Corporate Vermin

Corporate vermin’s robot GOD
halts commerce,
executives un-deviant commercial avarice
murders indigenously broken faces
bleeding systolic rivers of crimson gold;
The Brokers black rebellion
Ending red,
Razor dead.

Moral man cries
beneath the twisted guns red shadow;
Cold death stares,
Bares grey soul sadness,
Moans, as furied bullets rage.

Shift.

Trees turn color
Snow falls
Rains cleanse
The sun regenerates
and the cycle continues
repeating itself
over and over
and over again
until one day
it will end.
Then life will stop
The trees will wither
Colors will fade
A paradigm shift-
Death is now King
Decay is his lackey
Destruction rides forth
proclaiming his reign
The earth is silent.

Mustang Hearts

I hear the whispers of a western city
calling us by name,
begging us to come back home,
reclaim our hearts,
bear them back east.
Trouble only do they cause,
stirring up the murky waters, dragging people in
who glimpse those gleaming heads of copper
which represent our bloodless hearts
and reaching for them fall
into painful humiliation
drowning in more than sorrows.
It calls again crying out against the pain
that we have unknowingly inflicted.
Let's you, me, us three ride tonight and meet the call
to bring our mustang hearts back home.

Book Review: "Reframing Paul" by Mark Strom

Summary

In his book Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace and Community, Mark Strom challenges the traditional interpretive lens of Pauline theology and seeks to “reframe” it in terms of the Greco-Roman ideological, social, and political context in which Paul lived. According to Strom, the end goal of such an endeavor is to “…understand how contemporary ideas and conventions shaped the ways the message of Jesus Christ influenced Paul and his friends… [to] find a vantage point for fresh conversation about its [the gospel] significance to us.”[1] The desired result of such “reframing” is a new understanding of our Christian community. Strom says, “in reframing our conversation with Paul we may reframe what it means to live with one-another in graceful conversation.”[2] The idea behind this is that as we “reframe” Paul’s life and thought in terms of the Greco-Roman world he lived in, we will be able to submit our own evangelical conventions and systems to examination and in turn reframe our church and theology in conformity to Paul’s standards of grace and community.

In attempting to “reframe” our understanding of Paul, Strom utilizes what has been termed the “conversation” or the engagement of philosophical tradition which determines one’s life, values, and worldview to likewise engage contemporary life issues and experiences. Strom accomplishes this in five separate conversations (the five sections of the book) that together comprise the greater conversational flow.

In part one Strom “contextualizes Paul’s mission effort in the Greco Roman world” as he “deftly sketches the leading social realities of Greco-Roman life.”[3] More specifically, Strom briefly outlines the contemporary philosophical movements that were indoctrinating the general populace. He then demonstrates the difference between “primary reality” and “everyday reality” and explores their interaction and overlap, which culminates in his discussion of rank, status, and convention as a resultant of shame and honor as important social values.

Part two deliberates on Paul’s central focus as the person of Jesus Christ. Understanding Christ as such, he then takes the “Story of Jesus Christ” and uses it to interpret the social, historical, and personal “frames” that Paul uses so often in his writings, developing the influence (“perspectives” as termed by Strom) that Paul’s cultural heritage and sequential personal encounter with the person of Christ had on the practical outworking of Paul’s faith.

The third section of the book finds Strom developing Paul’s thought in terms of philosophy, theology, religion, and morality. In this section Strom identifies and approaches some of the main issues that Paul seeks to conquer and surveys them within their socio-cultural context (i.e. the “status game”). He concludes this section with what is perhaps his harshest critique of evangelical leadership and sets the stage for the more pragmatic final two sections of the book.

Part four begins to clarify Strom’s perspective on Pauline theology and how it can be related to life. Here he underscores two main ideas. The first is the intense relational orientation of Paul’s mission, and second is the idea of honor in shame.[4] These two ideas shape the way Strom “frames” his new “conversations” and the way he thinks “church” should be done.

The final section of the book further observes our evangelical system of thought under the lens of this “reframed” perspective of Strom’s. Then working from this critique, Strom tells a moving portion of his own story, focusing on these themes of grace, community, and redemption and shares how these experiences yielded the conversations that changed his life.

Critique

While certainly being an excellent and insightful piece of scholarship, Reframing Paul And while this may be an accurate observation it is not to say that either position is unwarranted. Instead, I point out two opposing extremes to show that perhaps each is lacking a part of what the other possesses.[5] In this case it seems that Strom, while giving an excellent understanding of Paul’s Greco-Roman context, has glossed over his Jewish cultural and religious context. It should be mentioned that Strom states Paul’s indebtedness to his Jewish religious background, however what Strom fails to do is provide the clear and concise proof of such an influence and the following significant implications. seems to stand in direct contradiction to other recent Pauline scholarship conducted in the New Perspective movement.

