Loving History (or "Why We Should Be Very Very Afraid")

I admit I watch The Daily Show because it is hilarious, and because I think Jon Stewart is one of the most interesting comedians/tv personalities working today, carrying an influence, reputation and charm that may one day be compared only second to Johnny Carson himself. This is all conjecture, but I'm nearly positive I am right. But that is not the main reason I watch The Daily Show. I watch it to support it. When you watch a tv show or movie, buy an artist's album, see a play, or purchase a book at Borders you're essentially voting for that thing you're purchasing-validating its existence, requesting that the creator continues making similar product, and calling for those in the business of that medium to continue making more products in the same vain. I watch The Daily Show because I support (at least in part-never in whole) what it represents, at least in my mind. That being the repopularization of intellectualism. For all the things that I don't fully agree with, the prospect that a show like this can bring people back to analytical thinking, appreciation for high ideas, and learning (especially when lacking the motivation that a school provides) is something to support. I believe this is a great thing to fight for, because in the age of reality tv and politicians taking off their ties and wearing flannel to tell us "I'm just like you... I did go to Harvard and I own a controlling interest in a major league baseball team... but I'm still just like you" intellectualism is taking a nose dive.

The popular conscience has not been penetrated yet, but this is a start. We seem to revel in not knowing, in gut reaction over informed decision. Being cool is more important than being informed. Comfort and safety is a more worthy pursuit than knowledge.

This really only started bothering me the other day when I was at a local Christian book store looking for a good present for a friend. After I found a good book for him I began doing what I always do in book stores: mining every isle to see what books there were, which ones I wanted to read, which ones I could only ask why it would exist. And I found this:

This picture* is take in the section marked "history." One would assume that in the section reserved for history books there would be books on Church history. This is not a barren area in the world of the written word. There are thousands of volumes on the topic. Even personally I have enough books on Church history to fill this single five shelfed section. But instead of there being any books on great leaders of the Church, or on the progression of theological ideas, or on the progress of the Church from the post-apostolic age to neo-evangelicalism there are a bunch of Bible covers. Bible covers! There was not one history book. My problem with Bible covers? They are nice and all (the butterfly on the cover seems pleasant, especially if it is intended to represent the transformation of the believer in Christ, rather than because they are pretty) but they aren't essential. Knowledge of history is essential.

I understand supply and demand. I know that if people were buying Church history books people would be selling them (they are writing them, they just aren't being marketed). I don't totally blame the store. But when I looked around the store I didn't find much to encourage me. The theology section is only a little more improved, but each of those books is written by authors who are still living, no sense of history there. Now, what books were well stocked and selling? The fiction section was huge with not one Bible cover to be found. Wall to wall there were books with girls with bonnets on covers. Those covers that were bonnetless were decorated in lightning bolts, dark clouds, or anything else that makes you think "This looks like a book Stephen King would write if he were a Christian." Funny enough, the fiction section, with all its books about people living on the prairie is the closest the whole place came to anything resembling history. I suppose I should be grateful and less snarky about that.

Full disclosure, I was a Church history major in college. So clearly I am biased to the subject. But arguing that more people should be aware of Church history doesn't benefit me in any way-actually one can make the argument that it hurts me, if people would just read a few books on Church history (even skim them), they would know as much as I would and all my anecdotes would be undercut-I see no more money in my pocket. My ramen noodles won't taste better. I want people to read history because I believe that its important. The old idiom that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it is entirely true. We need history, we need to learn from it, otherwise we're going to be a broken record, never progressing, always repeating the same beats.

People don't understand why I don't trust Rob Bell. Most think I'm close minded or something clever like that, I've been accused of not having progressive enough thinking, being afraid of change. One guy tried to argue that I was too modern. I'm glad he said it because I hadn't laughed enough that day until then. After that I met my quota. Why don't I trust him? Because historically every "controvertial" thing he has said was also said by liberal theologians and pastors BACK IN THE 1920'S!!! How progressive can anyone be if their statements are more or less retreadings of arguments made 90 years ago? These liberal theologians and pastors were debunked and argued against all that time ago. Their whole theological framework was abandoned to be repackaged several more times over the last century. The claims he makes, the ideas he "introduced" were also made by men who, long before any of us were born, separated themselves from evangelicalism and if they didn't evangelical theologians and pastors were showing them the door. Now the same ideas are back again. "Yeah, but he does say some really encouraging things, and stuff that makes me think." One, I'm not sure thats worth the damage he does, two, I haven't found one thing he's said that is constructive that Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Moody, Schaeffer, Lewis, Spurgeon, or Bonhoeffer et al hasn't said (much less what is found in Scripture itself), and hasn't said it better.

Through reading about Church history, and reading works written by major figures I have learned so much that I fail to have to space to describe it all here. But I will certainly try to at least give an idea:

• Martin Luther taught me to deal with guilt when I was drowning in it. He helped me to further understand what it means to find my identity in Christ, not in my own actions or how anyone else saw me.
• Kierkegaard taught me to work through melancholy, the beauty of the individual, the dangers of a cultural religion, and the dangers of disregarding the importance of the Church.
• When John Wesley was sailing to England he encountered a severe storm that caused him to fear for his life. When he noticed a group of believers who showed no fear of death he was shocked. After they had arrived safely he asked them why they were not afraid. They responded that they saw no reason to be afraid of death, they were going to heaven. This group of people were called the Morovians. This is one of my favorite stories in church history. Why should a believer fear death? Amazing.
• Studying the persecuted Church brought me to greater appreciation for every right I enjoy now.
• Hearing about men and women willingly facing death because they refused to deny Christ forces me to ask why I am not more bold.

