Carpe diem, a phrase that comes from the Roman poet Horace, means literally "Pluck the day", though it's usually translated as "Seize the day". A free translation might be "Enjoy yourself while you have the chance". For some people, Carpe diem serves as the closest thing to a philosophy of life as they'll ever have.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Fairy Tales vs. Real Life
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The Dearest Place on Earth
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Moments
My 'moment' came on a beautiful warm afternoon...the kind of warm that is subtle, yet readily welcomed by a Florida girl who's experienced one too many consistently chilling days. This warm afternoon, coupled with eating lunch by a lake with friends, led to driving away from the park by myself...windows rolled down, singing in that "I don't care if you can hear me, in fact I really hope you can" voice...driving with my knees, one arm hanging out the window, the other stretched across the front seat, wind tousling my hair. THIS. This was my moment of freedom. I hadn't accomplished anything in particular that day. I hadn't 'rebelled' against authority (to my knowledge) so it wasn't a "bad girl" freedom. It was simply, "I'm free. I'm alive, I am who I am because that's who God made me".
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Christianity? Or American Religion?
“Most of us know, if only on a tacit level, that television has transformed our world's cultural landscape. Yet few of us seriously probe its workings and implications for the church as well as for the broader society. Quentin J. Schultze, in Televangelism and American Culture: the Business of Popular Religion helps us do so. One of the authors of Dancing in the Dark, Schultze teaches communications at Calvin College and is a highly regarded scholar who's devoted much care to the study of television. He not only watches the programs, he studies the flood of solicitations sent to those who respond to the televangelists' appeals. What concerns Schultze is "how and why televangelists are helping to transform American Christianity from a church into a business, from a historic faith into a popular religion based at least in part on superstition". Still more, he argues that "televangelism is probably the most characteristic and remunerative expression of American religion. It is the nation's own religion, a special Protestant hybrid raised in American culture and nurtured by the mass media. Televangelism may even be the flagship of American religion, setting the style and tone of local and denominational life". TV "ministries" almost always share certain traits. They are "audience-supported" --since funds come from viewers' contributions the ministries must cultivate and maintain a loyal audience, so the message is tailored to please those who watch. You can easily shift channels. You write checks only when you're happy with the presentation. Keeping the audience happy, maintaining its allegiance becomes a preeminent concern. They are "personality-led"--we want "stars" and "celebrities" in religion as much as in athletics and films, so successful TV preachers and singers must be attractive personalities. It helps if they're good looking. (Knowing I planned to visit Lloyd John Ogilve's church in Hollywood, a lady who works with my wife asked me to see if he's really as handsome as he looks on TV. Well, I've seen him . . . and he is!) They are "experientially-validated"--few doctrines or historical traditions receive much attention, but practical, how-to-do-it-and-enjoy-it messages abound. The audience, of course, likely includes folks from a variety of theological persuasions, so you must not risk alienating any of them. Even moral stances may be muted. (One study found a direct correlation between TV viewing and knowledge of the 10 Commandments--the more religious TV watched, the fewer of the commandments were known!)
"Technologically sophisticated," TV ministries rival the best, state-of-the-art equipment and production techniques of their secular counterparts. They are "entertainment-oriented"--to keep folks' attention you must use variety show or talk show formats and imitate the Johnny Carsons who score with the American public. Not many Lloyd John Ogilve type church services last long on TV. Finally, they are "expansionary-minded"--the "success" of the ministry is judged by the number of viewers and size of their offerings. Were the above characteristics restricted to TV ministries, they might not overly concern us. But a serious problem appears when the people who watch TV programs come to the local church--and most all the folks who watch televangelists also attend local churches--and expect TV-style religion! Early critics of TV ministries feared they would tempt people to stay away from church, but that's not happened. What has happened is perhaps worse: TV addicts crave similar "fixes" in their weekly worship services! (Even more problematic in my mind, though Schultze doesn't focus on it: those who never watch religious TV watch incredible hours of regular TV, and their whole attitude toward life, their basic taste in communication, has been thoroughly shaped by the medium.)
So we want messages and programs that please us--if not, we scoot down the road in search of a church which "ministers to us," unconcerned with denominational or community ties. We demand that our singers and preachers be alluring personalities, as polished and winsome as Robert Schuller or as old-fashioned and fiery as Jerry Fallwell. We really want to be free of dogma and denominational distinctives--after all, it's what we feel in our hearts, what enables us to cope with family problems, what provides therapeutic advice illuminating our psychological ills, which most matters. TV ministries, and TV in general, breed "Christians" who have little concern with what the Christian faith has historically considered central. Americans have always demanded up-to-date technology, and Evangelicals, while often resisting intellectually "modern" trends, have embraced technically "modern" developments with reckless abandon. (I'm always amazed by the sound systems in churches which serve 50 people! Without a microphone, it seems, no message amounts to much!). We've refused to see "modernity" as a whole, as something you cannot easily pick and choose purely wholesome dividends. We really want our church services to be entertaining. We insist our congregational plans be growth-oriented--woe to the pastor who doubts the need for a new gym of "family worship center"!