Stemming from this, Larry Helyer says, “his [Strom’s] claim that Paul's ekklēsiai were essentially non-religious associations, like Greco-Roman ekklēsiai, strikes me as odd. Surely the influence of the synagogue has not been adequately accounted for.”[6] And this is a significant issue to be raised, because while the majority of Paul’s ministry may have been to a gentile audience, we know that Paul conducted a portion of his ministry in the Jewish synagogues. As a result of this information, we can infer that some of the early believers were probably Jews and that even some of the gentile believers would have had a knowledge of the Jewish religious meetings.[7]

That aside, I thought that Strom’s idea of how a “church” meeting should be done was too vague. Perhaps his intention was to be vague so that his principles could be adapted to a variety of situations; however, while he is very critical of church polity he provides no consideration for how church should be conducted as a “house” church outgrows the house where it is meeting. Eventually it seems as though there may be no house which is large enough to host the entire believing body. And perhaps more importantly becomes the issue of how to maintain some means of order in these meetings as they grow bigger and bigger. Because while it is easy for a small group of five to equally share the leadership responsibilities, that task becomes much harder if the group grows to twenty-five or one hundred, especially then considering the potential for a disparity in the maturity level of the believers. These objections in no way discredit Strom’s argument; instead it leaves us to evaluate what are other parts of the frame that Strom could have missed that might be important to consider.

---

[1] p.g. 9-10

[2] p.g. 19

[3] Helyer, Larry R. "Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace & Community". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Dec 2002. FindArticles.com. 03 Nov. 2007. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200212/ai_n9153779

[4] With the idea of relational orientation standing in contrast to the independent sage of the Greco-Roman traditions and the idea of honor in shame also opposing what was culturally important.

[5] In this case I believe that both perspectives of Paul reflect an attempt at the same thing (understanding Paul contextually) while coming at the problem from differing angles.

[6] Heyler “Reframing Paul”

[7] See Acts 17:17; 18:4; 18:8; 18:19; 19:8.

Stalk

Mayhem chaotic runs

Stab

Silk love – blood black flows

Heart Death

The white night wonder ending

Reframe.

Phi 4:10-19 (ESV) I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. (11) Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. (12) I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. (13) I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (14) Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. (15) And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. (16) Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. (17) Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit. (18) I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. (19) And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

At the end of his letter to the Philippians Paul takes the time to thank them for their financial support, and then uses that to encourage the Philippians on a point which he knew that they struggled. Throughout the letter we notice that Paul is stressing unity among the body, and based upon Paul’s statement in 1:27-28 we can infer that suffering and persecution seem to be the cause of the division within the church. In fact, the language that Paul uses in this letter allows us to identify at least one specific cause of this suffering as social alienation resulting in financial stress upon the believers.[1]

In that context Paul demonstrated how he had been through similar situations and how God had provided for him - even using the Philippians own gifts! Then as he closes this idea he makes the statement, “my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus”, with which he communicates to the Philippians that “my God”, or the very same God as the God that the Philippians served, will fulfill every need according to the riches that exist in glory and in Christ Jesus. Which, if we follow this idea throughout Paul’s other writings seems to infer not only financial provision but also spiritual abundance as they sought to live their lives “in Christ”.[2] Paul turns the paradigm of providing on its head by declaring that God would provide for the Philippians, even though their neighbors would not have any social or economic interaction with them, if they (the Philippians) would submit themselves to a life lived “in Christ”.

Today we don’t experience anything near the social and economic discrimination of the Philippians, though we do live in a culture and society inundated with the necessity of being or becoming financially successful. However, according to the way Paul is instructing the Philippians to live, centering our lives around our finances is antithetical to focusing our lives around the person and work of Christ.

I think that as Christians we understand intellectually that we are not to concentrate our lives around our material affluence and yet, too often, I observe Christians ordering and re-ordering their lives around their occupation or profession. But if we live “in Christ” as Paul challenges us to, then I submit that Christ will become our occupation and that serving Him will be our profession. And if this is the case, then perhaps we ought to begin to organize our lives around our church bodies instead of our jobs. It would be a radical thing to turn down a superior job offer in a different state for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the local church body: yet maybe this is the kind of radical thinking that framed the way that Paul lived and preached.

---

[1] The social alienation of the Philippian believers likely would have evidenced itself to some extent economically as local merchants refused to do business with the local Christians. With no way to buy or sell goods the economic situation for those in the local church at Philippi would have been very stressful, especially for those who had to provide for a family. This hypothesis is supported by the use of financial and economic language throughout the letter, such as in Phil. 1:5-6; 3:7-8; 4:10-19 and by II Cor. 8:2-3 where Paul mentions the Macedonian church’s (which is commonly thought to be the Philippian church according to geographical standards and Phil. 4:15) giving even “in a severe test of affliction… and their extreme poverty”.

[2] This idea of living “in Christ” occurs often throughout Pauline thought. It carries with it the idea of being crucified, dying, and rising with Christ, essentially conveying the idea that our Christian experience should reflect the experience of Christ himself. Further, as we live “in Christ” we will be able to experience His blessings and riches. See Rom. 6:3-6; 8:1; I Cor. 4:17; II Cor. 1:5; Eph. 1:3; 2:7; Phil. 1:26.