These are just a few examples. There are plenty more stories I could tell (DL Moody giving up his financially successful job to work with street kids to the point where he was out of money and sleeping on chairs in the closet of the YMCA comes to mind) to show how valuable history is. We have the opportunity to learn from men and women who have lived before us, saving ourselves the trouble and pain that they went through. As well as being encouraged and taught by them. That is essentially what the poem "The Weight of Glory" was trying to communicate.

If we don't study history we rob ourselves of its benefits. We cheat ourselves. We shouldn't knowingly allow that to happen. We have a rich heritage, and a wealth of knowledge at our disposal, but instead of trying to tap into that we're doing everything we can to make sure our Bibles look at pretty as possible. What a shame.

*I was about to apologize for the quality of the photo taken by my camera phone, then I realized how crazy it was to begin with that I could take a picture with my phone, send it to my email and then place it on this blog. Who cares that the quality isn't 1080i thats still pretty crazy.

Pacifism is So Confusing (the essay that was supposed to be "Why I'm Am a Pacifist [no offense Mr. Lewis]")

About six months ago I told some people that I was going to write an essay about why I am a pacifist and the aforementioned people got very excited. The basic set up for the essay was that I was going to defend the pacifist stance Biblically and (at least in some way) go against what CS Lewis wrote in his essay "Why I Am Not A Pacifist." It was going to be bold, daring stuff. At least that is what I dreamed. But then I started doing some examining of the issue and of my own writing and came to the conclusion that I'm not all that bold of a writer. I rarely say anything that shakes things up. Generally I'd say that my thoughts are so obvious they sound new, but rarely do I write anything that would offend people. But no matter what I write here I am going to offend someone, which might be the reason people found this topic more interesting than most others that I have written.

While in Chicago I went to a theological conference where renowned professors examined different theologians' teachings on the Sermon on the Mount. One professor (I think he was from Duke or something like that) did his lecture on Karl Bart and Dietrich Bonhoeffer's pacifist agenda that they drew back to Christ's teachings in Matthew 5-7. This professor (who's name I am sure smarter people would remember) explained that, according to his understanding of both the theologians in question and his biblical understanding, a Christian has no Biblical support for responding in violence towards a violent attacker, especially if that attacker is not a Christian who's eternity is secure. It would be better for a Christian to die passively and go to Heaven then for that Christian to respond in violence and kill someone who would be damned to eternity. This included responding in violence should family members be attacked and their lives be in danger.

The interesting thing about hearing a committed pacifist explain his love for all people (inspired by care for their eternal souls) that inspires him to never respond in violence is that it made so many people angry. Most of the conference speakers read their papers, answered a few questions and then left the stage. After this session the question and answer time lasted nearly as long as the actual lecture. Granted, the professor probably prodded people a little, but all the same it was amazing to see people get so upset about pacifism. One attendee came up to the mic and looked visibly agitated and ready for a rhetorical brawl. he could hardly get out his question, his emotions were causing him to trip over his words as they made their way out his mouth. The professor seemed to be enjoying this. Finally (with some "ums" and "uhhhs" and a few deep exhales and guffaws) he asked "so what you're telling me is that if a man broke into YOUR house, while YOUR family was sleeping, and took YOUR children and YOUR wife, and knowing you had the ability to stop him, he put a gun to THEIR heads..." before he could finish the sentence the lecturer dropped this little bomb that sucked the air out of the room (it was more like a declaration): "Well I suppose they would have to die!" The guy tried to retort, but before he could the lecturer elaborated, "Listen, I know this isn't easy, that it goes against our instincts, but if we really believe that these people have souls that go onto eternity how can we as Christians, in good conscience, send them to hell?! Would it not be better to give up your own life than to take theirs?!"

Hearing that, the pacifist agenda made so much sense. Its a romantic, anti-cultural perspective that feels almost cool to hold. How much guts does it take to believe and say what that professor did? To have views that consistent, that unorthodox, and that grounded in conviction seems really bold and cool. Unfortunately I am just not that bold, or cool, or consistent, or grounded enough in my convictions, or able enough to see the world in black and white that I can't, in all honesty, hold this view. I want to, I really do, but there are just too many factors that I'm sure a professor from Duke can argue against, but I can't right now in my own heart.

The first major problem for me (and the main thing that made me nervous to write this essay for the last six or so months) is that I know a pacifist stance stands at odds with so many of my friends, at a very practical and personal level. Personally I can take this stance, but I can't mandate it on a universal level because then what do I say to my friends in the military, who are giving up parts of their lives for my country? Do I tell them it is sin to take the lives of those with whom our country is fighting when it is Biblical for them to honor their leaders and follow their directions? Does this force them into a moral dilemma where, under my convictions, they are forced to get out of the military? I don't think I could call anyone to that. I was fearful in writing this that I would alienate and insult them. They don't deserve that. This issue of pacifism and military action is not written in black and white, there are awkward shades of grey I am not fully able to process or help other to.

I suppose I can say that I decided a long time ago that I would not join the military, and if I were drafted I would even risk prison time and be a conscientious objector, rather than fight (or I could have become a Quaker, which would have saved me from prison but would have forced me to be a Quaker... no plan is perfect). But that is my personal conviction.