After brooding about such developments, Schultze says we must discern the "demonic" in the medium. Quoting William Stringfellow, Schultze declares that "televangelism exists in a 'state of alienation from God, cut off from the life originating in his life, separated from its own true life and, thus, being in a state of death'". Nevertheless, Schultze insists TV will not go away, nor will Televangelism. What we need to discover, he suggests in the book's final chapter, are ways to redeem it. He thinks televangelists should be more accountable to governing bodies. He urges churches to focus more study on the medium, helping believers see how they are manipulated and thus prepare them to more wisely cope with it.
I'm not sure Schultze's recommendations will solve the problems, but his treatise certainly helps me think about how powerfully TV dominates our culture, even our religious culture, and stimulates us to consider ways to correct or counteract its influence.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m not familiar with Reed’s background, but I find his analysis of televangelism and my limited personal views of televangelism to be extremely similar. While I believe that men like Billy Graham revolutionized televangelism and spread the Gospel to numerous unreached cities across the world, it’s sad to see Graham’s work ‘overshadowed’ (in a sense) by more cutting-edge, charismatic men who appeal to the “itching ears” of America.
Don’t get me wrong- I certainly believe that God can use the prideful attempts of money-hungry men to further the Gospel, which only displays the greatness of His power; but the materialistic empires that are being built in “the name of God” are sickening to me. In my opinion, if your “messages” stray so far from the truth in Scriptures from the very beginning of your “ministry”…you weren’t ‘in the biz’ to see lost souls come to Christ.
The Christian life is not about living happily on this earth with as many comforts and pleasures as we can grab for ourselves. Jesus didn’t live a ‘comfortable’ life…why should we? =) As gloomy as that may sound, the ‘discomfort’ of the Christian life does not come without promise of future happiness! Scripture says that we, as Christians, WILL experience pain and trials in this life; but we are instructed by God to rejoice in our own sufferings and trials because we have the glorious promise of what’s to come.
We were not called to live overabundant lives…hoarding money for ourselves, taking advantages of our ‘weaker brothers’. We were not called to share ‘messages’ without substance or conviction.
Christians are called to “go forth and preach the gospel into all the nations” (including our own communities) and to live in contentment, happy with the resources God has given us. In an article by Robert D. Jones, we’re shown what contentment looks like as described by Paul in Philippians 4:11-13. Jones writes, “contentment does not depend on our circumstances…our spiritual happiness does not depend on our life happenings. Contentment can occur in even the worst situation.” So why do these televangelists insist on pushing the ‘prosperity message’? Could it be because they lack conviction and substance in their own lives?
The following link will take you to a radio broadcast by Todd Friel on The Way of The Master: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SuZoHYUZ7o&feature=related and Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYFKFdxdGPw&NR=1 where Friel addresses Osteen’s most recent published work (A Better You). Notice also, Osteen’s ‘message’ drops in confidence from when he’s on stage giving his ‘messages’ (mucho confidence onstage), to whenever he’s being interviewed (where there’s a lot of “I think…I don’t know…I don’t like to judge…I don’t like to beat people down”). I’m not all about 'bashing' people, but when you're claiming to be a Christian preacher, and you have a following as big as Osteen, I can't help but feel the need to reveal him as the false prophet that he is.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
I Can Hear the Bells...
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tales from the Motherland
Monday, October 5, 2009
Suffering...?
The following was written by my friend Kate several months ago. I only just read it and it so affected me, I wanted to re-post it.

I would like to take a crack at something. I have been thinking a lot about the basic philosophies of Christianity. The issue of suffering is a huge one. How many times have we heard someone say that they could not believe in God because of suffering in the world? I don't know if there is ever an adequate philosophical response to this question, but I wanted to share some thoughts.
A lot of people blame suffering in the world on God, and conceivably so since he could stop all of it. Makes sense. So what if God took away suffering? What would that look like?
We have to agree that while suffering is universal, the definition of what constitutes as suffering is not.
Picture a room, and in it, we will put those who suffer:
A woman raped.
A young girl who did not get the lead in the school play.
A wealthy socialite with a chemical peel gone wrong.
A man that loves a woman that does not love him.
A child whose hands have been cut off.
A woman who’s husband was shot in front of her.
A child who did not receive a toy they wanted.
A man who lost his job and has a family to feed.
A man who lost his job, but has no family.
We may scoff at the woman and her chemical peel, but could you blame the child with no hands not understanding why a man who lost his job was in the room with him? Is it ridiculous for the rape victim to roll her eyes at the tearful cries of a man unloved?
The girl that did not get the lead in the school play may feel shame; self hatred; anger; bittnerness- and feel them quite hotly. We can say she is young and immature in what causes her suffering, but it does not change the fact that her response is, indeed, suffering (and also that we are arrogant for believing that our vantage point of what constitutes as suffering is the ultimate authority).
Does the acknowledgement of sex slavery in the world lead you to cry less when someone has broken your heart? Probably not.
So. If God was good, then there would be no suffering. But that means no suffering, of any kind.
I think a response to this would be the idea that there should not be rape, or AIDS, or cancer or murder, the ‘tragic sufferings’ maybe.
