A Beautiful Picture Of The Church (or... A Lesson From Vincent Van Gogh's Life)

Before he became one of the greatest and most innovative painters of the 19th century, Vincent Van Gogh desperately wanted to be in the ministry.  In his mid twenties he abandoned his career as an art dealer to go into ministry training to be a pastor like his father.  We can never really be sure what went wrong, but the exceptionally intelligent Van Gogh could never get his head around his studies and failed out of school.  The state church would not even consider making him a pastor.  They wouldn't even financially support him to be a missionary (it wasn't just his lack of knowledge that led to this, his rejection of materialism, and his radical attempts to identify with the poor and dejected didn't sit well with the upper class clergy.  Add to that his abrasive nature, spiritual intensity, and fits of melancholy made the church nervous.  It also sounds like he was a pretty awful preacher - in that he was long winded, scattered in his thoughts and boring).  The best he could do was become a volunteer missionary who would have to undergo constant evaluations to see if he would be allowed to stay on the field.  Maybe, if he did a great job, they would start supporting him... maybe.

The Heart of The Superhero Part I: Superman

There is a degree to which superheroes can (and should) be enjoyed on a completely aesthetic, visceral level.  We like to watch them break things, accomplish impossible feats, and beat the bad guy and save the world.  That's what I loved about them as a kid and that is still a major reason why they are compelling.  But there is so much more to them than that simple appeal.  That I would make an argument that Superheroes are not just the stuff of children and men in a state of suspended adolescence should be easily taken for granted by anyone who has seen me proudly wear any one of my four Incredible Hulk shirts.  Because of that I'd prefer to take the argument a step further and put forth my (controversial?) thesis that superheroes and existentialism are

inextricably links.  Further, to truly appreciate any individual superhero one must do

so in light of that individual character's humanity (even if they're an alien).

There is more to superheroes than their powers or gadgets.  Often movies and comics only hint at these compelling character traits, if they don't miss them entirely.  So I will be working at proving my thesis one hero at a time, analyzing what makes each hero unique and compelling beyond the obvious surface factors.  To get the ball rolling lets start with the first American Superhero, Superman.

For a lot of reasons Superman is a tough sell to a mass market: in a cynical age he's supposedly too boy scout-esque to be identifiable, he's nearly invincible, and "really?  All he has to do is take off his glasses and no one recognizes him?"  Some intriguing arguments that are easily trumped by the ultimate counter argument: Superman is crazy awesome!  Is he my favorite superhero character?  The most compelling? The coolest?  Definitely not.  But the potential to make an interesting Superman story is there, it just hasn't been mined like it should.

Yes, Superman is faster than a speeding bullet, able to jump a skyscraper in a single bound, can lift cars, fly through space, and shoot heat lasers from his eyes.  Correction: those are things he does, those aren't who he is.  Who he is is a man with nearly limitless ability who is trying to do right by the world in which he finds himself.  It is important to note that his abilities are only nearly limitless, and not entirely limitless.  It is in his one limitation that we can find Superman most compelling: he can't be in more than one place at one time.  Here is where we find his humanity, in the recognition that he can never be omnipresent.  To feel the burden of knowing (with super-hearing, even hearing) people are in pain, knowing you have the ability to stop that pain, and knowing also that you can't simply because something else has called your attention.  Superman is forced continually to chose who lives and who dies, who suffers and who is saved. The original Superman film cheated its way out of this crisis for Superman by allowing him to turn back time by flying really fast around the earth so he could save the world and Louis Lane (for which I say "shame on you Richard Donner!").  This was a disservice to the fans.  Superman shouldn't get a quick out.  He needs to come to terms with his limitations, but he first must wrestle with them.  There is a whole world of people in pain, what would hearing that and being aware that he could not stop all of it do to a person? 

How about on a more personal level, Louis Lane seems to love getting herself in trouble and Superman is always there to save her.  She counts on this, she has her own personal superhero.  Sometimes we even find her putting herself in harms way in order to be saved by him.  But what if, at the same time as Louis find herself driving off a bridge into a lake, a bus full of kids finds themselves in crisis?  What does he do?  How does he live with the results?  And what does all that say about him as a person? 

Falling deeper into this existential line of thinking, Superman selflessly gives of himself to save others without any monetary gain.  He does it because he is a kind hearted person and because he feels compelled to make use of the powers he has for good.  Ever tried to do good just for goodness' sake?  It certainly feels good, but (being honest) it comes back on you.  There's always more you can give, more people will expect or demand from you. How would someone handle that?  The endless feeling that even with his best effort there is always more to do and he will never be truly appreciated for what he has accomplished would be debilitating at times.  This has been dealt with more in the comics, Superman as the "angry god," disappointed with the people who he has selflessly served but not in the movies.  I want to see a Superman tired with humanity, he has tirelessly gave and they have tirelessly demanded more.  How does a man overcome such a thing.  That's a great movie right there!