There are those who do not hold my view and I commend them for being consistent in their conviction to follow their government and defend their country, especially in the face of tyranny. That is another of the difficult things about this, while we're on the military aspect of this argument. I cannot speak badly against people fighting to save innocent lives from oppression and tyranny. Clearly God despises those things and calls the able to free the oppressed and deliver them. Sometimes this is accomplished through diplomacy, but I am not naive enough to say that military action is never needed or warranted. And I am sure that God can use Christians to this end (Bonhoeffer, himself a dedicated pacifist was a part of one of the assassination attempts to kill Hitler.). I just know that I am not one of those people. So while I am a pacifist when it comes to military action I do not believe pacifism can be mandated.

On to this issue of defending wives, kids, pets, etc. In my heart what that professor said makes so much sense to me. How can I take part in delivering a person to Hell, or even punishing him for his actions when the Lord so clearly states that that is His department and not mine? I want to believe that I would trust the Lord with my loved ones' souls and sacrifice them to give a potential murderer one more chance to understand the hope and joy that I have found, but I don't think I completely can. While I am not married and have no kids I know how I feel about my family and friends, and I am confident that I will brave Hell itself to keep them safe and unharmed. I will gladly die for any one of them, but I cannot give any one of them up passively, even if theologically it makes sense to do so. Perhaps its a natural instinct given to us by God, or maybe it is selfishness, I'm not sure, but I just couldn't bring myself to even think about standing and doing nothing while my family is taken from me. Life just isn't that simple for me to be able to say that. Even watching my family or friends get hurt in even the smallest of ways makes me capable of doing things I wouldn't do on a regular day, I just don't imagine that in that moment of my family being in danger I could be thinking about anything else other then protecting them from harm.

One professor I had spoke about pacifism in the Sermon on the Mount and said that the actions Jesus is talking about are not life threatening. We are told to turn the other cheek when someone slaps us or to give someone our shirt when they ask for our coat, but we are not told to give up our lives. I'm not sure if this totally makes sense to me. I still have a problem with the idea of sending a murderer to Hell by killing him myself, but it seems like something that needs to be mentioned in the exploration of pacifism: that Jesus' stance on pacifism was held on the basis of non-lethal violence. Why no apostle (who heard this sermon in person) fought back when they were lethally attacked wasn't really addressed in that lecture.

Onward we go to another issue, and that is when pacifism means letting yourself get walked all over by anyone and everyone. I admit I am kind of a passive person to begin with, which is probably why pacifism appeals to me in the first place. Proactive guys who dream of spearing boars in their free time probably don't think about it as nearly as much as I do (okay, there is probably no one who thinks about this as much as I do), good for them. But I hate being walked all over and taken for granted. This feeling has grown as I have gotten older and gotten sick of being taken advantage of. I have learned to fight for myself and make sure that I am not anyone's door mat. It is a horrible feeling to be objectified or used. And a person who is passive (which is not always the same as being a person who is a pacifist-who's stance comes from theological or philosophical conviction rather than from not having any spine to speak of) will never get anything and spend most of their lives bitter and disillusioned. This isn't what I want for myself or for anyone I love. When I think about my nephew getting picked on or mocked (even as an abstract concept) it gets me upset. I want him to know how to stand up to bullies and fight for truth and justice. I don't want him to go through the hurt that comes with never fighting for what he believes in or defending his own or his family's or loved one's honor.

If someone is trying to use me for their own gain without consideration of how that will affect me I have to stand up to them in order to save my own spine from becoming gelatinous. I, and every person, am deserving of more than that and I cannot allow it. It would be a horrible way to live if I did. I cannot be a person who takes every fight that is offered to me, but I also can't be a person who avoids every fight because I am afraid.

This view probably runs contrary to the true pacifist and I may be wrong in holding it, but I can not do otherwise. If someone is doing something wrong to a loved one it must be stopped. If someone is proclaiming false doctrine and misleading people then I cannot just allow it to happen, I have to call it out and fight against it. There is no option of saying "well he has his views, who am I to judge?" If someone is misleading innocent people they have to be called out (I'm looking at you emergent and health and wealth gospel people). If someone is taking advantage of me or my friends to get what they want I have to put my foot down and not allow that to happen ever again. I suppose that would make me a bad pacifist, or not a pacifist at all, and I'm okay with that.

I'm not sure where that leaves me. Maybe I can call myself a sight-specific-pacifist, where my pacifism ebbs and flows based on the circumstances. I know that isn't consistent or rock solid, but its the best that I have. In my heart I cannot imagine hurting anyone (although I am certainly capable, which is a different sort of issue all together), and I hope I am never forced to. But I can't be consistant in pacifism because its just too complex of an issue, with too many variables. You could, reasonably, respond "oh Tyler, I wish that you where either cold or hot, but since you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth." Well said hypothetical person. I sit in the middle of men who are solid in their convictions: C.S. Lewis (among others) who was clearly no a pacifist and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (again, among others) who clearly was. Someday when I go home perhaps the three of us can talk it out.

A day later:

I have received some comments that show the shortcomings in my essay. I didn't think I was so much claiming pacifist dogma as much as I was showing my sympothy towards it while also showing some of its pit falls. I'm not a pacifist. I more wanted to examine the issue than write an essay that gave a solid answer about what position is right.

