stuff. If you aren't laughing there is some serious stuff you need to work through. Don't believe me? How can you not think that God, the Living God, showed up in Max's bed to talk to him about their relationship? That's high quality entertainment there.

And God pulling the typical God line of "I'm not bound by your concept of time." That is comedic gold. Right now Max just got out of a relationship and is looking to stay out of the dating game for a while....oh, dating.

I first heard about Wes Molebash and his webcomicing adventures through his role in clothing Zakk, the metrosexual worship leader over at Stuff Christians Like.

I Got 95 Theses and The Pope Ain't One

Few things entertain me more than a merging of the new and the old. And I'm a big fan of theology. So this video was quite hilarious to me. I mean, the 95 Theses put to Jay-Z's "99 Problems"? Gold.

Plus the authenticish garb adds a great deal of funny to the clip.

What I'm Reading

Mere Christanity by C.S. Lewis.

[for the record, I used this picture because that is the same cover as the copy I have. It's ancient]

It's one of the classics, so I've been told. This will be the first bit by Lewis that I have read outside of the Chronicles of Narnia.

How can I have not read this book by now, seeing as I am an ardent lover of theology and Christian thought? I dunno, your guess is as good as mine.

So far, I am a big fan of what he's saying, and the way he's saying it. I could give you several quotes, and I'm not that far in. I am very much amazed at Lewis ability to articulate in a clear and (maybe not) concise matter the amazing truths we find in the world around us.

I'm a big fan of the style he is writing in this book: building and growing a philosophy from very fundamental, observable roots. It reminds of why I enjoy many of Paul's letters.

"First, of all He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded.

Secondly, he sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, a, has somehow given new life to men.

[and then, one of the best explanations for why God "chose" the nation of Israel I've ever heard]

Thirdly, He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was--that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process."
--pg. 54

Christians Know How to Hate

This is a long one, so strap in. I've been trying to keep 'em short but I think this one is worth the long read.

A recent Wall Street Journal article by Lauren Winner demonstrates so often what people think about Christians.

The article cleverly titled "Burnt Offerings" is about a church in North Carolina that took it upon themselves to rid the world of unholy literature. Some of the books "thrown into the flames included those by supposed heretics Billy Graham, Mother Teresa and emergent church guru Brian McLaren."

What?

"Most disturbing," Winner correctly states, "Scripture itself was burned—onto the pyre flew modern translations of the Bible."

What!?

Christians, burned books!? Well, we've been doing that for some time. Wait, they burned copies of The Bible, the inspired word of God!?!

"We believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God" declares the church's website, a perfect justification for their actions.

Since I have gotten into blogging, I've come to realize something that I've always known: Christians really know how to hate well. I mean some people are haters, but we have made it dang near professional.

I am hesitant even to write this, because I am in a sense doing the same thing, hating on Christians who I think am doing something wrong. It just tears me up inside

It reminds me of Relient K's old song "Down in Flames:"

Christians--we mourn, the thorn is stuck

In the side of the body watch it self-destruct.

The enemy is much ignored

While we fight this Christian civil war.

We're cannibals.

We watch our brothers fall.

We eat our own, the bones and all.

I used to subscribe to Matthew Turner's blog Jesus Needs New PR, but I had to leave after a long time of just hearing his, to put it plainly, whining about the Church. Granted, what he had to say about John Piper is what really set me off, but my departure was a long time coming.

I find it ironic that many people take huge issue with fundamentalist Christians, attempt to embrace a more "radical," love-based ministry and outlook toward those around them, and then proceed to demonstrate the most skilled, virulent hate toward those who are part of the same body!

How can someone justify this? I could see someone saying "Look at when Jesus and John and Paul criticized people--it was when they were spreading lies or untruth about God and His kingdom." But many of the issues here are not straight-up lies, but rather simple theological disputes. "Kitchen-table arguments" my campus minister says.

If we believe the Bible (a question who's answer could be the root of this whole deal to begin with) then we know that the Church is Christ's bride. [II Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 21:2; Isaiah 54:5] Now, is there any married man you know who will be okay with you if you despise, hate, and ridicule his wife?

Likewise, we cannot expect Christ to be okay with us degrading, despising and hating our brothers and sisters, our own body. Yes, exhort one another, but on to good works, not on to universal theology.

We do have one theology: God, 3-in-1, Jesus, his son. Came, lived, loved, died, rose, ascended. Sin is gone, death is undone. Christ will come, every knee will bow, every tongue will confess. Now go and love everyone, including the disagreeable siblings you have to live with.

"Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone. Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.

Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus."

--1 Thessalonians 5:12-18

--and--

"Exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin."

--Hebrews 3:13

We, The Theologians

From the first chapter of his new book, Dug Down Deep. It's not a new concept, but it's one well worth repeating. Reminds me of an A.W. Tozer quote: "The most important thing about a person is what they think about when they think about God." Says Harris: "Theology matters, because if we get it wrong, then our whole life will be wrong."