coming of age

New home

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:02:44 GMT

I am establishing a new home at http://www.jamespedrick.com

Giving to the Poor - What's the point anyway?

Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:59:33 GMT

Upcoming AoA literature by yours truly...

We all know there are countless teachings throughout Scripture to care for the poor. The biblical mandate is so important that when a rich young man asks what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus tells him, “Go sell everything you have and give the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” And yet elsewhere Jesus tells us that the poor will always be with us – leaving some of us to question: “Why we should even try to eliminate poverty if it is so impossible?”

Through this lens, fighting poverty and injustice can often seem discouraging, fruitless, and even pointless. But I wonder how often we consider how giving to the poor and seeking justice for the oppressed actually enriches us and transforms our lives through the process.

Last year, I had the opportunity to visit a poor rural community in Swaziland, a country in southern Africa where more than 40 percent of the population lives with HIV. There, the average life expectancy is less than 33 years old and more than 70 percent of the people live on less than $1 per day. When I visited Swaziland, I expected to find a community of hopelessness – a community that I needed to fix. But what I found instead was a community of faith, solidarity, and hope with a strong leadership base capable of transforming their own community. All they needed was our support, friendship, and resources to help them meet their needs.

My faith was encouraged through their faith in the midst of extreme poverty. When I returned, I found that the U.S. was suffering its own epidemic of poverty. While this community in Swaziland suffered from economic poverty, I found that my community suffered from relational and spiritual poverty. We suffered from epidemics of apathy in culture and self-righteousness in attitude.

When Jesus told the rich young man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor, he left in shame because he was unwilling to give up his great wealth to follow Christ. Jesus then tells his disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. You see, the rich young man determined that his own comfort and earthly treasures were more important than a life of service toward God and toward others.

I wonder how much our Western Christianity is reduced to a self-serving faith of earthly treasures and comforts. We accumulate a life that simply becomes too great to surrender to Christ. Jesus’ own life reveals an example of humble service and surrender for others--even to the point of death. Jesus says, “Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

There are several other accounts where Jesus asks people to follow him and they respond by leaving behind their old lives, careers or possessions, and even their families in order to enter into a full life of service with Christ. We are not told they were rewarded with earthy treasures or fortunes. In fact, many of them were persecuted or even died for their faith. But each entered into fullness of life, replacing selfish wants and possessions with greater intimacy and love for God and for others. Are we willing to become poor in order to serve the poor?

Just by living in the US, we are among the richest 10 percent of the world. How would our lives be transformed if we began seeing our service toward God and others as more important than our earthly possessions and desire? Could we also be transformed into a community of faith, solidarity, and hope like the one I visited in Swaziland?

In serving the poor, our goal is not to export our own culture of material things and possessions. Rather, our goal should be to befriend and support our brothers and sisters as they combat the poverty, disease, and injustices that affect their ability to experience fullness of life. In doing so, we may just uncover the poverty, disease, and injustices that affect our own fullness of life too.

Thomas Merton - Hope and Spiritual Poverty

Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:47:02 GMT

If we know how great is the love of Jesus for us we will never be afraid to go to Him in all our poverty, all our weakness, all our spiritual wretchedness and infirmity. Indeed, when we understand the true nature of His love for us, we will prefer to come to Him poor and helpless. We will never be ashamed of our distress. Distress is to our advantage when we have nothing to seek but mercy. We can be glad of our helplessness when we really believe that His power is made perfect in our infirmity.

The surest sign that we have received a spiritual understanding of God’s love for us is the appreciation of our own poverty in light of His infinite mercy.

We must love our own poverty as Jesus loves it. It is so valuable to Him that He died on the Cross to present our poverty to His Father, and endow us with the riches of His own infinite mercy.

We must love our own poverty as Jesus loves it. We must see them with the eyes of His own compassion. But we cannot have true compassion on others unless we are willing to accept pity and receive forgiveness for our own sins.

We do not really know how to forgive until we know what it is to be forgiven. Therefore we should be glad that we can be forgiven by our brothers. It is our forgiveness of one another that makes the love of Jesus for us manifest in our lives, for in forgiving one another we act towards one another as He has acted towards us.

---------------------------------------------------

My Lord, I have no hope but in Your Cross. You, by Your humility, and sufferings and death, have delivered me from all vain hope. You have killed the vanity of the present life in Yourself, and have given me all that is eternal in rising from the dead.

Why should I want to be rich, when You were poor? Why should I desire to be famous and powerful in the eyes of men, when the sons of those who exalted the false prophets and stoned the true rejected You and nailed You to the Cross? Why should I cherish in my heart a hope that devours me – the hope for perfect happiness in this life – when such hope, doomed to frustration, is nothing but despair?

My hope is in what the eye has never seen. Therefore, let me not trust in visible rewards. My hope is in what the heart cannot feel. Therefore let me not trust in the feelings of my heart. My hope is in what the hand of man has never touched. Do not let me trust what I can grasp between my fingers. Death will loosen my grasp and my vain hope will be gone.

Let my trust be in Your mercy, not in myself. Let my hope be in Your love, not in health, or strength, or ability or human resources.

If I trust You, everything else will become, for me, strength, health, and support. Everything will bring me to heaven. If I do not trust you, everything will be my destruction.

