What Could Have Been: ACL Headkick

After a relaxing dinner and a movie, Jess and I came home, put the kids down, and dove into the bed. I turned on the TV. PBS was showing Austin City Limits. Andrew Bird was in the middle of a song about formaldehyde.

You see, I was on my way to see Andrew Bird in Houston a few months ago. My brother and sister-in-law had invited us for a night on the town. Unfortunately and to our disgust, my wife came down with a major virus the night before we were supposed to leave. I missed what my brother called the greatest concert of his life. So we made plans to see Bird in New Orleans. He played a few weeks ago at Tipitina's. After making sure we had babysitters for the occasion, we learned that the show was sold out. Now I want to kick myself in the head, not only because I missed Bird a second time but because I missed Bird's opening act, St. Vincent. It was great to see Bird play in concert on PBS--very impressive set.

But St. Vincent played the second half of the show and truly amazed me with their unpredictable chord progressions, guitar-banging feedback, and mad violin and flute solos. I'm happy to have discovered a new band, but I'm depressed that I had to sit at home a few weeks ago while all the kid-less, bearded, bra-less, boot-wearing indie couples experienced the concert of a lifetime.

Check out St. Vincent in the video I've embedded. It's the first song from the ACL set (at least the PBS version of the set). It's called "Marrow." [Edited 11/7: I guess PBS pulled the video from YouTube. I've replaced it with the official music video.]



Isn't that chorus incredibly awkward but strangely satisfying?

Vow to Seek the Truth (Whereever it Leads, Right?)

My theological burdens began during my second semester of college. I've carried these burdens through college and into the first three years of my career. I still carry these burdens because of the difficulty I faced finishing college, starting fresh as an English teacher, and trying to love my wife and raise my kids to the best of my abilities. I have simply not had the time or mental energy to continue pursuing the relief I need. But now the stress and insecurities of my career are slowly dissipating, and I think I'm ready to get back to the labor of honest truth-seeking.

I've been haphazardly studying theology these last few years only motivated by the desire to have something to talk about with the many Christians that dominate my social circle. I went through a year to two year dry spell with no one to talk with about theology. It's my experience that professional ministers are the only folks who care to discuss biblical nuts and bolts; the laity seem more concerned with football games and pleading ignorance to any and all weighty matters of any theological significance.

I spent an hour with Andrew and Dr. Morrison tonight. We veered from our discussion on biblical hermeneutics and entered personal territory. I expressed some of my frustrations with the Bible and Christianity as I see it. I feel like this discussion fueled my fire once again to pursue Truth. I have been discouraged by so many who disparage "book learnin'" in favor of "Spirit fillin.'" Their opinions have made me seriously consider selling all my theology books and giving up the discipline in all its forms and instead pursue a deeper knowledge of literature. But no matter how hard I try to focus my thoughts elsewhere, I keep coming back to this Jesus who haunts me with that peace that truly did pass my understanding a decade ago when I rejected every single aspect of the life I was living.

The nagging feeling inside me tells me these books were written for me. Books through these Christian centuries have shaped us all, and I can't sit here and wait for a Holy Spirit to reveal truths to me in the same way He reveals truths to the people who don't know the answers to the questions raised by problematic biblical texts.

If only stupid and/or crazy people subscribed to Christianity, it would be an easy cult to ignore. But scholars, including predominant philosophers and literary critics, and other INCREDIBLY INTELLIGENT people wholeheartedly believe that Jesus Christ died, rose on the third day, and ascended into heaven. Anne Rice stays in my mind. I can't tell you how many Holy Spirit doses of revelation Rice got from God from His invisible world, but I can tell you that she claims that reading, studying, and researching led her to the cross of Jesus Christ. That's why tonight I vow to reject the haphazard approach that time constraints have forced me to take and return to the tedious labor I started a few years ago. I vow to have a good reason to believe or to not believe in this Christ figure who completely changed the course of my life. Anne Rice credited the works of many theologians who helped pave her road to Calvary, so I begin tonight with N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God, for without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Christian faith is simply, merely, and only the greatest coping mechanism the world has ever known.