So here are some thoughts I received that might be helpful to consider as either an alternative to mine or a more complete thought (this first comment brings God's sovereignty into the issue, which is sadly something I didn't think of but it helps complete the argument and show the weakness in what that Duke professor was teaching:

As someone who believes in the sovereignty of God, I'd argue that we cannot send anyone to hell. When everyone stands before Christ at the final judgment, I do not believe anyone will be able to say, "If only I'd had a little longer. If only that person had spoke up. If only someone had told me. If only...." Rather as in the story of Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), it would not matter what someone experienced or how much time they were given. In the story, Abraham is in the afterlife and responds to the rich man who is pleading with him to send a sign to his brothers who are living wrongly on the earth, and Abraham responds saying, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Lk 16.31). If God loves someone enough to send His own Son to perish that they might be saved, then I believe He will do everything in His power to see to it that people freely respond to his gracious initiatives. In the end, the only reason people will truly go to hell is because "they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thes 2.10).

Here is someone going into military:

But since I'm joining the army, my ideals obviously differ. I understand the concept of letting yourself be harmed and not reacting with violence in order to promote a more peaceful world or not wanting to harm the individual. But I can not let myself refrain from killing another if that is the only way to stop them from killing another innocent individual. But it was nice to see a different point of view, don't want to always be hearing things I already agree with.

A Moment of Self Disclosure

I'm not sure I have ever been in love before. I'm pretty sure I haven't. I mean, I am certain that I have loved before, as in I've cared more for other people more than myself and wanted their best above my own. But love in the romantic, marriage sense... I don't think so. Its been a long time and retrospect has a way of clouding the experience from how I felt at those moments but no... I haven't been in love with anyone up to this point in my life.

What I am certain about though is that I am completely, unashamedly, unquestionably, head-over-heals in love with myself. I'm crazy about me. I think I'm the greatest thing that ever existed and I spare no expense to make sure that I am taken care of, happy, and have everything I could possibly want or desire. I dote on myself, think about myself, and spoil myself more than anyone else in the world.


People I know may be surprised by this. Certainly I am not one to shy away from my defects or call my own shortcomings to everyone's attention. I know my flaws, and struggle with being disappointed and wishing I had done many things in my life differently. But none of that gets in the way of being absolutely crazy about me.

Rampant Materialism

This came to my attention this weekend as I took some time away to think and pray through some issues in my life. I was off in Newport wandering around different stores when I walked into a book store. I can't go into book stores without buying something. Its a problem. This summer I bought a plethora of books because so many good new books came out and there are a back list of books I've wanted to read, plus Amazon has that free shipping if you buy $25 worth of books thing so I figured I'd maximize my purchasing power with that. One thing led to another and I suddenly had a backlog of over a dozen books that sat on my bookshelf and were waiting to be enjoyed by the love of my life, yours truly. I was really just walking around the book store because it was something to do whilest I waited for hunger to set in and the heat to die down outside. Then I found a book that looked interesting. It was not a book that would change my life. It was not a book that was on my radar. But something inside of me reasoned: I must have this book. I had about 14 books at home that I had thought the same thing about too, I had another that I was in the middle of reading. But the child inside of me (or something more or less sinister, I can't say) wanted that immediate gratification. I saw something, I wanted it, I bought it. End of story. The real problem for me was the long trip down the escalator upon leaving my literary utopia-I felt no guilt. All logic told me I did not need this book. I had too many books waiting to entertain me as well as this book could. It would not help me in any way. It was clearly not a necessity to my life. But I needed to have it. And despite all logic that pointed me against it I bought myself a gift.

I'm supposing that's the only way to look at this. I bought myself a gift. You know what is annoying about that? In the last 6 months both my sisters, my brother, and four of my closets friends have had birthdays and I have gotten them nothing. My parents had a wedding anniversary, to celebrate I bought David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews with Hideous Men for myself. For them? Nothing. That makes me feel like an awful person. But it doesn't stop me from buying myself more stuff I don't need. And it doesn't inspire me to dote on my loved ones as I should.

Its embarrassing to consider that I have hardly kept any (reasonable) pleasure from myself. I'm not hard to please. I just like having books and movies to adorn my shelves and a nice meatball sandwich every now and then. There is no delaying of gratification for me. When I see a book I buy it. When there is a movie I want to see I get it. No questions, no delay, no consideration. Its just three simple steps: want, obtain, repeat.

Me First and the Gimme Gimmes

Sometimes when I'm driving I get tripped out by the idea that each car has a person in it. Each person has a life, friends, family, ambitions, hardships, dreams, failures, character defects, moments of compassion. These are all fully realized human beings going about their lives just like I am. Its crazy to think about that. These aren't just numbers or people in my way, these are real people whom God loves and has created in His image.

Most of the time I don't think like that. While driving I don't see beings made in the image of God. I see cars blocking my ability to get to a location five minutes faster than I would have if they weren't in my way. If I am being honest they are road blocks, moronic people who don't drive nearly as well as my high standards dictate. I don't care about them, their dreams, the fight they just got into with someone they love. I just want them out of my way. I think that makes me a monster.

Now I know I can't know what is going on in each person's life, and it is impossible for me to practically care for each person sitting on the 91 freeway keeping me from my destination, but still... a heart of compassion is always hard to find in my Ford Taurus on any drive I'm on. I wish I could stop being so concerned with getting from point a to point b and instead be patient and caring for those around me. I can't verbally share Christ's love with these people, but I could do a better job of caring for them as Christ would. I would just have to stop caring about myself for a moment and care for someone else more. That's difficult.