Humility and Service found in Nehemiah

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:20:15 GMT

I started reading Nehemiah, beginning with chapters 1 and 2. I thought it was good how Nehemiah pleads the case of his nation before God. It's interesting how Nehemiah's concern and identification with his nation and people is even revealed through his face and sadness of heart. I felt convicted of my individualism, which prompts me to quickly flee the case of my nation, my church, and my family - focusing more on God's supposed justice than pleading for his mercy. The Faith in Action Bible commentary says, "How easy it would have been for Nehemiah, serving in the Persian court at Susa, to separate himself from the guilt of the returnees in his intercessory prayer. Yet he made it a point not to exclude himself or his family members (whether in Judah or Persia) in his confession of national sins."

This, coupled with having a responsive heart but not necessarily a self-made agenda, demonstrates Nehemiah's humility. He doesn't view himself better than his people. And though he grieves over their present condition, he does not try to take matters into his own hands but waits for how God might ask him to respond. He actually waits 4 months until the king asks him what is saddening him. And even when asked, Nehemiah prays to God before answering the king.

In Thoughts of Solitude, Thomas Merton describes humility:

"Humility is a virtue, not a neurosis.

"It sets us free to act virtuously, to serve God and to know Him. Therefore true humility can never inhibit any really virtuous action, nor can it prevent us from fulfilling ourselves by doing the will of God.

"Humility sets us free to do what is really good, by showing us our illusions and withdrawing our will from what was only an apparent good.

"A humility that freezes our being and frustrates all healthy activity is not humility at all, but a disguised form of pride. It dries up the roots of the spiritual life and makes it impossible for us to give ourselves to God."

For some humility is really apathy. Rather than taking decisive action or even following faith, the "humble" do not pursue justice and righteousness, because they are content with their lowly position. In reality, they do not care enough to risk humiliation and in doing so they lay in pride. Similarly, without faith and submission before God, any service of our own will only result in pride and a following of our own zealous agendas.

But true humility will result in identifying with others, interceding for AND with others, and submitting to God's plans and purposes.

Great Truths in Lost

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:40:22 GMT

I am addicted to the show Lost. I recently finished season 1 for the first time, in preparation for season 2 on DVD. Now I am trying to race through season 2 on DVD in preparation for season 3, premiering next month.

Though I am not very far into season 2, a recent moment reminded me of my favorite episode in season 1, when John Locke helped Charlie “quit” his addiction to heroine. For those of you not in the know, Lost is about some people who are lost on a strange island after their plane crashed. Charlie is a has-been rock-in-roll star addicted to heroin. Locke is best described as a “man of faith.” He is perhaps the strangest character on the show, as his legs miraculously were healed once they crashed on to the island – a fact no one else knows. He is convinced that everyone is on the island for a reason and puts a lot of faith in destiny.

In my favorite episode, Locke discovers that Charlie is addicted to heroin. Charlie also doesn’t have much heroine left. Locke helps him out by taking the heroine from Charlie but then offers to give it back to Charlie after he asks three times. This, of course, frustrates Charlie, who asks him why he doesn’t simply throw away the heroin. Locke replies, “If I did that, you wouldn't have a choice, Charlie. And having choices, making decisions based on more than instinct is the only thing that separates you from an animal.”

Locke helps Charlie overcome his addiction, so that Charlie is the one who finally destroys his remaining heroin.

In season 2, we have a very different encounter between Charlie and Locke. Charlie has gotten into the habit of caring for a girl he likes named Claire and her newborn baby. He makes a judgment that she isn’t very good at taking care of the baby and begins taking more responsibility from her and lecturing her over things she does wrong. In talking with Locke, he recalls that she was going to put the baby up for adoption and adds, “She's got a bit to learn about being a mom. Responsibility, y'know.” Locke responds, “Hmm. Now that's an interesting thing to say for a heroin addict.”

Locke’s response to Claire is quite different. When he notices her discouragement, he helps her learn new ways to be a better mother. He empowers her and has faith in her ability to succeed. He equips her to take more responsibility rather than taking responsibility away.

Locke’s perspective is very different than Charlie’s. Charlie fears defeat and failure, which seem inevitable. With his heroin addiction, he would rather someone come in and take responsibility from him rather than being trusted with it himself. The struggle seems too difficult to bear or overcome. Similarly, when he sees Claire struggling, his response is to take responsibility away from her, even though it means overstepping boundaries. He judges Claire and her ability to succeed, just as he judges himself. Interestingly, though, when he judges Claire, he does so with pride in himself. And when he judges himself, he does so with a low comparison of himself toward others.

But Locke does not fear struggle. Instead he sees the value of it. And he has faith that one cannot only success but will be better because of it. Back when he is helping Charlie with his addiction, he uses a moth as a metaphor: “You see this little hole? This moth's just about to emerge. It's in there right now, struggling. It's digging its way through the thick hide of the cocoon. Now, I could help it - take my knife, gently widen the opening, and the moth would be free - but it would be too weak to survive. Struggle is nature's way of strengthening it.”

Luckily, we don’t have to struggle alone, but we do have to struggle. And as followers of Christ, our strength is not in ourselves, but in the power and work of Jesus Christ. Perhaps we, too, can then see struggle as good – as God’s way of strengthening us. And perhaps then we can allow it and even encourage it to take place, both in our lives and the lives of those around us.

Galatians 6:1-5
Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.”

Who are the Unclean?

Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:10:37 GMT

I wrote this for the latest Acting on AIDS newsletter
http://www.worldvision.org/aoa.nsf/aids/newsletter_members_September_spiritual

Read Matthew 8:1-4 and Luke 5:27-32

There was tremendous stigma around leprosy during gospel times. Lepers were required to identify themselves with mourning clothes and by crying, “Unclean! Unclean!” when approaching others. Worst of all, they were isolated from community and required to live apart from others.

Who would be called “unclean” in today’s world? Many would point to those affected by HIV or AIDS. Motivated by fear, ignorance, or even self-righteousness, many people still stigmatize those living with HIV and their families, constructing walls to separate themselves from those who are deemed “unclean.”

Throughout his ministry, however, Jesus Christ tore down walls that separate. Whether healing the sick, talking to a Samaritan woman, or eating with sinners, Jesus ignored boundaries to invite others into communities. In fact, when Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors in Luke 5, it is the Pharisees and religious leaders who criticized Him. Jesus’ ministry threatened their power and authority. If God saw them as equal to these sinners, what will then separate them?

But it is not by our personal righteousness that we are measured as equal but in our need for reconciliation with God. In Luke 5, Jesus answers the Pharisees by saying: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Today, it is easy to fall into the same temptation as the Pharisees. HIV-positive persons are often viewed as a modern-day leper – unclean and defined by physical, relational, or spiritual brokenness. We can choose either to ignore or to serve society’s outcasts, but either choice often keeps them in the margins when we choose not to identify with them. Like the Pharisees, it is easier to live in our own numbness when we keep others on the outside, so that even our good works, when coupled with self-righteousness, hide our own brokenness and ultimate need to surrender all to God.

God calls us to be with our brothers and sisters in need, without ignoring our own need for reconciliation with Him. We are all unclean, and we are all in need of Christ’s love, forgiveness, and healing. It is through this mutual need that we may learn to serve one another and find God the most. Consider what this means for your own life. How might this separation keep those the world or religion call “unclean” out of community? What are our personal areas of brokenness and how might we hand those over to Jesus?

Thomas Merton on Self-Conquest and Self-Surrender

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:10:27 GMT

The phrase self-conquest can come to sound odious because very often it can mean not by the conquest of ourselves but a conquest by ourselves. A victory we have won by our own power. Over what? Precisely over what is other than ourself.

Real self-conquest is the conquest of ourselves not by ourselves but by the Holy Spirit. Self-conquest is really self surrender.

Yet before we can surrender ourselves we must become ourselves. For no one can give up what he does not possess.

More precisely – we have to have enough mastery of ourselves to renounce our own will into the hands of Christ – so that he may conquer what we cannot reach by our own efforts.

Planting seeds in good soil

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 04:18:10 GMT

Yesterday I finished yet another theological book. This one I read in just two days, suggesting that (at least in regards to interest and reading ability) I am ready to go back to school. The book I finished was “The Last Word and the Word After That,” the last in Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christian” trilogy. It was perhaps the most controversial, but also presented a lot of good new questions and ideas.

This book was about the forth I’ve finished in the last week, albeit the only I both started and finished in the last week, but the reading certainly leaves me wondering if perhaps this reading is doing any good. I definitely seeing my beliefs being changed, but how much is my life and faith practically changing for the better? Perhaps all this reading and thinking is really a distraction, or worse?

As I was finished “The Last Word…,” I was also watching “The Scout,” a 1994 film starring Albert Brooks and Brendan Fraser. Here’s the quick IMDB synopsis: “Al Percolo is a major league baseball scout sent to scout in Mexico as a punishment. However, he eventually stumbles across Steve Nebraska, a young American who can pitch AND hit better than anyone else can do either. He signs Steve and returns home in glory. It soon becomes obvious, though, that Steve is immature and possibly unstable, and Al turns to psychiatrist Doctor H. Aaron, whom he picks for her name, for help.”

By the end of “The Scout,” young Steve Nebraska is expected to pitch his first major league baseball game, but he freaks out. He is afraid of making a fool of himself or that people may make fun of him, despite his promising abilities. The player and his scout/surrogate father get in a standoff, which finally ends when the scout gives the kid freedom to do whatever he wishes: to play ball or avoid the limelight. In doing so, the kid’s fear subsides and he then realizes the choices and consequences beforehand. If he takes a step of faith and pitches the game, the worst that can happen is he loses. “Well, half those guys lose everyday.” With freedom comes clarity and understanding.

In the end, Steve Nebraska chooses to pitch the game and wins. Ironically, by remaining on the fence, his worst fear would come true: he’d make a fool of himself.

I am not really sure where my current pursuit of truth will take me in the end, but I do believe it is laying the foundations for me to have freedom and make choices. Through deconstruction and reconstruction, my understanding of God and His purposes for me is beginning to change. Practical changes? Maybe not yet, but hopefully forming good soil for new fruit.

Capote, Jesus, and Larry David sit down in a bar...

Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:22:06 GMT

It has been a while since I have blogged my thoughts, and I have had quite a few good ones today, so here we go…

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am watching Capote right now. The movie makes me feel a bit uncomfortable because I often feel that some of my closest friends look at me the way that Harper Lee looks at Capote. He will be saying something that will seem brilliant or charismatic or caring but she will see right through it, into his heart and motives, and look upon it with pity – and yet she accepts him anyway.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

At church, we have recently been going through various stories throughout the Book of Matthew. We’ve been going through three stories each week, but it sometimes seems a bit much when each one digs up so much. Today’s seemed especially sobering and insightful. The stories were from Matthew 8-9 (I won’t recount them so look them up if need be). But I especially reflected on three things:

1. Jesus’ ministry to the “unclean” and marginalized.
2. A sick man asking to be healed if Jesus was “willing”
3. God often choosing to work through the unlikely

I’m only going to reflect on one of these, which is Jesus’ ministry to the unclean and marginalized. Our church services have been very interactive lately, and the pastor asked us to think of ways that we are unclean and marginalized to the outskirts of community with God and others. Someone then mentioned drug addicts and homeless as modern-day outcasts, but the other pastor rightly pointed out that that is too often a copout.