I begin with these questions:

1. I am 100% convinced that no reconciliation can be found (forced ... or harmonized as some would say) between the resurrection accounts in the Gospels of John and Matthew, but does that mean that I should, to use the cliche but appropriate analogy, throw out the baby with the bathwater?

2. If Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, why did those who personally witnessed his resurrection die as martyrs? Why die for what you know is a lie?

3. Is there good evidence to suggest that these eyewitnesses really existed and actually did die as martyrs? Or is this apologetic just a legend?

4. Finally, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ a unique phenomenon among the world's religions? What I mean is this: Do we have any examples of martyrs in other religions similar to the eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection? I'm not talking about suicide bombers who strongly believe in their cause. I'm talking about martyrs who claim to have experienced supernatural manifestations of their gods and/or goddesses. I'm also not talking about martyrs who experienced these manifestations in isolation. I want to know if these manifestations had other eyewitnesses.

So now I begin. Christians, please pray, and I invite you to challenge what you perceive as error. Atheists and agnostics, you don't really have to pray, but I also invite you to challenge what you perceive as wishful thinking or shoddy reasoning. And although follow-up on your part would be appreciated, don't feel obligated (as I'm sure you won't).

Film Review: ZOMBIELAND (2009)

Rating: A -- The previews for this film let you know exactly what you are about to experience: outlandishly hilarious zombie gore, insecure Michael Cera wisecracks, and Woody Harrelson as one snakeskin jacket-wearing, zombie ass-kicking sonovabitch. If this is not what you want, this movie is not what you want. Most of my adult peers smirked a little when I told them that I was taking my wife to see Zombieland. Granted, I did drop my kids off at a Parents' Night Out church ministry where the church babysits my kids for four hours while I spend time with my beautiful wife. And church-people are usually not into zombies (unless they're named Jesus or if their eyewitness veracity is recorded in the the Gospel of Matthew). But most of my students gave me high-fives when I expressed interest in the film. I even saw one of my students at the show. I guess I'm still stuck in my adolescence. I love zombie movies.

As for this one, I can't complain. Even though so many of the scenes were contrived and unbelievable, intentionally designed to set up creatively gory zombie kills (i.e. most of the amusement park scene), I was fine with it. I laughed through the entire film, especially the Bill Murray scene. I have yet to see Shaun of the Dead (which I plan to get around to very soon), so I'll use Evil Dead as a point of comparison. It's the earliest comedy/horror that I can think of. Zombieland is funnier than ED. ED is scarier and has a more serious tone; whereas ZL only gets serious in its character development and tense in pivotal zombie chase scenes. ZL is accurately balanced so as not to defy its main purpose and stray from the expectations established in the previews.

I was incredibly surprised that my wife actually wanted to see this one with me. The last horror film she watched with me was The Mummy Returns. Yeah, I know. No need to say it. She left the theater afraid of mummy demons back in 2001, but this time she left the theater with a cheerful heart, desensitized to graphic violence. What an accomplishment!

Rhetorical Analysis: Mudvayne's "Have it Your Way"

On Lethaldose's recommendation I just bought my first Mudvayne album, Lost and Found (2005). Of course, Mudvayne is to Slipknot as Kottonmouth Kings is to ICP -- same band, different songs. Or is it same songs, different band? Anyway, I like Slipknot. I saw them in Shreveport a decade ago, and I own their fourth album. Since I like Slipknot, I guess I'll like Mudvayne. The singles I've heard are decent, epecially "Fall Into Sleep." Lethaldose was curious about my reading of a song from Mudvayne's latest album, The New Game (2008), called "Have it Your Way."