In Conclusion

I was talking to a friend the other day, and perhaps because I was too tired or too comfortable (or a combination of the two) I had a moment of self disclosure I usually wouldn't. I admitted to all I said here: that I love myself and am embarrassed by that fact but I still can't seem to get over me. Then I said this "there is no way that a person can spend all day with themselves, thinking about themselves, caring for themselves, without being at least mildly (if not recklessly) in love with themselves." I spend all day with myself, as you spend all day with you. I can't get away from myself if I tried (and believe me I've tried!). That much time with one person brings about one of two things 1) outright hatred and rejection of that person, or 2) a love that is not matched by any other person.

In sin it is easy to love yourself, spoil yourself, put yourself first, at least it is for me. It comes naturally to think about myself first since I'm always with myself. That's not always a bad thing (at least in the interest of self preservation and a healthy amount of confidence), but it is when it prevents us from loving others, putting them first, and practicing the Christian discipline of dying to ourselves. Self gratification is a sinful thing, and I admit to it with shame. But until I admit it there isn't anything I can do about it. Until I realize this unfavorable characteristic there is no hope for change.

Now, who should I go buy a present for tomorrow?

Reflections on Post Modernity

I love post modernity in that it turns modernity on its ear. It is the movement that takes apart the modern ways of viewing things and deconstructs them. Everything that modernity takes for granted post modernity calls into question and shows the absurdity of it. Conan O'Brien is a great example of the post modern movement in his approach to comedy. He's not even a comedian in the traditional sense. He operates both outside and inside the system and mocks that system while also living off of it. Compare his approach to running a show against other talk show hosts, he's openly aware of the absurdity of the medium he operates in (both entertainment as a whole and the talk show genre) and of himself. That is what post modernity does. It creates something while at the same time deconstructing what its creating. That's an amazing thing when seen against modernity that often takes itself too seriously and loves the framework it has set itself in. But what makes post modernity great is also its great weakness. It is purely a reactionary movement that mocks the frame work of its predecessor rather than creating its own.

I find anyone who openly ascribes to the title of a post modern annoying, it seems like a desperate attempt to be relevant and in doing so the one who claims the title makes themselves cliche and, ironically, un post modern. But one mark of post modernity is self awareness (how can one deconstruct what they are building if one is not aware what they are building and the confines that are ascribed to that type of construction?), so how can one be post modern without claiming post modernity? Its a paradox; one cannot be post modern without being aware they are post modern, but claiming post modernity is entirely a modern idea that one who is post modern wouldn't ascribe to. So its safer perhaps to say that one operates in the world of post modernity, sharing its goals, while never being so presumptuous as to say they themselves fit the title. So that is what I am going to say. I am post modern in that I share the goals of post modernity while not wanting to confine myself to the modern understanding of the baggage that such a title comes with. I write, talk, and operate on a daily level as a post modern. I am aware of the system I am a part of, attempt to deconstruct it so as to find the good while removing all the cliches that it holds to. That to me is post modernity, and in a world of flexible definitions that should be sufficient for the context of this essay.

I find the pitfalls of modernity alive in my own life. The problem with post modernity is that it is purely reactionary. It is the free spirited little brother of its do-gooder elder sibling. It only exists to deconstruct what came before and call it into question. It plays the part of the artist: revealing the chinks in the armor but hardly ever providing assistance in how to improve the design. And that is why the movement will not last. It cannot until it gives birth to something new and constructive, until it becomes its own individual apart from its predecessor. And when it does that it will no longer be post modernity but something all together different that a whole other group of sociologists can give a title to that it probably won't appreciate or ascribe to itself.

I live reactionary to the confines of modernity, which is both freeing and confining at the same time. When everything is called into question there is nothing left to hold to. Love and affection has been polluted and contrived so much its hard to express those emotions verbally or physically, because of that I feel compelled to deconstruct them as contrived while also wishing to participate in them.

A simple example is hugging in Christian culture. EVERYONE wants to hug all the time, hugs hello, hugs goodbye, hugs because its Shark Week, hugs because you haven't seen said person in two hours. There is a hug for everything. When there is so much hugging it loses its value and becomes meaningless. Its less a display of something genuine and more an obligation. I know this because I think too much about everything (a clever way to avoid calling myself post modern). While others are free from that burden they get to hug free form whenever they feel like it, I have to be aware of the situation, assess its value, and consider in my own heart if the hug is genuine. That is, at the same time both freeing and crippling. Its freeing in that people know that my hugs are genuine, but crippling in that every hug comes with a whole process of thought that is time consuming and kind of exhausting. It is also crippling because anyone who knows me knows my apprehension to hug so they always question whether or not its genuine or done in apprehension so they are self conscious over the fact that any oncoming hug can either be done out of pure love for the person or begrudgingly out of obligation (but isn't it still done in love because, for the sake of the person I am overcoming my apprehension?). And the person can never be sure unless I tell them, and even then they might not believe me because I can either be sincere with my answer or I could just be polite. When everything is called into question is anything genuine? Sometimes I just want to hug someone, but it comes with so much baggage its more effort than its simplicity would originally dictate. And that is tragic. I hate that. I hate that sincerity has to be called into question.