We often choose to either ignore or serve the outcasts of our society. But either choice often keeps outcasts in the margins when we choose not to identify with them. The truth is: there was no difference between the lepers, the poor, the prostitutes, and the religious leaders. All of them were in need of reconciliation with God, and yet those more wealthy or powerful or pious could ignore their need as long as they had a scapegoat in the outskirts. In reality, they were living in numbness. It’s safer there. And so today, it is easier to live in our own numbness when we keep others on the outside, so that even our good works, when coupled with self-righteousness, hide our true depraved nature and ultimate need for total surrender to God.

I recently heard that the Church in China prays for our persecution. Despite being oppressed and impoverished, they realize that our noise keeps us numb to our true reality and potential.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is a scary thought, but I think my new favorite drug of numbness is Larry David’s Curb Your Enthusiasm. Larry David is the co-creator of Seinfeld. George Costanza was based a bit off his real life persona, though Larry doesn’t seem nearly so self-conscious. I’ve enjoyed watching the show, but realized it’s a bit like someone who lusts and whistles after women going home and watching porn – it only feeds my sarcasm, cynicism, and bitterness. I’ve actually begun asking my self, “What would Larry do?” I don’t know if I can just stop watching the show, so I think I’ll just have to do a few nights and weekends rushing through all four seasons…

…I guess that means there’ll be a few more Harper Lee looks over the next couple weeks.

It's the end of the world as we know it...

Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:51:51 GMT

I'm listening to R.E.M. while watching CNN. Paula Zahn is doing a special report on Christians who think we're moving into the end times, rapture, tribulation, and armageddon. Not yet sure where Mel Gibson's tirade against Jews play in but.. boy do we look stupid. Seriously.

Oh wait... Jerry Faldwell is on...

Am I capable of controlling people?

Sun, 23 Jul 2006 04:54:48 GMT

I think I may actually have the capability of controlling other people. It's a pretty unbelievable and quite scary thought. And I don't even think it is something I do intentionally, but it seems that some recent events and reminders of past ones leave me wondering just how influential my "strong" personality is. Of course, we all have some control over how we relate with others - but to what extent does that control then influence how others relate to others?

My roommate just started reading "A Separate Peace" and it reminded me of Phineas, a very outgoing and charismatic personality who naturally influences and leads other. By the way, he also gets a broken leg.

Anyhow -- something I am exploring. I'm cookin' up a nice little entry that has to do with salvation... but we'll pause a bit and post it later. Sorry for not spending more time with you.

James

What do you do when a friendship loses its initial purpose?

Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:23:06 GMT

What do you do when a friendship loses its initial purpose? I don’t even like to think about the subject, because it seems so self-focused, but I think it is a fair question at the same time. Friendships don’t just happen, they are created by something: close proximity, similar interests, life circumstances, etc. There’s a catalyst that develops any friendship. The friendship then centers on a purpose, often similar to the catalyst. But what if the catalyst is removed? Some friendships transition from one purpose to another purpose… but what about those friendships which lose their purpose, their meaning.

Now, I have had friendships that have changed purposes: friendships once about proximity that have moved to similar interests or similar life circumstances. Some have even grown stronger when proximity was removed. These have been good changes, positive transformations. Of course, there are also changes that seem to be for the worse – such as the classic friendship to romantic transition, where it is difficult if not impossible to move back to being friends.

But it seems most of my friendships which have lost their initial purpose have eventual phased away completely, often without any awareness or concern to it. And many people seem fine with this – content to abandon all friendships when proximity is removed, circumstances change, interests fade. Admittingly, this was me.

Now I am not so sure. I don’t know what to do with friendships that don’t seem to have much reason behind them, or associations that seem to lack any purpose. What do I do when I realize I am gaining nothing from this person or that group?

I am more aware now but less sure and less confident. If I abandon, am I being selfish? If I stay, am I being wasteful? And what are these friendships? Friendships with people? Or with similarities?

Brokenness

Wed, 05 Jul 2006 21:05:22 GMT

To be honest, I am growing fond of brokenness. This wasn’t always the case of course, but now I am viewing it as an amazing opportunity to grow closer to God and to others.

If you look in the Bible, God often works most through people’s brokenness. This is perhaps most apparent in the Gospels. Jesus’ ministry and healing targeted those who were broken by physical, mental, social, economic, and moral brokenness.

My latest encounter with brokenness has been physical: a broken leg. In many ways, this experience has been rather easy so far, actually quite positive. My spirits have been relatively high, and I feel it has brought me closer to many people. It has seemed much less difficult than other “broken experiences,” perhaps because a physical infirmity is so apparent and obvious – asking for help is less work and needing help is much more prominent. It could also be easier because it is so evidently temporal – I know this will heal, especially with the medical resources around me.