Reconstruction.

Heinous crime – self love.
Inducing
failure fed shame.
Producing
hatred fueled pain.
Reduction.
Deconstruction.
Sacrifice bled,
Identity dead,
A red heart reconstruction.

Constant state, Paranoia, Embezzler of life,
Captures Conscience, burns him upon the Stake of Trepidation.
Mind breached, Mistrust thrusts her blade Suspicion deep into Heart,
Cutting out Trust, rendering Heart loveless.
Empty of right, know only wrong,
Devoid of love, loss of life.
Speaking treason to Heart, Mind betrays, enslaves, to suffer an existence of miserable apprehension obsession.
King Terror and Queen Fear make hate;
Prince Unrest is begotten.

Vain Promise

Yesterday's euphoria
A sharp memory contrast to the heartrending friction;
Discord rules his life
In harmonic disfuntion

Today's empty utterance
An oath forgotten amidst the torrential wrongs;
another vain endeavor
of artificial reconcile

Tomorrow's shattered promise
wrenched out broken heart bleeding unremembered courage;
her only companions laugh.
life's love is lost.

So when are you going to learn,
That his man-made affection is a figment of image-ation
Lacks demonstrative devotion
A fools careless caper; a fire fixed obsession
Emotionless destruction.

Blue Religion

Recently I have had a number of conversations regarding the inconsistency between some of our purported beliefs as Christians in community and the way we carry out those beliefs. It seems that while the gospel of grace is preached as an intellectual ideal to the point of exhaustion, we have not figured out what it is to exercise it as a practical principle in our every day lives. And so it is from this that I have begun to compose a new series of social commentary of which this is the first. The rest is still in various stages of development.

blue religion preaches truth suppression

this murder system solution clouds enlightened faces

sheds human blood -- addiction

teaches counter chance vilification

To be completely candid, I typically don’t like to include interpretations of my work. However, in trying to maintain the stated goals of this blog I will provide a brief explanation which will hopefully give the reader a greater understanding of the concept which I am trying to depict.

The first line opens with “blue religion.” I could have chosen one of a hundred different adjectives; however I chose the color blue because it represents the two of the major institutions to which I have been subject (my schools, need it be explicitly said). This provides the context from which I write. “Religion” more specifically refers to the brand of Christianity to which these “blue” institutions ascribe – that being as was mentioned above, an ungraceful gospel. As you will see in the next line I have termed this “blue religion” a “murder system solution” which sees its mission as truth suppression. You see, “blue religion” isn’t concerned with the truth, but that everything maintain the status quo. There is no room for growth, especially at the cost of “the rules.” And so, those who see this and seek to set right the balance of the system are suppressed – hence the “clouds enlightened faces.” Further, this “murder system” not only suppresses those who would wish to change it, but it also unremorsefully sacrifices those individuals who have violated its principle of conformity (submission or obedience they would call it.) Many of these individuals are then put out in the dark on the street left to fend for themselves. And while that statement is meant to be physically figurative, intellectually and spiritually these individuals are many times lost for good. They are sacrificed for an image, a regulation, and in the name of God (though I doubt He would approve.) The last line is a further description of what the “blue religion” does – that is, it teaches a gospel of “counter chance” and not a gospel of grace.

The Dark Tower

This is a small segment of something I've been working on. I'm not really sure what it's going to be yet, except that it is a part of a bigger piece. Anyway, I like it and thought I'd share it.

It is in the shadow of this moonless midnight that the gunslinger sets forth from the barren wastelands in search of his menacing dark tower, and it is in this same moonless midnight hour that I set out on a quest of my own in search of the dark tower, my own dark tower. And just as he saw his so many years ago so many worlds away I now see mine looming, no leering at me, those twin spires gleaming like the fangs of a cobra about to strike its pray. And yet there is some greater force at work, a drawing force, a force that will not allow my minds eye to turn from the dark tower, titan object of my fate. I stare, so intently that as I gaze into the obsidian black I begin to see through the tower and back inside of myself, realizing that I am the dark tower, or at least a small part of it. I must reach the tower, and I must destroy it or unmake it and so unmake myself. But no, not unmake, remake. And in the unmaking of the tower I will remake myself, turning back the gnawing and ever growing infections that thrust forth snaked arms, the veiny tendrils of death itself that have wrapped their fatal arms around my heart and caged my mind with steely fingers, so like the bars of a prison, only intertwined among the maze of thought paths in my now tortured psyche.

The Heart and The Machine.

Did you know that a heart is a lot like a machine? Now, I’m not talking about the sort of heart that goes thump-thump and pumps blood (though I suppose it bears its own resemblances to machinery in its own biological sort of way). I’m talking about that part of a person that loves and hates. That part of a being that feels. Or doesn’t feel as the case may be.