"Have it Your Way" is Mudvayne's contribution to pop music's Bush-bashing trend. I can think of a few musicians off the top of my head who have contributed in recent years: Dixie Chicks, Kanye West, Disturbed, A Perfect Circle, Green Day, and even Christian musician Derek Webb. Like Green Day's latest album (as great as the music is), this song seems a little late; however, maybe the timing of its release perfectly communicates Bush Jr.'s stubbornness suggested in the title of the song.

Mudvayne questions George W. Bush's motivation for leading the U.S. into Iraq, which is basically Mudvayne re-interrogating the wheel. The song opens with a series of questions that place the former POTUS's mental stability and honesty in question. Addressing Bush as the audience, the speaker, who I assume is Mudvayne and a plurality of disgruntled Americans, plays Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and asks, "Was it for your father? / Did you get a little pat on the head? / 'That's the way to go boy. / Clean up this mess.'" This exchange between father and son reinforces the perception that Bush Jr.'s presidency was mottled with Oedipal tension. The speaker references Bush Sr. again when he labels the Bush presidency as the "New World Order: Part 2." Bush Sr. spoke of his own post-Cold War presidency as the beginning of another "New World Order," alluding to the post-WWI world. As part of Bush's "New World Order" he ended up leading the country into the Middle East to liberate Kuwait. Mudvayne views Bush Jr.'s "New World Order" as a continuation of Bush Sr.'s unfinished job, the mess to clean.

The song's main point is not to pose rhetorical questions or make observations about the Bush "legacy." These devices are merely the context for Mudvayne's main purpose: to voice the anxiety of what they perceive to be a broken nation and place the blame for that anxiety on a president who has left his nation behind and will soon "leave us all behind" when his term ends. I can't help but add the word "fine" in front of the title. The title phrase "have it your way" is a hopeless reaction to a stubborn president: "Fine, have it your way!" I'm imagining the speaker and his broken, deceived, and abandoned supporters turning their backs, leaving the family room, slamming the door to their rooms, and blaring their heavy metal protest music.

Part of me wants to dismiss this song as a childish and outdated rehash of Woodstock nostalgia, but the other part of me wants to give the song a chance and regard it as a final evaluation of the Bush Jr. Presidency, the last shot in a series of ignored pleas, attacks, and complaints. My entire self is sure that the song is a run-of-the-mill nu rock song that will remain just as obscure in the future as it is now.

Leary's WHY WE SUCK (2009)

Wes told me to read the first few chapters of Dr. Denis Leary's Why We Suck (2008). I read the Prologue and skimmed Chapter 1: "Why Everyone Hates Us." Nothing too valuable to report. Leary plays his usual role, spouting forthright, irreverent run-on sentences about the absurdities of American popular culture. I know for sure I won't read the entire book. I have too much to read as it is. But I'll leave you with one of Leary's observations on free speech and civil rights:

We live in a country where Rosa Parks had the courage and conviction to sit down long enough to start a revolution that led to Al Sharpton screaming racism every time Barry Bonds gets indicted for taking performance-enhancing drugs in order to break a home-run record set by a black man who didn't even have the benefit of Advil. (Prologue, pg. 13)

I'm sure the rest of Leary's book is just as entertaining as the quotation above. But his voice is basically insignificant. His opinions, although cleverly stated, are unoriginal and unidentifiable in the ruts of American satire, pressed into the trail that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have been pioneering for this current generation.

The Best Hermeneutic?

This is more of a "here's what I'm into this week" post where I answer no questions, express only my curiosity, and request relevant source material from you (This is the only place in the post where I request source material. Consider the request issued.).

Charlie and Andrew have been talking about biblical hermeneutics, and as usual, my interest followed. I read some of Keith Mathison's Shape of Sola Scriptura and Alister McGrath's Historical Theology. Both seem to suggest that a proper biblical hermeneutic is best achieved by not straying far from the Patristics, for these were the folks who supposedly knew the Apostles (some of them) and who knew people who knew the Apostles. These were the folks who claimed to have received doctrines passed down directly from the Apostles, giving them better insight into what the Bible actually means.