I don't know how to end this essay in a clever manner. I suppose I said everything I need to say. I will point out a few things 1) I am sorry that I started five of these paragraphs with the letter I, anyone who writes with the intention of other people reading (especially blogs) is at least a minor egotist, and I think I was a bit overt in proving that by starting so many sentences setting myself up as the lead subject. 2) I hope hugging isn't the main thing you get from this. I long for genuine relationships, but I'm not cleverly trying to get more people to hug me. Hugging is not the subject of this essay, I am simply trying to at least address the pros and cons of the philosophical world we live in. Don't try to hug me because you read this essay, or think that I lack the appropriate level of hugging. 3) This essay is less of a doctrinal piece and more a conversation starter, in that way it is different than my essay on abortion or something like that because I am not saying anything concrete, I'm introducing an idea, there are no solutions here, only instigators to conversation (that is so post modern it almost makes me not like my own writing!). 4) If this didn't make sense its because I am running on very little sleep but felt compelled to write. I didn't have a lesson to bring across like I often do. 5) If you have read to this point I owe you a very genuine hug because you are a reading champion. 6) I hope I have not wasted your time.

On Death and My Ambition for a Book

My life goals aren't that extreme. I don't need to climb Mount Everest, and I don't really care too much to swim with dolphins (they are aggressive swimmers*). While it is only my brother and I left to carry on our family name I don't feel compelled to have a family above all else (although I would like to have a family). My one goal in life, the one thing I would like to achieve before eternity is I would like to write a book. I'm not operating under the assumption that writing a book will bring me fame or fortune. It just feels likes something I need to do, whether anyone else reads it or not. When I think of some 250 pages filled with words to construct ideas that present truth in an artistic and tangible way I see a mountain that I would not only like to conquer, but that I feel compelled to conquer. I hesitate to get to writing because I know I will need something to say. I will not write for the sake of writing (I've tried reading books written by guys around my age who tried writing for the sake of writing and it is tedius). Kurt Vonnegut said to write so that you don't waste the reader's time, I hope to create something like that.

As a perpetual planner and dreamer I think about book ideas. I have a few right now. One is a collection of essays that dissect popular topics in the Church and examine them in ways that are honest and, from my experience, not too common. Another is about a superhero type story that will be too silly sounding to explain here (I have two of these actually, one dealing with the hatred and corruption of purity and goodness in the world, the other dealing with guilt). I have an idea to write about life at my college, complete with milk chugging contests and failed dates and crazy roommates. But the one I think I am going to focus on is a book on death.

I think about death a lot. Its part of my regular thought patterns and the way I process everything. I am not obsessed with death. I don't watch the Addams Family and Tim Burton movies all day**. I don't want to die. I'm not depressed. I am just aware of its existence and that shapes my thinking about life. I know that this life is going to end. Everything I do on this earth should, as a result, point me toward what comes after death.

When I say death I'm not talking about dying. I'm pretty sure dying is going to be terrible. I don't wish for that at all. But I do know that what comes after death for those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior, who trust in Him as the one who took the punishment for their sins and rose from the dead conquering sin and death, and confess Him as Lord will be in Heaven forever after death. Christian teaching brings us to an abandonment of worldly passions in order to pursue Heavenly ones, because we know that this world will pass away and what comes after is the goal and treasure. This world is temporary. It is not our home, it is not our identity, and it is definitely NOT where we find our hope or joy.

This world is where Christians prepare for eternity, telling those who do not yet believe about the hope that is found only in Christ. It is here that we are made more in His image, and it is here that we show others who Christ is. The hope of Heaven should, if we are thinking rightly about it, draw us away from the things the world pursues because they pursue it under the false impression that this world is all there is. Those without Christ seek the best from this world because they know of nothing else, they can't imagine anything better than this, so they are not willing to sacrifice the pleasures of this world for the pleasures of the better world: Eternity in Heaven.

But that is not how Christians should live. We should not be people lost in seeking comfort here, or notoriety, or fame, or success, or pleasure. While those things may come for some Christians they are not the end and they are not what we should seek. We should be keeping our hope and hearts on Eternity. If we do that then our perspective changes on everything else. We will no longer worry about what the world thinks of us, because we will be content in who we are in Christ. We won't worry about money because our God owns cattle on a thousand hills, there is nothing we require He cannot provide. We won't seek comforts here because He holds us in His arms and in eternity we shall rest at His feet and feast at His banquet table.

I long to be able to think properly about my life on earth and the reality of Eternity. But I know it means transforming my thinking on EVERYTHING! And that is scary. But I know the rewards outnumber the costs exponentially.

I ask myself: What would life be like if I committed myself fully to the hope of eternity, and removed myself from the vain pursuits of the world? Part of me isn't sure I am able to do it because the world surrounds me and has been informing my thinking for so long. I want to start living for eternity and stop living for myself. I want to let go and recklessly pursue Heavenly things, and stop being lost in the labyrinth of selfish ambition I have been exploring. I'm trying to become open to the idea, and praying that the Holy Spirit would guide me and give me the strength to do what is necessary to live for Him while on the earth, rather than living for myself, seeking eternal rewards rather than temporary ones. Its going to mean things will be different; how I see myself, my friends, my job, my car, my career, my family will all have to progressively change and develop into proper thinking and action. I pray that I, and all my Christian brother and sisters will continue to radically progress in having an eternal perspective, rather than a temporal one. It will not be easy, but in Christ all things are possible. I don't think I'm a dreamer in this area, I believe these things are tangible realities we can all know, and the world will be better for it.

That is what my first book will be about.


Anyone want to help finance it?



*thank you Demitri Martin
**okay, so Beetlejuice is one of my favorite movies, but thats beside the point.

Ignorance In Print: Getting Roasted By Bumperstickers

Bumperstickers are fascinating. Not because they are clever, or because they impact society in any conceivable way, but because the exact opposite is true. Bumperstickers are often stupid. I would argue that, next to anything George Lucas is a part of, bumperstickers are the lowest conceivable form of art (please argue that point below).