But let’s say those things did not exist. But if we could still feel pain, there would simply be different scale of sufferings.
Imagine a world where the only health problems anyone ever had was the common cold. That’s it. No other diseases.
People would say that if there was a God, he would not allow people to have colds. The indignity of nose blowing and the harrowing torture of a sore throat would cause people to question his existence and goodness. People would lose their faith after catching a cold, or perhaps find God in the midst of their sickness, needing Something to comfort them in their distress and anguish.
We think that is silly only because we know the range of suffering pertaining to health. If the range was a cold only, it would be the worst thing in the world. And we would be right back where we started.
Let’s continue with this line of thought.
A world with only colds. No rape or murder, no adultery, or stealing.
So now, in this new world where all extreme suffering is removed- we would have new extreme sufferings.
People would be atheists because they could not believe in a God that allowed broken nails; bad break ups; boring jobs.
Philosophers would write books on the spiritual cruelty of acne and bad hair. They could not accept a God that did not make all of creation aesthetically pleasing. Ugly people means an ugly God.
Again, these things seem petty (maybe) to us only because we understand the spectrum of suffering.
So, all suffering would have to be erased. And not only would God have to take away the things that make us suffer, but he would have to take away our very faculties that process suffering.
We would either all have to get what we want, or not be able to process pain of any kind. One is not possible, because what we want often hurts other people, so two could be the only logical conclusion.
So the following words would be incomprehensible to us: worry; anxiety; pain; fear; abandonment; rejection; neglect; hurt; anguish; misery; annoyance; disturbance; etc.
Without those words, or the ability to understand what they refer to, the following words are also meaningless- happy; joy; love; kindness; forgiveness; gratitude; contentment; ecstatic; delight; acceptance.
Without suffering, of any and all kind, we also would not be happy. We would have no concept of the word.
So I wonder a few things.
I wonder if God has saved us from suffering even more greatly than we can imagine.
The same way we laugh at a world that dismisses God based not getting parking spots or coveted jobs, is there another world that would laugh at our suffering of rape and genocide as petty?
I can think of nothing worse than being strapped to a bed and raped. But I wonder if God’s response to that would be: “There was the possibility of me creating a world where men could literally rip out your essence, eat it, and you would be trapped in their body for the rest of your life.”
Again, ridiculous. As ridiculous as American missionaries explaining video games to south American natives. Just because it is incomprehensible does not mean it could not be true. That would be putting ultimate authority in our cognitive faculties, which is a little arrogant. If God is blamed for all disasters, I wonder if there are disasters he has kept us from?
There is one suffering we know exists, that only one Man felt. When Christ was in the garden, and on the cross, He was completely cut off from God. It hurts when we lose relationships with those we cherish, even if we may have only known the person for a few months.
But what of the pain of losing our spouse of 50 years?
Christ (going on the assumption that he was who he said he was) lost the companionship of God that he had had for all eternity. He felt cosmic abandonment. Intense. Intense enough for him to cry out “Llama sabachthani” My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?
When I hear stories of Christian martyrs, it strikes me that they died more bravely and perhaps seemingly more faithful deaths than of Christ. I can only image that Christ’s sufferings went far beyond the physical, into another spiritual realm that I can only think of as science fiction.
But I think we can all admit that at least some of our sufferings have produced good in our life, in the form of character; patience; grace; etc. So if we can see some good coming from suffering and evil, isn’t it possible that God can see good coming out of all?
I’ve gotten to spend time with my one year old godson, Ethan Key, quite a bit in the past few months. When I do not let him play with the light socket, he suffers and screams, even if I explain the law of electric transference and death. When Beth (his hot mama) leaves the room, no matter how logically I clarify the idea of showers and imminent return, he will not be comforted. He feels suffering. I can’t alleviate that. And as he gets older, he will continue to suffer when Beth and Nate do not allow him to steal other children’s toys or pull their hair, he will suffer when he is not allowed to play in the street or after dark, he will feel anguish when Nate doesn’t let him start driving at 14, when he has to do homework and chores, when he is not allowed to marry the great love of his life at 15, or stay out all night. He will suffer and not understand and be a better man for it. But he won’t comprehend that until later.
Is it possible that we are just as blind? Just as young and immature in Gods eyes?
I suppose I am comforted that the justice I desperately want on this earth is not pointless, it is promised in the form of heaven. That the heaven Christ talks of is not just one of consolation, but of restoration.
Last random thought: maybe we feel pain because God does. Not just Christ, we know he suffered. But God, in the Old Testament, suffered. Pain and suffering exist in God’s realm just as much as this one. God is not separate and detached from our pain, it is found in Him. We are made in his image, and that may be somewhat physical, but it seems primarily emotional to me. God feels hurt; abandonment; rejection; pain. The Christian faith is that of the God Who Suffers. God was so moved by our pain, that he sent Himself to take it on. It did not alleviate all of our pains here on earth, but Christ’s sufferings and his desire to be with us, can help us suffer well and come out of it stronger and wiser. And if our sufferings lead to death- our desire for what we want on earth, is now found in the hope of resurrection and heaven.