Already, I have had many valuable lessons through this all. The relatively short period of extensive pain helped me understand suffering more. Between breaking my leg and reaching the emergency room, I reflected on the pain Christ must have endured on the cross and where his mind must have centered throughout his suffering. I am also learning what it means to need other people and to ask other for help. And I am learning how to appreciate others – what they do for me, but even more, who they are to me. I have been blessed to have more quality time to spend with my Dad and to rely on new and old friends.

Brokenness really is not that bad with the right mindset. I think I am more worried with how I treat richness. What will I do with the blessings that God has made me rich with? Will I use it too to draw closer to God and others, or will I hoard it for myself? Too often, I fear, it is easier to do the latter. To take pride in my richness, as if it was all my own doing.

Perhaps the spiritual and relational poverty we often feel has a lot to do with the richness we are blessed with and how we respond to God’s blessings? In this regard, perhaps it is better to remain in brokenness… or perhaps the brokenness can help us see our richness differently.

Superman Returns Review

Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:27:14 GMT

I think I would have been pleasantly surprised by this film – had it not been for those positive reviews out there. I am amazed at how many good reviews and how good some of the reviews are for this film. The trailers, casting, and story left me with pretty low expectations for this film. The only excitement being Bryan Singer as director. (Though I really really wish he had directed X-Men 3 instead.) The positive reviews gave me a bit more hope… though I wish they hadn’t.

The film follows up on Superman II, which I can respect. Basically, Bryan Singer and his butties thought of creative ways to expand upon the Kryptonian crystals and Supes/Lois one-night stand to develop a far-fetched Superman III that could never be manipulated into an Office Space spin-off. On the bright side, Superman I and II were good, but there’s really no reason to go through Superman’s origin, so continuing that story isn’t a terrible idea. I didn’t buy the “whole five years gone” and “Lois has a baby” things though. They just didn’t seem like natural steps for the Superman/Clark and Lois Lane portrayed in the Superman films. There never is a good explanation of why Superman would go to visit these remains and never seems to be an explanation of what these five years were like and how they affected him. Plus he has so many answers with the Fortress of Solitude… it would make much more sense in the Smallville plotline than here. And I just cannot picture the Margot Kidder Lois Lane falling in love and getting married (maybe there’s a reason she’s so attached to a Superman.) I just need some more background to make it buyable.

In general, I did respect the casting of Superman and Lex Luthor. They reminded me a lot of Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman. But Kate Bosworth was a poor choice for Lois Lane and didn’t come anywhere close to reminding me of Lois Lane or Margot Kidder. With the other casting similarities, it made it even more difficult to accept her. While the casting was reminiscent, it seemed to make it harder for them to really make the characters their own too. I felt it was Kevin Spacey playing Gene Hackman playing Lex Luthor, for instance.

I also thought the dialogue and character development was real weak. One could say this is more common of the ‘80s Superman films, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Sure, those had corny dialogue at times, but they seemed to still have some patience in developing characters and relationships – and where this lacked the most in Superman Returns was the Lois/Clark relationship. There was a big deal over Superman being gone for five years – but Lois didn’t miss Clark more than an acquaintance. For following up on the first two films, this relationship fell short. Also, I thought the weak dialogue limited the actors – especially Brandon Routh who makes a good Christopher Reeves, but whose performance fell short because of either acting or script.

Now there were some areas where the film moved away from the previous two – but these seemed very unoriginal at best. Lois Lane hooks up with Perry White’s pilot nephew? Reminded me way too much of Spider-Man 2’s relationship between Mary Jane and the Daily Bugle editor’s astronaut pilot son… which only raised the question: was this plot twist nothing more than trying to compare with what Spider-Man has done to both the comic book and movie genre? I don’t know if the Lois Lane fiancé story is based on anything in the comics… but I know Lois Lane never had a son! With comic books being these characters’ real life, this is the equivalent of life imitating art… rather than art imitating life.

Positives: the special effects were amazing! The airplane sequence was an awesome improvement. I also enjoyed small little references like the “SUPERMAN IS DEAD” and “SUPERMAN LIVES” newspaper headlines, and really enjoyed recycled movie lines and soundtracks. Also, I liked the costume changes and felt they did a good job all around with the Superman look and flying and all that.

The one other critique, and from a post-modern this might seem much, is I don’t like the loose sexual morals creeping into iconic superhero characters. They already did the dirty deed in Superman II, so Bryan Singer just maximized that, but now we have a constant reminder of how we really can’t count on our superheroes to live in a fantasy world focused on good and evil, but without conceding to cultural grays and moral changes. The Batman and X-Men movies also moved away from fidelity too but at least those are pre-designed for an older crowd, and all three franchises have done so without batting an eye.

So that just leaves Spider-Man I guess… which leaves my absolute final note on the nerd-block: the trailer for Spider-Man 3 looks awesome. Spider-Man 2 is my absolute favorite super hero flick with Spider-Man 1 right up there as well. What I like about both is this: they are great character films even without being a comic book film, they speak to a diverse range of audiences, and they have great and real themes to deal with. Spider-Man focuses on tough decisions around power, responsibility, and sacrifice. It doesn’t avoid the grays, but doesn’t seem to compromise either. Afterwards, you look at a movie like Superman Returns and you have to wonder: what’s the real point?

I guess it was time for a break or two

Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:29:45 GMT

I am really sad I haven’t spent time blogging over the last few weeks. I’ve had a lot of stuff worth sharing but haven’t seemed to have the time or energy to write it out… everything has always been a thought-in-process and/or shared/elaborated with friends. Kurt has been a nice addition to the house, giving me a 24-hour opportunity to share myself.