Quality art makes a statement in a way that effects those who receive it, it is showing the world from a different perspective than the recipient is accustomed to. Bumperstickers put statements right in everyones' faces without regard for the quality of said statement or its delivery system. In essence they are often brash and lack any sort of creativity.

Art is the film American History X, that comments on the empty hatred and ignorance that comes with racism, fully realizing its futility and consequences. It does so with a two hour running time that leaves the audience often feeling shocked, uncomfortable, and appalled.
A bumpersticker would just say "racism is stupid!" and that would be that.
See the difference?

Today I saw a gorgeous car that perked my interest. I'm not too into cars, I can't afford to have a nice one so I chose not to torture myself by lusting after them. But this one got my interest partly because it was a very slick looking automobile, but mostly because of how it was uglified (new word!) with stickers all over the rear of the car, not just on the bumper but covering the whole back end (rear window, trunk, and bumper). To add to the interest even further each sticker was more hateful towards religion than the last. There was a "Darwin Fish" that said "Evolve" in the middle and a plethora of others. I generally find people who despise what I stand for interesting, for the most part because I believe I am obligated to understand that hatred as a human being; if I'm not willing to hear their side with all respect than they won't hear mine. So I listen to people who attack my faith and me personally. And I try to respect their opinions as I would hope mine would be respected. But these bumperstickers were where I drew the line.

The bumpersticker that took the cake said "The Dark Ages were caused by religion."
Boom! Roasted! I was almost set to ditch my belief system that had impacted my entire life because of this bumpersticker* until I started actually thinking about it (it took all of three seconds.)

If this sticker is meant to just anger religious people than it might be a very bold form of art. But I doubt that this driver has that much knowledge of what it means to be subversive. I think they believe they were actually making a point. Which made me sad.

The writer of this bumpersticker and the person who bought it and decided to permanently fix it to their car were suggesting that religion was dominant during the Dark Ages therefore religion is bad.

This statement can only be really effective if its converse is pointed out too, such as explaining that it was something other than religion that brought the Dark Ages to an end. But it wasn't.
You can say "Tyler, religion is wrong because it was the reason for the Dark Ages." And I can respond "Religion did help in creating the Dark Ages, but religion also helped bring us out of the Dark Ages." You can't have it both ways cynical bumpersticker lover!

The Dark Ages were the result of an unequal class system, a disrespect for learning and education, financial crisis, a plague, and a myriad of other reasons. Certainly religious systems (not religion itself) helped perpetuate this class system that kept people poor, uneducated, and dependent on the upper class. I will concede to that.

[side note: what was happening in the east during all of this? Islam was thriving and having a golden age in philosophy and science. While most of the historical documents were disappearing in Europe many in the east were safely compiling and copying historical documents that came in handy to get us out of the Dark Ages. We wouldn't have any of Aristotle's writings if it wasn't for religious people cataloguing and maintaining them. Certainly I don't agree with Islam, but I have to give credit where credit is due. They saved a lot of literature during a time when Christian Europe was unable to. That in and of itself should debunk the brilliant bumpersticker.]

As there were many causes for the Dark Ages there were an equal number of reasons that it ended. One of them was the rise of the Protestant religion that both perpetuated and was impacted by the advent of the middle class. Protestantism encouraged learning for not only the clergy and elite but for all people. Now normal farmers, blacksmiths, housewives, etc. were learning how to read and write. They were becoming educated. With that the demand for learning increased. Now people were interested in what Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, etc. had to say. And it was being brought to them in their own language! That would have never happened if Luther hadn't begun writing in German rather than Latin in his addresses to the Church and the people.

Humanist thinking also helped pull Europe out of the dark ages (hand in hand with Protestantism), and who were the major humanist thinkers? Catholics and Protestants, religious people!

The Renaissance also brought an end to the dark ages with an increase in scientific thought and study, new writings and philosophical ideas, and high art that was accessible to the masses. And who did most of this art, or at least commissioned it? Religious thinkers and religious groups.

Now I don't want to be completely deconstructive. If you wanted to get a bumpersticker like this I don't want to take all the wind out of your sails. So here is the constructive part of this essay. Change the bumpersticker to say this:

"Religion caused the Dark Ages, but it also ended it. So I guess we're pretty much even."

*I hope you can pick up on sarcasm in written form, if you can't let me help you, this was sarcasm.

Christian Cliches That Need to End VI: Romanticizing Persecution

Date: Spring of 2008
Location: random classroom at Moody Bible Institute (the college that gave me a B.A.). Its a Systematic Theology class if that helps (systematic theology is where you study all aspects of theology and attempt to make them cohesive so that they compliment rather than contradict each other, if that helps).
Situation:

1. Presidential elections are gearing up into full swing.
2. Fox News' fear mongering is in full swing.
3. college students at my school attempt to appear informed about said election (often through Fox News information) and discuss it before class begins.
4. I'm bored
5. and tired from staying up late the night before playing milk chugging games (obstacles courses were involved)
6. and drawing pictures of classmates to amuse myself.
7. my professor is asked what he thinks of the election and how it may impact the separation of church and state and the effect that will have on the evangelical community.
8. He gives a thoughtful, if not evasive answer that shows that our ability to understand and explain the complexities of the Trinity might be as (if not more) important than hypothetical assessments of the result of an election of the president that is still over eight months off (I don't think Obama had even won over Clinton at this time, but memory isn't so great with these kinds of things).
9. Speculation about how a democrat in the White House could result in the downfall of all freedom for Christians in the United States continues, apparently my professor was too subtle.