Superman is the ultimate "hero of destiny," a trope that has been all but played out in recent history.  He is a hero because events conspired to make him one.  The great thing about him though is he is not a hero because of some tragic event that inspired him or forced him to reevaluate how he was living his life, he is a hero because that is who he is.  He is a hero of destiny, but also one of compulsion.  He didn't chose this life, but he's responding to it the best way he knows how (that sentence drips with existentialism, drink it up!).  But that doesn't mean he always enjoys it.  Being a hero is a burden, one that even the strongest man in the world can't hold easily.  The temptations to be a normal person must be incredibly intense and justifiable.  It is the burden of the ordinary to long to be exceptional and the burden of the exceptional to long to be ordinary.  That's what makes Superman so great: he can throw in the towel at any time, and he has definitely wanted to, but even with that longing he continues to do what is right; he perseveres.

You see?  Superman isn't a great superhero because of his powers or costume; he is a great superhero because as he wrestles with the limits of his humanity we are able to wrestle with our own.

Post Modernity, David Foster Wallace, Paradoxes, and Melting Brains

David Foster Wallace was, and there is no debating this, the greatest writer of the last quarter of the 20th century and, more than likely, one of the top ten writers in American literature.  As a journalist, social critic, and fiction writer he communicated in ways that no one would have even dreamed of before him.  He wrote a 100 page essay about being on a cruise that is more insightful and fun than anything any other modern writer could commit to paper, and one gets the impression he did that with minimal effort.  More impressive still (at least to me) he was talking about and analyzing post modernity ten years before it even entered popular culture.  In fact one of his comments on post modernity is the hypothetical hamster wheel I find myself running in when sleep eludes me.  Now you can join me!

Justifying a Title Change

Here's the problem with blogs... OK, there are a lot of problems with blogs, but here is the one that concerns me right now: every blog name is silly, unforgivably and ridiculously silly.  I guess you can name the blog after yourself but unless you're name is Chuck Klosterman or Donald Miller who are you to think that anyone is going to be drawn in by name recognition?  So you go with some abstraction, some concept that tries to define what the blog is about for readers, usually going with some hopeful book title or something like that. 

A book title can be highly conceptual without coming across as pretentious because the title speaks to the concept of the book, not the writer.  But a blog always speaks about the writer, because its not some self-contained thing with a beginning and an end but a potentially endless string of thoughts built over years.  So attaching a title to the blog is in essence an attempt to define one's self.  And there is no way to do that without being pretentious.

Loving Jesus and Religion - It's Possible!

Within a day I had my attention drawn to the Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus youtube video dozens of time.  I appreciate the video, although as with anything outside of Scripture it can and should be subject to some critique.  This may be a popular video that endures for a long time or people may forget about it next week.  I don't really know.  Either way it provides an opportunity for encouragement and to learn.  A video like this cannot exist in a vacuum, that is to say it shouldn't be watched outside of conversation and critical thinking.  And it definitely should be held up to the light of Scripture to see where it is correct (and therefore incredibly encouraging) and where it is found wanting, that we might all grow in our understanding of Christ, grace, and Scripture.

If you don't know what I'm talking about because you live under a rock or something, here is the video in question: 

My interest is in the conversation surrounding this poem that I believe can be as (or even more) encouraging as the video itself.  The author/performer Jefferson Bethke has some great things to say, but some of his statements have theological implications perhaps he (and many viewers) aren't aware of.  Like I said, there is too much going on here to allow this video to exist in a vacuum, there needs to be thoughtful responses.  The Gospel Coalition provided a great response you can find here.  Kevin DeYoung's essay led to a conversation between himself and Jefferson Bethke that is an encouraging example of how to respond to such a critique.  

I wanted to write my own response but before I could I found one of my closest friends (and he is the guy who convinced me to major in historical theology so if you've ever heard me talk about Luther, Calvin, Kierkegaard, Augustine, Moody, or anyone else in Church history you can thank him) had written a response that hit on every one of my points and added a few more, and all more eloquently than I would have.  To not think critically about such things is to become consumers of Christian culture and theology, rather than an active participant.  Here's to hoping believers are pointed to a deeper love and devotion to Christ and the Church as a result of the poem and the responses it's inspired.  So here is my friend Tom's entire essay, which I have nothing to add to beyond a resounding "ditto!"


Why I Love Religion and Jesus (but for different reasons!) A Brief Response to Spoken Word
By Tom Breimaier

I love Jesus and religion. There, I said it. This video, gone viral across the global canvas of Facebook this past week, crafted by Spoken Word author/rapper Jefferson Benthke, has hit my newsfeed multiple times across this past week. Many of my friends have suggested how it resonated with their experience..., while others just seem to be intrigued by its overall message. I should begin by saying two things: First, I understand what he is trying to say in his message, specifically the Gospel message that salvation is a free gift of God that cannot be affected by your own works. I agree with this, I agree wholeheartedly. If you posted this video or enjoyed it please don't think you've been placed on my list of naughty theologians. Second, my quarrel with this video is about the language Benthke uses to get his point across. To be a Christian and hate religion is a rather untenable position. Saying that "Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums" is somewhat implausible. What Benthke is trying to say (at least what I hope he's trying to say) is that he hates legalism and the "ritual" element of Christianity. That is to say that the act of going to church, hanging out with other Christians, taking communion, and worshiping on Sundays does not make you any more right with God than anybody else. Getting right with God requires, per the words of Christ himself and subsequent Epistles, repentance and belief. More specifically, repenting of the sin that so easily entangles and has characterized your life, and belief that in the perfect life and substitutionary death of Christ you can be put right with God. In case you're new to this conversation, this is essentially Christianity 101.