All that said… I might have some more time now. If you haven’t heard, I broke my leg.

I am not feeling too bad about this leg break. While this was the most excruciating physical pain I have ever felt, I realized it was temporary and nothing compared to emotional pain I’ve experienced. The pain almost felt like a blessing – an opportunity to resonate with suffering and physical hardships, to understand just how blessed we are materially, and to reflect on the suffering that Jesus Christ intentionally embraced on our behalf.

Even more of a blessing, of course, is the timeout. It’s annoying to miss work and a trip and to feel like a deadbeat, but it’s also nice to take some time off, be so relaxed off meds that all you can do is sleep. It would be nice to be able to concentrate through a book though.

And the greatest blessing of all is friends and family. It’s been real nice spending time with my dad and relying on him again. And many of my friends have gone out of their way to show appreciation.

But the greatest lesson for me, thus far, is over needs. And I am not exactly sure what that lesson is just yet. Weeks ago, though, I had found myself losing my motivation for job and for life. Around that time, I found myself grossed out over needs and the human condition. I didn’t like the thought of being needed and I really didn’t like the idea of needing… needs make relationships seem so utilitarian, even less authentic.

With this broken leg, I am forced to need others. And I am hoping I will better understand needs as a result. I haven’t really had a problem with needing others until sometime yesterday. I haven’t really felt guilty about people doing something for me. It feels nice to have people offer to do something for me. But I’ve been feeling a bit guilty asking things from Kurt. It’s one thing to have people do something, but to be completely in need and to have to express those needs and inconvenient someone else is something I will have to learn from. Hopefully it can help me better understand relationships and how to express relational needs.

Well, that is my broken leg blog… I am currently watching Spider-Man 2… great movie and I feel sorry for anyone who disagrees… I saw Superman Returns last night. Didn’t care for it much, but the Spider-Man 3 trailer was awesome… so there’s always looking forward to that. I’ll probably post a Superman Returns blog soon. I also have some developing thoughts on Ephesians and Purpose to post soon… and I have a big Acting on AIDS writing assignment to write by the end of the week which I may just post.

I’m not going anywhere, so drop me a call or email if you got nothing better to do.

i miss you live journal

Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:18:58 GMT

I miss you so much. I have so much I want to write about, but need to find the time... just know I care.

diary of a sim

Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:50:50 GMT

Have not felt well this week. Social and fun meters very low. Energy meter low. Realized environment meter has been depleted for some time. Hunger meter is unusually indifferent. Luckily hygiene and bladders meter have been kept up nicely. I am confused as to what my aspiration is set at – and have noticed few wants and several fears realized.

My life is an ERDM situation...

Tue, 30 May 2006 23:29:08 GMT

Or perhaps its a more gradual crisis in need of an ERDM? Of course there are worse crises in the world.

X-Men 3 Thoughts or "Brad says a good comic book sequel requires nipples on the costume"

Wed, 24 May 2006 17:50:04 GMT

I saw X-Men 3. I think it's probably more of what the typical X-Men movie would look like: big team, lots of different powers and effects, not as much character development. I'm sure there will still be some hardcore X-Men fans that are not pleased over some continuity issue. I appreciated the movie, but ultimately it gives me more and more respect for X-Men 2 and Bryan Singer's work on X-Men 2.

Really, the reason X-Men 2 was so great boils down to one thing: Bryan Singer's gayness. X-Men 1 offers an introduction to the main characters. X-Men 3 gives us this big climactic ending. But X-Men 2 really dives into exactly what it means to be a mutant, to be stigmatized, to be feared, to feel shame, etc. X-Men 2 has a lot of heart - the greatest part of the whole film is Iceman "coming out" to his parents. And I am convinced its source is Bryan Singer's gayness.

Unfortunately, Bryan Singer left the X-franchise to move to Superman... which all indications will be a disaster.

X-Men 3 does have some strong points. Just as X-Men 2 made you think, X-Men 3 leaves you with some things to contemplate, mostly around ethics and right/wrong. There's a lot of gray in the choices characters make... and if you take a step back, there really are not "evil" bad guys. What the film lacks is really honoring these choices or the characters and their stories. Bryan Singer took his time, so that you felt like he was telling a character's story rather than utilizing a character to fill a role in a story. Singer really showed care and respect for the characters' stories, while this director uses them (both old characters and under-developed new ones) as tools.

One thing similar about both X-Men 1 and 3 is I felt Magneto was the most interesting character in both films. After X-Men 1, I remember thinking about how good Magneto's motivations were. And in X-Men 3, I think I even see and understand the logic and brilliancy behind some of his more "heartless" acts. X-Men 3 shows us that all the characters almost have to compromise their beliefs, do the lesser evil in order for the greater good. Magento, more than anyone, seems to understand and embrace this openly and honestly. There's talk of a Magneto prequel. If they get this right, it could be pretty cool.

Thoughts from Galatians 5

Mon, 22 May 2006 17:40:21 GMT

I wrote this on Saturday but then decided to post about The Da Vinci Code first and save this for today.

My devotions have sent me through the Paul's Epistle of Galatians. I have really come to admire Paul and his testimony and have found myself reading his words through new lenses. In Galatians 5:1, Paul writes: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."