It was this very “not feeling” that I was reflecting on today when I realized that I had never really understood the greater implications of that phrase “a broken heart.” I mean, when I had thought of a broken heart I had always thought of the typical tears in the eyes, knots in the stomach, and ache in the chest. The typical expressions of inner agony and a heart in anguish. But as I thought longer about it, the thought came to me that a broken heart was very much that – broken. Not broken as in rended with a huge crack down the middle as it is usually pictured, but broken in the sense that it doesn’t work. Or at least that it doesn’t work right.

A heart is a far cry from being anything close to mechanical, but in the sense that a machine can break down in such a way as to be unable to carry on with its particular function, so the heart is unable to do its job after it is broken. A broken heart shuts down just like a malfunctioning machine, though not without its own warning. Where gears and belts might squeal and squeak and squawk the heart screams and bleeds and cries in its own way, but after all that it just quits working. Like its run out of fuel or blown a gasket. And then, just as the gears no longer grind and turn, the heart no longer feels. It doesn’t know how to feel. And so even when the life starts to come back into it, those feelings go all askew because the heart doesn’t know what they are or what even to do with them. It isn’t sure if they are good or bad, it isn’t sure if they will hurt or not – it doesn’t know if it should even be feeling anything at all. For all it knows it was broken for good and all of this feeling is just some sort of sick joke to revive it enough to be able to break it again. And certainly some hearts believe that lie, and stay broken forever.

But the truth of the matter is that even the most broken of hearts can heal. Even the ones that have been shattered to a point that they are unrecognizable are not unredeemable. They can be fixed back up just like a machine if there is time, effort, and care enough to do so. All it takes is the right tools in the right hands. And that is how a heart is a lot like a machine.

Gen. 1:2

I promised a piece on my work with Genesis, and so here is a summary of the issue and my conclusion. Keep in mind that this is a single page summary of an issue that I barely covered in ten.

Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters”. (ESV)

There are many who think that the noun ruah is the first mention of the Holy Spirit in scripture. Indeed, the vast majority of biblical translations reflect this, interpreting ruah as “Spirit”. Recently however, there is a growing trend in biblical interpretation to translate ruah instead as “wind,” perhaps reflecting a hermeneutic that is more aware of the culture and context of the Genesis narrative.

While this issue is certainly not a hill that needs to be battled over, it should be clearly understood and carefully thought through because of its importance to the development of the Holy Spirit in scripture. Theologically speaking, the interpretation of ruah will not change our basic views of Pneumatology in that it will not bring into question the nature or existence of the third person of the trinity. It will however reveal the tendencies of our hermeneutic and our ideas of progressive revelation.

The interpretive problem is straightforward enough; ruah is taken to mean “spirit,” “breath,” and “wind” throughout the scriptures. The difficulty lies in deciding which meaning is meant in the original narrative after examining the literary, historical, and cultural context, and evaluating the semantic structure of the passage.

I submit that the author never intended ruah to be translated as an absolute “either/or” but instead purposefully utilized a word that would encompass a “both/and.” In the Hebrew mind, the idea of a “divine wind” carried with it implications of “the spirit of God,” though not necessarily referring to the Holy Spirit. Here it should be acknowledged that the use of the word ruah does not imply both specific meanings simultaneously, but instead is used as a broad term encompassing the whole range of meaning from wind to spirit. This is a common literary construction in Hebrew as can be seen by the use of the word neser to represent both the eagle and the vulture (or in English as can be pointed out that “panther” may refer to any number of large feline carnivores such as the black leopard, puma, cougar, or jaguar), and one that allows the author to use ruah intentionally as an ambiguous term, knowing that the Israelite mind would see, understand, and even assume a close relationship of the ideas.

See the Light Up Ahead?

Sitting here on the verge of freedom I look ahead to the morrow, when the stresses of the present will be naught but a vague shadow upon my lightened heart. This past week has been a tumultuous one with finals, soccer, and summer plans. As it stands right now I have one final left (Sociology) and a paper to finish - discussing the meaning of the word ruah in Gen. 1:2 and whether it means "wind" or "spirit". I am very much looking forward to putting this semester behind me and moving on to the next with a clean slate. Well, I have procrastinated long enough. Hopefully I'll be posting about my Genesis paper soon. Until then, God bless.

Social Justice, The True Injustice

According to the recent trend of jumping on board the popular platform of whatever social justice issue is in vogue, I decided to briefly respond with the following:

Tongues Raging,
Guns Blazing,
Humanity at War.

Words Ripping,
Bullets Dripping,
Humanity at War.

Hearts Crying,
Bodies Flying,
Humanity at War.

At surface level this expresses the simple conflict that evidences itself when more than one human being lives in close proximity to another [aka sin]. However, there are a couple of points that I would like to make following a deeper vein of thought.