I should also say that I do agree with his critique of legalism in the church. Let's be clear, however, that legalism and religion are not synonymous, and if your church teaches or tolerates legalism, its time to find a new church. This also goes against those who sit in the pews week by week who are there out of routine or habit. If you genuinely believe that church attendance will make you a Christian, it is also time to find a new church, or at the very least start paying more attention at the one you are attending!

My ultimate frustration with this video is the disrespect with which Mr. Benthke throws the Church under the bus, I don't think he's being particularly fair or honest here. For the record, him saying "Don't get me wrong, I love the church," in my mind, is not a justification for the rest of his statements. I suggest we think of it this way: the Gospel is the love of God come down to earth in the form of Jesus Christ. Religion is one form of humanity's expression of our own love returned to God. You can't read the Bible very far without encountering examples of religion. When God asked for sacrifices in the Old Testament, those burnt offerings (and the accompanying services) were an exercise of religion. The construction of the tabernacle and temples throughout the history of Israel, again, religion. When Christ himself received circumcision, baptism, celebrated Jewish festivals, they were him practicing religion! This makes it somewhat difficult to make the blanket statement that "Jesus hated religion." Christianity stands on the shoulders of Judaism as it rises in corporate worship each week to learn the Word of God, partake in the sacraments, and most importantly, worship the Triune God. To call religion a "man-made invention" is, well, wrong. Anyone reading the Bible can see that God spends the pages of Scripture (and the rest of history) calling people to Himself, and instructing them to come together to worship Him. Who created and built Israel? God. Who is the Lord of the Church, the author and finisher of faith? God. It is rather easy to be an armchair theologian in America and call religion an "infection," but I feel as if the scores of martyrs in the global church who gather together to worship, at the very significant risk of being caught in a hail of bullets from assault rifles, would largely disagree with this sentiment, and I'd gladly stand with them in that conviction.

To wrap this up, I'm pretty sure that if I sat down with Jefferson Benthke, we would probably agree on most aspects of the faith. That said, both he and I have the same responsibility to be careful with the words we use. To say that religion is "like spraying perfume on a casket" is a rather significant insult on the men and women who day in and day out lead a group of converted sinners to the foot of the Cross and to worship their Savior in spirit and in truth. Furthermore, in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul and other go to great lengths to suggest that the people of God are to live and worship together as a community (see the book of Acts) while they perform the rites of communion, baptism, and public worship. Multiple sections of Paul’s letters are very likely hymns that the early Church would have sung. The idea of public worship being primarily evangelistic also goes back to the Old Testament, where the Israelites under captivity would meet together to sing in corporate worship, to sing aloud that “the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” In their act of public worship they proclaimed the One God, all while located in cities that worshiped a plurality of deities. It is also a bit ironic that he uses the perfume analogy, as Jews and Christians have, for millennia, burned incense as a symbol of anointing the prayers of the faithful. It was also perfume that Mary poured out on the feet of Christ at great expense to her, but symbolic of her devotion to her Lord. I love Jesus for what He did on my behalf, something I will never deserve or be able to earn on my own. I love religion because it is the context in which I can do the work that my reawakened life in Christ called me to do. Again, I am not calling Jefferson out, these are not "fightin' words," but I do believe that we will all stand accountable for what we say, and I take this equally seriously myself. I simply hope that in the future he (and all of us) might strive for clarity over controversy, particularly in our proclamation of the Gospel.

Christian Cliches That Need To End VII: Throwing Around the Word "Heretic"

There is probably a good number of people who never had to spend time with young, excitable Christians who are just beginning a deeper study and understanding of their faith.  Those people will have no idea what I am talking about.  So to help them out here is a very real dialogue I had with a freshmen in college a few years back.
To set the stage: he had a book with him about tactics for evangelism, figuring that was a good conversation starter on my way to get to know this kid (I wanted to get to know him because I was starting a guys college ministry and was working to brings guys into the fold) and since I had actually read this particular book I had an actual frame of reference.  Of course instantly all those hopes were crushed when he threw out the word...

The Coolest Women In History Part 1: Jael of Judges

There is an unfortunate lack of heroes in our world today, for both men and women alike.  If I ever have daughters or nieces, I wonder who they will admire and look up to.  The list of poor role models is so huge as to be embarrassing.  So I thought I'd create a list of my favorite women through history for your reading pleasure and provide the world with a few greater options for women to admire. 

Jael (Judges 4):  That right, I'm starting out this mess by first mentioning an obscure person from the Bible you probably haven't heard of, but you should because this chick has got style.