Suddenly I'm awoken from my artistically (and milk chugging) induced stupor to hear this from a very pretty blond (who looks more like a Precious Moments doll than anything else) girl say this (and I quote exactly):

"Maybe Christians will start being persecuted now!" With a smile on her face. Yes! you read that right:

WITH A SMILE ON HER FACE!

WITH!

A!

SMILE!

ON!

HER!

FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I understand what her thought process was. I get it. Tertullian (the third century theologian who came up with the term Trinity who you shouldn't feel bad you've never heard of, after all he doesn't wear horn-rimmed glasses or have bleached hair or write in easily digestible pros that are designed to look more profound than they really are... he doesn't even write in English, who needs that headache?!) said that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." If anyone knows about this kind of thing it would be a Christian who was living and writing in the time of some of the worst persecution in the history of the Church. What he is saying is that it is a historically provable fact that when the Church undergoes persecution its numbers grow.

This idea is what prompted the Precious Moment to get excited about the idea of persecution. In her mind its a positive because of the result. Christians often do this. They hope for persecution with (what I sincerely believe and hope is) good intentions. But they are missing the point of Tertullians famous quote.

Tertullian is NOT saying that martyrdom or persecution is glamorous. It isn't something to hope for or be excited about. He is giving an encouragement to those already in persecution, not an endorsement of it.

The intent of persecution is the destruction of the belief system of which you're persecuting against, or at least to render them ineffective in their ability to recruit or have any impact on society.

The way this has been done in the past is through fear, torture, and death. The result of which was in fact the opposite of what was intended (as Tertullian pointed out), instead of people being scared of becoming Christians they converted to Christianity despite the dangers. This was NOT because those who converted thought that persecution or immediate danger to their persons, families, livelihoods, etc. was cool. They converted because in the face of persecution the Church became aware of their need for the Holy Spirit to protect, guide, and comfort them, and for their need for the support of the Church, like they never knew in the times when their lives were not in danger. This is what attracts people to the Christ: the Church's dependence on God, and their unwavering love and devotion to Him in the face of certain death. When the Church is persecuted it becomes aware of its need for Christ and acts in right relationship with Him. People who are concerned that they might die that day are no longer concerned with how much money they have, or how big their house is, or what car they drive (or I guess what chariot in the case of Tertullian's time), or whats happening in pop culture, or how attractive they are, or how attractive their spouse is, or if they are up to date on the latest technology or fashion. They are more concerned with surviving and (more than that) sharing the hope that is inside of them, and remaining faithful to the One who saved them. In essence they stop looking like the world and start looking like Christians. That is what attracts people to Christ and the Church: people being transformed by and dependent on the Holy Spirit! And that is what persecution has provided.

News flash: We don't need persecution to make that happen! We can be dependent on the Holy Spirit for everything if we are just willing to block out the distractions of the world now! If we could only be more concerned about the Gospel of Christ and the hope that brings to us than who Jennifer Aniston is dating, or why Britney Spears shaved her head, or how cool our cars look, or how much money we have in the bank, or what college we went to (or are going to, or what that college says about us or our dreams or our futures), or what movie we went and saw last weekend, or that our steak was slightly more pink than I would prefer, or how much gas costs, or how many pairs of shoes are in our closets, or the fact that the dress your mom bought for you is so last fall, or if Red Dead Redemption is the best video game to ever exist on the face of the planet, or how many comments we get on facebook a day, or what a tweet is, or that we don't make enough money, or whats happening on The Hills, or how popular we are, or who is taking us to prom, or how bad the last episode of Lost was, or whatever else occupies our days, then we can have that same impact on the world as the persecuted Church has had for nearly two thousand years. We can start living for Christ now. If we only want to. And if the present state of things is any indication that is a big if.

Here is another thought that at least I find interesting (because I thought of it), if the goal of persecution I gave earlier is accurate (and I believe it is) then its working in the United States right now. We are under severe persecution and we don't even know it. We're being eaten up from the inside without realizing it because everything looks nice on the outside. We are under persecution right now. But the persecution isn't right in our faces declaring war against us. Rather than the world opposing Christians and punishing them and intimidating them the world is seducing Christians into being just like the world. So what that they aren't putting us in jails and torturing us, they are getting the intended result without us even realizing it. Christians are compromising their faith, not sharing the hope that is inside of them, and discouraging people who aren't Christians from joining them. Not because they fear the cost of being a Christian, but because they don't see any difference between Christians and themselves. Instead of being threatened with pain and suffering we're being lulled into laziness, complacency, and compromise. And we're smiling the whole time! Because we have our nice cars, cultural savvy, 401ks, five year plans, good looks, etc. We feel as though we don't need Christ because we have everything the world has to offer. And we're wrong!

We need Christ now as much (if not more) as we ever have to help us think rightly about the world around us. But it is certain that the intended result of violent persecution is coming to pass in the United States. We are scaring off people from coming to a relationship with Christ because they don't believe Christ is real because they don't see Him in our lives and we're not sharing the hope that is inside of us. We look just like the world that we're supposed to stand against.

If we can't stand against that form of persecution than I don't see why we should think we can stand against the other. We need to be dependant on the Holy Spirit now, we need to find joy in Christ now, and not wait for some magic catalyst to come tomorrow.