My initial reaction is to wonder what it takes for a certain social justice issue to make it mainstream. I mean, what precedence do the children being forced into guerrilla slavery in Uganda have over discrimination against aborigines in Australia, the race induced massacres in Eastern Europe or the sex slave market that covers half of the globe? Don’t misunderstand my frustrations. I believe that all these things are issues and that something should be done about them. My frustration comes more from the motivation and agenda behind certain modish social justice issues.

For the sake of example I will use the Invisible Children movement. Before I comment further, let me say that I greatly appreciate Invisible Children and what they are doing, and have even gotten involved with the organization myself. But as I have thought about the movement and my own participation I have had to come to grips with the question, “What is this actually accomplishing?” At first glance the answer is obvious – we are trying to stop the conflict in Uganda. But for those of us who ascribe to the idea of a higher knowledge and order to the universe than the United Nations, the question goes much deeper. In fact, as much as anything else, I think that the recent social justice movements show us the desire and need that our society has for meaning and purpose in life, while pointing out the epistemological absurdity of such behavior. In brief, the un-believer, without Christ, has no reason or basis in and of himself for which to perform any act of benevolence to another human being, and if he does then it is simply satiates the need for fulfillment in life and is ultimately a selfish deed, reflective only of the intellectual absurdity in which the individual is functioning. And so, the believer who wishes to get involved must realize that the only way to truly affect the social climate of the environment in which a particular issue is occurring is to transform the people with the mind of Christ by sharing with them the historically redemptive plan of salvation that God has orchestrated.

This point leads me back to the question of, “What are we actually accomplishing?” Invisible Children is trying to develop social awareness of the situation in Uganda and consequently invoke U.S. governmental pressure upon the state of Uganda to pursue peace talks with the guerrilla rebels. But honestly, what are peace talks going to achieve? Rebel groups don’t want peace anymore more than we want war. They have an agenda and won’t back down until they get what they want – especially when half of their fighting force is comprised of teenagers who have been kidnapped and forced to fight. So then, it seems that the only other viable option is the removal of the rebel group. But in order to do this we must incite and support the kind of conflict we are trying to end, and in doing so will harm the very children we were trying to protect. At this juncture it seems as though there is no solution to the problem. It is not my intention to postulate an answer, except to say that the answer [like everything else] lies ultimately in the realm of theology, and will forever escape the reaches of anthropology.

All that to say that I wonder if war, racism, and poverty are really the social issues we, as the theologically informed, should be worrying about.

Heaven: The Painless Society?

The notion pain in heaven was brought up in my Genesis class today. I can’t say that I have ever really thought about there even being pain of any kind in heaven. I guess I always kind of assumed heaven was devoid of pain. But after looking at the “paradise” of Eden and reflecting on God and his nature I’m not so sure that this idea of a painless heaven is an idea that we should purport as much as we do.

It seems to me that in Eden there probably was some sort of physical pain; but the pure existence of pain does not necessitate the negativity of it. I think that we view all pain in a negative light, however, we also live after the fall of creation, and so we have no category or context to comprehend an idea of “painless” pain. For example, in Gen. 3 when the woman’s curse oracle is given, God says, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth…” From this we can infer that most likely was some notion of physical pain present in the garden; however it did not carry the negative overtones then that it does now. Whether this was a part of the “innocence” of man or whether “harmful” pain was introduced into the world we cannot say – that aside we can suffice to say that there does seem to exist the possibility of “perfect pain”.

In light of this, it seems to me that heaven is more an idea in which we will be given (and perhaps overwhelmed with) a diving perspective with which to acknowledge, understand, and deal pain, instead of the common concept of a complete absence of physical pain.

To some extent I think we are given a part of this divine perspective, albeit an imperfect one, at the moment of salvation when we receive the mind of Christ (I Cor. 2). A function of this new “mind” is certainly to help us to view and understand things in a new, different, and divine way.

Then, realizing that we will receive new bodies in heaven, I think it is also safe to say that we will receive a new and perfected mind as well – one with this “divine” perspective. It follows logically that if we receive a new physical existence upon “entrance to heaven” than we should also receive a new ethereal/intellectual existence as well – and one that will be in tune with God’s mind at that.

At any rate this is all mostly speculation and probably isn’t worth very much as I don’t have the experience to justify my conjectures, having never actually been to heaven. I do think it is worth issuing a warning about our imaginings of heaven; we must beware of creating a paradise designed to escape earth or our experiences here, as I think we do far too often. I think that heaven will complete and fulfill the natural creaturely joy that we lost on earth (as a result of our rebellion), not necessarily deliver us from all forms of creaturely existence and whatever that might entail for us.

I realize you probably have your own little picture of heaven in your head, but this is a part of mine, and I hope it helps you to think about yours.

Mama told me...

There’s a song called “Simple Man” by Shinedown (a cover of the Lynard Skynard song) that I really like, because it reminds me of my mom. When I listen to it I can imagine her sitting next to me on my bed and softly singing something like this as I drop off to sleep. I think these are the things most mom’s wish for their sons.

I love you mom. This is for you.