A few summers ago I spent some time with a Presbyterian pastor who claimed that any biblical doctrine not affirmed by the Patristics is most likely heresy. Later in the conversation he said that N.T. Wright's New Perspective on Paul and Douglas Wilson and Steve Wilkin's Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Theology were compelling and convincing. I may be wrong, but I thought that since these ideas were new, they should be rejected as heresy. Then again, I don't understand these new ideas 100% and maybe the Patristics did support them for all I know. Nevertheless, I'm curious about what the Patristics claimed, and which of their ideas endured and which did not. I'm also curious about how this hermeneutic responds to shifting social values and scientific progress.

I spent about two hours this morning studying the Ante-Nicene Fathers, namely Polycarp, Clement, and Irenaeus. I started with Polycarp's "Letter to the Philippians," read some excerpts from Ehrman's Lost Scriptures, Lost Christianities, and Apostolic Fathers. I finished off with various biographical pieces and opinion proof-texts from their writings. I've yet to form a solid thesis on my curiosities, but it is in the works. If we both care about this topic after today, you may get to experience the fruit of my study.

Of ToMAYtoes and ToMAHtoes: Why Intelligent Design and Creationism are Synonyms

Let me state upfront that if Plato is right about humanity's dispositions concerning Truth, Knowledge, and Belief (And if I'm right that Plato wrote about this, we can only KNOW something if it IS TRUE; otherwise we DON'T KNOW or we BELIEVE that it is TRUE), I would argue that no human, fundamental Christian or staunch atheist, KNOWS the particularities regarding the Earth's beginnings. I would rightly categorize any opinion on the matter as either a BELIEF or a I DON'T KNOW. Even the writer of the Bible's NT book Hebrews categorizes the Genesis creation story as a BELIEF (Hebrews 11:3) (The writer uses the word "faith," which I categorize as a type of BELIEF.). With that said, I must tell you that I DON'T KNOW the particularities of how the earth and people came into existence.

I was spending time with Charlie and others last Wednesday night. While watching Michael Ruse talk about the absurdity of God and legitimize the theory that crystal-wielding aliens could be responsible for our existence in Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I made a comment that Intelligent Design was the same thing as Creationism. I think many Christians believe that these two concepts are different, but I think Christians believe that they are different because that's what the inventors of the phrase "Intelligent Design" were hoping to accomplish.

The phrase "Intelligent Design" is simply a response to the State's rejection of the term "Creationism." Creationists tweaked their language in an attempt to appear more scientific so that the State would acknowledge their "scientific" ideas and allow them into the biology classroom. Intelligent Design IS Christian Creationism. Those who would argue that the two are different are merely using the arguments that the lawyers and judges debunked in 2005's Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Pennsylvania federal trial that resulted in the rejection of Intelligent Design as serious science (Michael Behe also became a household name after this -- at least in my household).

Over the last few years, I've watched a few PBS documentaries about the trial. The best one aired during the 150th Anniversary of the publication of ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES... Learning that the ID proponents manipulated the language of their 1983 Creationist biology textbook to sell Creationism as ID in the latest draft of an ID textbook (OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE) was the most significant information to affect my opinion that ID and C are the same.

Here's the evidence as stated in the opinions of the Kitzmiller v. Dover judges:

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID’s creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are referred, [OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE]. (pg. 31)

Here's where the judges explain the manipulation of the language from the earlier textbook to the newer textbooks that ID proponents were trying to approve for usage in Pennsylvania classrooms:

(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards [v. Aguillard]. (pg. 32)

And furthermore, if this evidence is not enough, I'll close with one of the stated organizational goals of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE, as found in their incorporating articles:

[They hope to involve themselves in] proclaiming, publishing, preaching [and] teaching…the Christian Gospel and understanding of the Bible and the light it sheds on the academic and social issues of the day. (NCSE)

To make it clear, I'm arguing here that ID and C are that same. I'm not arguing whether or not the Dover trial was fair. That's for a time when either I KNOW more or my BELIEFS strengthen.