I always read "yoke of slavery" to mean slaves to sin, perhaps because of Paul's words in Romans 6. But as I was immersed in Galatians this week, it was interesting to realize that Paul is really referring to slavery to the law. In fact, the churches in Galatia were not falling back into sinful ways but were instead wrestling over the law. The focus of this was questioning whether they are now required to be circumcised.

But Paul traced this to the heart of their question: must we observe the law in order to be justified? Paul's answer is more than an indifferent "no." Rather he clearly states the dangers of trying to fulfill the law. "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

This seems so counter to religion, even counter to the bulk of Christian churches today. But by trying to attain our goals by human effort we actually fall away from Christ's grace. For if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

Paul goes on to demonstrate that we are in conflict with ourselves when we live under the law. "For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law."

Under the law, we are never satisfied. When we strive to do what is right, our sinful nature protests. And when we follow our sinful nature, the law condemns us. We are at war in our hearts and cannot be satisfied. But Paul says that: "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit."

I know that when I have lived by the Spirit, I have not felt conflict in myself. I have not struggled over attaining righteousness or gratifying the desires of my sinful nature. But it doesn't seam easy to hold on to. Rather it is easy to return to a mode of self-gratification or self-righteousness – the two often seem to lead into one another too. I think this occurs because God does not want to kill our individuality and wills but to conform our wills to His will, to continually invite us to choose Him.

Still, it seems difficult. I seem to continually fall back into my own understanding. Paul gives a few pointers though: he lays out the acts of the sinful nature and the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5), and he reminds us to carry each other's burdens in community and humility (Galatians 6).

This very much reminds me of Jesus Christ's ministry and words against the Pharisees. (This is good, because we really wouldn't want Paul communicating a different message than Christ.) Jesus demonstrated that life in God is not attained through human effort and religious regulations. Rather than focusing on rules to govern our outside actions, he focused on our hearts and the fruits of heart through which God blesses.

The reason I like Paul is because his conversion isn't the conversion of the sick or immoral, but the conversion of the self-righteous. Paul is pleading for the Galatians to not fall into the path he once took as a Pharisee. He even starts his letter explaining how he once was "advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers." He was the pious, lifeless religious man that others were trying to turn the Galatians into.

If Paul were born in the 20th Century, I would not be surprised if his testimony was something like this: I was a better Christian than many Christians of my own age. I went to Christian schools, went to Christian churches, voted for Christian candidates. I became an important Christian leader of our day. And then God called me by His grace and revealed His true Son to me.

The Da Vinci Code

Sun, 21 May 2006 16:42:48 GMT

I saw The Da Vinci Code yesterday. As to the bad reviews, I thought they were completely unfounded. My guess is it all comes down to expectations. Tom Hanks' acting doesn't quite match what you come to expect from him. The movie, while great for a thriller, doesn't meet Oscar-caliber expectations… but that wouldn't deserve such bad reviews (See RottenTomatoes.com) unless you're expecting much more. Tom Hank, the French Girl, and that guy who played Dr. Octopus have all had greater performances ever. The directing and flow of the movie also had some stuff that makes you scratch your head early on. But overall, the movie is actually pretty good. You really get drawn into the movie. Of course, I didn't read the book – so maybe that makes a difference too.

Now, theologically… this made me really curious as to how churches are using this theologically. We could focus on what a novel says about Christ, bash the author over the head, and then argue until we are blue that our theology is more factual than this work of fiction. Or we could ask ourselves: What are the deeper questions that this author is asking? What might our culture come away asking? Luckily for you, I think I have the answers.

Two important cultural questions this book/film asks is: How do we justify the Church's existence? And what do we make of Christ's divinity/humanity?

Neither are new questions, either for our day or throughout time, I'm sure. But both are important and both, especially the first, are obstacles for people's faith. I am sure that people who have come away doubting their faith are not doing so because they now believe the fictions of this book, but because they are coming away knowing the historical facts about church history that must bother us all.

What is interesting is even after the book/film creates a "more human" image of Jesus, it still holds him in high regard. It is the Church that it holds in contempt. This reminds me a lot of Marcus Borg and the Jesus Seminar crew, who attempt to humanize and de-divinize Jesus while then promoting his life and message. They decide the Church got it wrong and is actually missing Christ's teachings by focusing on the death/resurrection.

But back to the question: How do we justify the Church's existence? It really seems like a harsh question. But consider the facts: the Church has coupled itself with the very oppressive systems of our world to enact atrocities of war, murder, imperialism, racism, sexism, etc. For those outside the Church, or inside the Church but unfamiliar with church history, this must seem horrific. It must cause one to wonder if it would be better if the Church never existed at all. How do we justify a Church's existence that has spread through wars, colonialism, and slavery? Who often seem behind the times in fighting racism, empowering women, fighting injustices around poverty and sickness, and caring for our environment? We should be apologizing for the church's history on these matters.

These are important questions. I could be wrong, but I am guessing they are tossed aside with the focus entirely on question #2: What do we make of Christ's divinity/humanity? In addressing this, can we please try not to demystify the answer? It's a complicated one. It always has been. Again, what is interesting is how much The DaVinci Code, Marcus Borg, and most great religions hold Jesus Christ as an unprecedented teacher and prophet in the history of humankind. Let's affirm these attributes before moving into a debate, because it is Jesus' own teachings that answer a lot of question #1. Jesus Christ taught a message counter to the oppressive systems of power, money, sex, and religion that govern our world. It is when the Church moved away from Christ's teachings that it has turned into what is evil in this world.