Mama told me when I was young
Come sit beside me, my only son
And listen closely to what I say.
And if you do this
It will help you some sunny day.
Take your time... Don't live too fast,
Troubles will come and they will pass.
Go find a woman and you'll find love,
And don't forget son,
There is someone up above.

And be a simple kind of man.
Be something you love and understand.
Be a simple kind of man.
Won't you do this for me son,
If you can?

Forget your lust for the rich man's gold
All that you need is in your soul,
And you can do this if you try.
All that I want for you my son,
Is to be satisfied.

Boy, don't you worry... you'll find yourself.
Follow you heart and nothing else.
And you can do this if you try.
All I want for you my son,
Is to be satisfied.

The Mask

Cancer-death strikes.
Another fool lost.
A family un-completed.

Cries stifled.
Griefs hidden.
Faces measured.

Masks molded.
Faces fitted - sorry ceramic smiles now applied.

Single Father instructs
Only Son to love his mask.
Grave-bound Mother remains forgotten.

We don't deal with anything these days. We suffice to hide, cover, bury, run, and disguise; meanwhile the real issues course through us slowly subjugating our whole selves until we succumb to them. At this point we become the very cover of our issues. We adopt out "masks" as our new identities in an attempt to cope. And sometimes, that is who we are for the rest of out lives.

Restless.

My roommate and I have been throwing around the crazy idea of organizing a coast to coast D.C. to L.A. march for Invisible Children. It would be a three to four month undertaking, but the experience would be incredible. Nothing set in stone yet, just a couple of college students dreaming big.

Restless. My heart is restless. My soul is restless. My mind is itchy. From time to time I think everyone has these internal bugs, but I seem to have them regularly. Perhaps part of the problem is that the summer is looming before me and I am doomed to a summer of mindless [work]. I’ve realized that I really don’t like to work. In fact, if I had the choice I wouldn’t work at all. Now, I don’t really mean not work at all, it’s just that I want to do things that I enjoy for work.

The truth is, I really don’t know what I would even want to do given the opportunity. Someone asked me the other day what I would do if I could do anything. I said, “Well, at this particular moment I’m thinking that I want to live out in the country in a place that has a field, some woods, and a pond. And I want to live out there and think, and read about what other people think, and write about what I think. Kind of like Walden.” - at least I have my retirement figured out. But really. I like to read, travel, write, think, play soccer, and spontaneous adventurous things with my friends – how in the world can I throw those things into a job description? Whatever I end up doing, I’m quite certain it will be unconventional, and more than likely I’ll be living in the poor house my whole life, simply because I refuse to give in to stifling world of materialism. I realize this is all so from the perspective of a single college student with little mind or care for future responsibilities, but that is my stage in life and instead of rushing through it, I have decided to instead openly embrace it and if possible, exhaust it.

The first thing I want to do when I graduate is take a backpacking tour across Europe, staying in youth hostiles, working temp. jobs, and then backpacking to the next city. Practical? Most definitely not. It won’t begin to pay off my school loans. But it will be worth it. You only get a chance to do these things once in your life, and that is before the reality of responsibility sets in. To some degree, I hope I am able to escape the domineering control of social expectation and retain some of my more youthful tendencies.

Anyway, I apologize for this unorganized rambling, but not enough to fix it. I think that it’s somewhat haphazard construction only reinforces the ideas in it.

Petrine Easter

This is how I imagine Peter and the disciples at Christ's death. And probably how I imagine myself there as well.

Whips flew, flaying the flesh from your back. Thorns pierced, scraping skin from your skull. Rusty iron bored bloody holes in your wrists, rough wood splintered mercilessly into your bare oozing back. You were hoisted above the jeering masses with contempt. And as you hung laboring with agony over each breath, I stared. Frozen by the horror of the reality that was taking place before me. Stunned by the crucifixion of my teacher and closest friend. Shocked, any thought of encouragement failed me. I could not speak even a word of consolation, nor offer up even a simple prayer of salvation.

Then, even as You screamed your last, a new fear gripped me. I could not stay another second under the shadow of your condemning cross, and so I ran.

Then, stumbling in the darkness outside the city walls I realized what I had just done, and I wept in shame. My heart rended as my eyes were opened to my self-centered state of mind. Forsaken! I had left my friend to die. Forsaken! I had left my Lord to hang beaten, bloodied, naked, and alone, only worried about my own self-preservation, missing His divine example of self-sacrifice. How could I have been so foolish? How could I have been so blind?

O God, I am sorry for this heinous crime of self-love. I repent of placing my life above your love. O my God, hear the desperate cry of this wretched man and have mercy, O Lord, have mercy on me. Bathe me in Your undying love, and let me not soon forget the price that You paid for my soul.

Deconstructionism... Determined Discovery?