It's interesting that Jesus Christ focused a lot more on these things than on ensuring everyone had proper theology around his existence and who he is. That being said, it is important for others to understand the divinity of Christ. But when not approached holistically, it portrays the Church as fearful, neo-colonial, and archaic. We should be explaining not just how reconciliation through Christ impacts one's soul for eternity, but how it impacts their life on earth and the betterment of the world. Maybe we could move off of how, which we probably don't understand nearly as clearly as we think, but why.

Well, that is my review of The Da Vinci Code and the rest of civilization.

Who are we serving?

Sat, 20 May 2006 18:11:07 GMT

Every five or six years, World Vision does a "census" of its donors, also known as a survey. This survey collects important demographic data, as well as measures donor opinions and view on transformational development and justice issues. Earlier this week, I was able to see a presentation on the latest donor survey data. It was interesting to see the disconnect between our organization and its donors, which raised an important question: "Do we change ourselves to fit our donors or strive to change our donors' hearts on our differences?"

This question posed another question: "Who are we ultimately serving: our donors or the people and communities in need?" If we are serving our donors, we'll want to see them transformed, for their hearts to be touched by God's heart for the poor and oppressed. If we are serving the poor and oppressed, we'll want to see donors give more so that we can serve more.

There is definitely a tension between the two. If we position ourselves to be and sound more like our donors, we may generate more revenue to fund good works in the field. However, if we become a prophetic voice on our differences, as we often do (HIV and AIDS, Palestine), we risk losing donors. There tension is certainly present. But luckily, the questions do not have to be reduced to a mutually exclusive, either/or answer.

We could cater to donor wishes and watch our work gradually reduced or wake up one morning to find a giant disconnect between what we are doing around the world and what our donors are expecting. Or we could aggressively push against our donors and see revenue decline. But I believe a sustainable answer lies in between. We ultimately want to see changed hearts and lives, both domestically and abroad. Our revenue will be more sustainable as donors see their own lives impacted by our work and messaging.

We must stay true to our values, but we also must communicate within the current culture, in order to see true transformation in how others view their world, development, justice, and God.

Interesting… this seems to apply to how the gospel is proclaimed in the emerging culture around us as well. As well as how the gospel is proclaimed in the declining Western Church. The disconnect between the Church and culture is growing. The culture views the gospel as increasingly irrelevant. And the Church seems more and more disunited on what the gospel is and how to proclaim it in the culture around it.

We must stay true, or even return, to the core gospel – as well as how to communicate and translate that gospel within the emerging culture. Only the Spirit of Christ can guide us through this tension. I guess that's who we ultimately need to serve.

Absolutely Relative or Relatively Absolute

Wed, 17 May 2006 15:29:59 GMT

I wrote this while on my trip last week but forgot to post it...

"What is truth?" Pilate asked. John 18:38

I was flying down the freeway today when I suddenly hit traffic. I quickly descended from 80 mph to 30 mph. It seemed really slow. Much slower than 30 mph in fact. I realized that speed is relative. 30 mph on a freeway when moments earlier you were driving 80 mph seems much slower than 30 mph in a school zone. But I don’t think my speedometer lies often. In both instances I am going 30 mph.

How does this relate to truth?

Is it possible that the speed of my car is both absolute and relative? Based on all our laws and equations and measurements, I was driving 30 mph both times. But based on my perspective, they seemed like two very different speeds.

Would it kill us to say that truth is both absolute and relative? For some people, this could be a stretch. Some of us will be so adamant that truth is absolute and that others must see this absolute truth in the same way we do, that we would deny any form of relative truth. And some of us will be so determined to define our own truths that we would deny any form of absolute truths that govern reality. There seems little room for conversation.

But logically speaking, there must be absolute truth. There is a reality that we see and touch and measure. And, logically speaking, no one can fully define all that is absolute, besides I suppose what we can all see and touch and measure – the things we can all agree on because there is no way around it. But for those other questions, truth seems relative. We are all interpreting through our own lenses. And we won’t all find agreement. Truth is relative to our worlds and interpretations.

Now does that mean two opposing truths are equally true? Yes and no. On a relative term, they are both equal. One seems true to me, and one seems true to you. They are both true in their particular worlds. But there is a larger reality beyond our world. This is the Absolute World. The one that we live in, together, and struggle to interpret, sometimes together and sometimes not.

Whether our relative truth is right or wrong, I believe we are better served when we let go of it in search for absolute truth. And I believe we can get there more closely when through a community of relative truth and lenses that is focused on the One Absolute who creates everything we struggle to interpret.

I think this is why Jesus Christ is so compelling, even to people who don’t accept him or view him as I do. His words seem true and right. Their truth can provoke excitement or sorrow or anger. We can accept them or deny them. But they seem very true – beyond everything else that we hold true.

Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37

7 minute preview to X-Men 3

Sat, 13 May 2006 02:07:34 GMT

Looks good! Go to http://thelaststand.dell.com.edgesuite.net/sneakpeek/large.html

I think I will get a group of friends and friends of friends to see it Thursday, May 25 at Midnight at Cinerama... you in?

community?

Mon, 08 May 2006 20:15:11 GMT

I woke up this morning with the familiar noise of anxiety. Its fainting voice slowly growing louder. Sadly, I fear I still live my life independently. Community sounds like a nice word, but do any of us really want it? Does anyone really live in it? Or are we all just living independently, completely disconnected and isolated from one another and from God, except for those small moments of our own choosing?