The other day I discovered something very unnerving about myself. I find that I am always discovering new things about myself, turning over new stones in my mind and looking behind new doors in my soul; and more often than not I am surprised by what I find – surprised, but rarely unsettled. But, Sunday night sitting in the rain beneath a single lighted lamppost I realized that I was a practical deconstructionist (not to be confused with a theoretical deconstructionist.)

I cannot say that I was awakened from a “dogmatic slumber” for I have always had a subconscious appreciation for the less ordered, but never can I remember a time that I would have willfully ascribed to the deconstructionism such as demonstrated by John Cage in his piece 4’ 33”.

I set out Saturday night to do some artistic journaling; generally speaking I don’t journal simply by writing about what I’m thinking or what I am going through. When I journal I express my thoughts and sentiments through poetic verse. And so Saturday night I set out with my red pen and 4x6 blue notebook to do some journaling. The atmosphere was perfect; I was alone on a bench under a single lamppost in the pouring rain surrounded by a city kept indoors by the dismal weather. (I don’t know what people find so repulsive about the rain – I find it refreshing and altogether inspiring.)

As I wrote, the ink smeared on the pages, sometimes so badly that some of the words were lost. But I had anticipated that, and it was part of the reason I had endeavored to write in the rain on this particular night. It added a certain… artistry. And yet as I reflected on my work I realized the implications of what I was doing. I was encouraging chaos. I was encouraging the destruction of my own work under the guise of deconstructionism.

I would never think about such an idea in the realms of philosophy or theology – to do so would be all but intellectual suicide. However, somehow I had allowed this arbitrary obliterator to enter into my ideas, even ideals of art. I am not sure exactly when this occurred, but I suspect I am in part an unfortunate victim of the venomous fate imposed upon us by the uncompromising war machine of popular culture.

But, despite the discovery and self admission that I am in fact an artistic deconstructionist at least in part, and despite the knowledge of the intellectual implications this holds for me, I cannot reverse the trend inside of myself. Because even as I write I sit here on my bed one sock off, a broken key around my neck, a bass guitar string around my wrist, drinking a Clausthaler and listening to the screaming tones of dissonance and discord on a new album by the Chariot in which the song titles read, “ Back to Back/They Faced Each Other/Th3y Drew Their Swords/And Shot Each Other/The Deaf Policeman/Heard This Noise/Then Came To Kill/The Two Dead Boys/Forgive Me Nashville/The Trumpet” in ascending order from track one.

And so for now I accept my artistic deconstructionist tendencies and will tolerate them as long as they stay within their given compartment and do not seek to corrupt my still constructive boxes of philosophy and theology… and realizing how disgustingly western and systematic this last sentence was, I think my next post will give stage to the battle of opposing ideas raging inside my head. I’ll call it “Systematic verses Synthesis” and advertise the bout saying, “Come see the West’s great Systematic defend his title against the up and coming Synthesis…”

A Social Commentary on Coping

Hey you, in the shadows
in the corner all alone,
Cling to the darkness
to remain unseen.
Cloaked in despair
and shrouded with the mist of dying memories, you hide,
in a fatal attempt to mask your pain.

Hey you, blade in your hand
Wrist dripping and burning
Slash to control
and bleed to replace
Emotive anguish.
Surrogating corporeal angst for dread distress, you subsist;
Draining ill sentiment from the sluice of life.

Hey you, on the barstool
with a mug in your hand,
Drink to forget
and forget, to escape.
Consuming poison
and slowly slipping into graceless oblivion, you laugh,
in a final effort to drown your hurt.

Hey you, with the girl
undressed and in bed,
Roll up the sheets
and engage to re-cover.
Lying to love
and seducing faith into false validation, you lie,
as a last resort to manufacture care.

This piece is a short social commentary on how people attempt to cope with their feelings, and the things they use to cover up naked emotional pain. I don’t know why we bother to wonder why we can't get people to be real with us, or why so many of our relationships seem to be shallow. We want others to take their masks off, but we refuse to first discard ours. If we would first bear a piece of our own hearts, then others would be a lot more willing to open their hearts to us. The problem is that for some reason being open with people about what's going on inside of us, what are feeling, and mostly what's hurting us has become something that we just don't do. Whether it's a fear that someone will betray us, that we will be judged or looked down on, or the idea that no one wants to listen to us I’m not sure. It’s probably a compilation of all three. Interestingly, many times even when someone does “share” something, it is only a surface something disguised as a deeper something. In this way we can pretend we are dealing with things when in fact our admittance of one fault is really only a cover-up for a greater fault. At any rate, something has happened and if we don't seek to correct it, then soon all of our relationships will be characterized by falsehood. All we will ever see of someone is the shell that they have secreted for the twofold purpose of first, keeping their feelings and thoughts inside of them, and second, of having something to show off for everyone else. Something to say "this is who I am, and this is what I do, and this is what I should be known by. It doesn't matter whether you really know me or not as long as you associate my name with this so that you can’t see inside as to who I really am." Everything we will see will merely be a disguise of the truth. And when we finally think someone is sharing something from within themselves with us, it will be nothing but a way to shove off some nosy pestering person who obviously only wants to cause more pain by inquiring as to our state of being.

Verse one is to those that adhere to solitude as their way of escape. Keeping to themselves they rarely have to deal with the thoughts of other people. To you: come out of hiding, crawl out of your holes. You are not alone and there really are people out in the wide world who will love you - only you must first give them the chance.

Verse two has to do with a coping mechanism that is largely overlooked in most of our circles, but it is a problem that any youth minister or counselor will deal with these days. Cutting and self mutilation are nothing but ways in which we try and deal with our pain ourselves. This is an issue I will probably be addressing soon, and so I won’t say anymore about it here.

Verse three is, I think, pretty obvious. Alcohol isn't going to solve any problems. It can't even help us cope right. So give it up. On a deeper level this speaks to all of us. We all have things in our lives that we depend upon to help us cope with our "stress." We all try to escape reality by using temporary relievers; the thing is, they are only temporary. The only permanent escape is death... though that is not a good reason for suicide. I think we all need to look into ourselves and find what we are using as our crutch, and whether it is a substance, an activity, an object, or a person we need to realize that the only thing it is helping us do is cover up what is really happening, and not allow us to deal with things when they need dealing with. Instead of placing our trust in things that are temporal, we need to place our trust in the One who is eternal.

Verse four has a very simple explanation: STOP SEEKING FOR VALIDATION IN OTHERS. We use them and abuse them and program them to see us as we want to be seen, and yet in the end we cast them aside even though they have only done what we asked. Ok, so that's not the only explanation, just the one that hides beneath the surface. The other is obvious though. So many times we seek solace through relationship and we end up making decisions we later regret. We must find our source of comfort, of love, of everything in God – who is love, who is our comforter, and is our all.

Deferred Hope

From time to time I like to participate in an online discussion board. Recently I was involved in a discussion about deferred hope. Here is a brief summary of my thoughts on the subject:

Hope deferred…well, in my estimation, hope deferred is better than hope abandoned. Or is it? There are some who would say that hope is vital to life – and there seems to be evidence enough to support. But is this really true? Is it not possible that this very hope that we think we need can bind us to the point of obsession over something we logically know we can never have? So you say, “balance my friend, balance.” But what is the point in hoping if the hope is not actually worth hoping? It is better to hope against hope itself, then to allow hope to hope for itself. For hope will always be disappointed, especially when hoping upon others.

And so we are left with three options, not all equal. The first of which is to take hope by the mantle and shake it into the submission of the will. In this domineering act one can control what he hopes in or hopes for; and in the end his hope lies within himself. This can be a lonely path to choose, but the pain inflicted upon oneself is ones own – and for some this can be most easily and readily accepted, even inflicted. One’s failure is ones own, and so ones fallen hopes are self contained.

The second option is take hope and cast it off of the cliff of reason. Reason says that hope is nothing more than the temporal whims of an emotionally unstable individual. Here hope is not in anything at all, for if it was then it would not be hope. It would be a trust or a faith of some sort in something, not an eager but unknowing disposition to a given circumstance. And so perhaps giving up on hope in favor of those things which are more concrete is the answer. Instead of waiting in hope, why not act in confidence. This also places the final outcome on the individual; however without hope the number of variables out of control is limited.

And finally we come to the last solution – to hope, but in deference. If this is to be done then there must be someone or something to hope in. But if our hope is to be at all founded then that which we hope in must be trustworthy, or at least consistent. But is there anything that can be trustworthy or consistent? And it is here that we must insert a god, or something that is not bound by mortal law, something that will remain immutable despite all other change, and something that will look after our best interest. Then and only then can we hope; and even then it is not hope, because we are freely giving our hope to this god in full confidence that he will not disappoint. It is interesting to note here though, that hope in this case cannot be disappointed even if the desired ends are not met; for the god has acted according to his good will and purpose. But is there such a being? And if there is, how is humanity to blindly place its greatest hopes and dreams in the palms of something that has not proven itself beyond a shadow of a doubt to act in our absolute welfare, much less act at all.

Which of these is the greatest folly? To withdraw to oneself in an attempt at isolationism? To abandon hope altogether and proceed only on the knowledge of the certain? Or to defer hope to something else and hope that that is right? O the cruel irony, the bitter blade of fate will bite again, regardless of the hope that is kept or forsaken. So hope with me against all hope that there is one who can rest hope from me and soothe an aching psyche at the brink of hopeful depression obsession.

I know, I know.

I know, I know. It's not like the world really needs another young mind spewing forth his ideas, and it's not like I really need another website to keep up. But I intend on using this as sort of an online journal, a place to share my thoughts and what I am learning. Hopefully this will make it easier for some of you to feel more connected to me as I am not always able to call or e-mail as frequently as I would like.
The title of this blog is more or less what it will be - a collection of fragments that when pieced together form a greater image. It will be an image of my life, an image of my thoughts, an image of my heart, and hopefully an image of God.