New blog logos!

Hello friends! I got bored today. I finally brought a replacement for a broken mouse. I now have done a few quick logos for this site, but I want your opinion on what might look best. Here they are, in no particular order (note well, these will be in white on the top):

update 2 April 2009
Note: it is now a contest between "Seraphim" and "Clerica." In the final image, "Seraphim" will probably be posted larger. Clerica will stay roughly the same size.

"Seraphim" it says "burnt out" and "from heaven" all in the same font!



"Seven Monkey Samurai"

"Red Lightening" a nice hand-writing type font.


"Clerica" it says "I'm so old skool I should be blogging by candlelight."


"Bada boom" because theology is actually a lot like a comicbook.



"Anime Ace" same font I use in my webcomic dialogue.


Please comment on which one you like best!!

Ayn Rand on Sex

The recent string of marriages and long term relationships have got me thinking about some kind of positive view of sex. Obviously, the Christian faith doesn’t teach that sex is dirty. My many theologically minded friends and I have often joked about the bizarre sexual repression of Victorianism. Yet still the other extreme is really not right either. In Atlas Shrugged, I came across something interesting. Ayn Rand (among the mountains of other expositions) dealt with sex in it. Like just about any secular philosophy, I found a lot of good and some things bad. Either way, at least it gives a secular justification to prefer something other than skirt chasing.

The exposition is the in the form dialogue. Two Characters, both super-men in their own rights, have a frank and intimate discussion on the subject: one is Francisco, another is Hank Rearden. The two men already respect each other as equals. Francisco has even gone to the point of telling Rearden that he is “one of the last moral men in the world.” Hank Hearden is confused by this compliment because Francisco is an apparent rich play boy who is always in the company of women -not exactly someone that you would accept a comment on morality from. What makes it even more confusing for Hank has never thought of Francisco as a low-brow kind of guy. Francisco responds to this confusion:

[Francisco asked Rearden] “Do you know of your own first-hand knowledge that I spend my life running after women?”
“You’ve never denied it.”
“Denied it? I’ve gone to a lot of trouble to create that impression.”
“Do you mean it isn’t true?”
“Do I strike you as a man with a miserable inferiority complex?”
“Good God, no!”
”Only that kind of man spends his life running after women.”

Naturally, this is something that is probably grating in our world of rap stars and Hugh Hefner’s. Fortunately for us, Francisco goes on to explain what he means. First, love and the sexual impulse are not blind, uncontrollable, forces in his world. Rather, sex is connected with our minds and our views of ourselves. He says, “A man’s* sexual choice is the result and sum of his fundamental convictions… Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself.” In other words, who we are attracted to depends largely on how we subconsciously (or consciously!) view ourselves. A man “will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself.” From here, he either expresses his own value, or he fakes it.

Francisco goes on to describe two types of men. The first is Ayn Rand’s hero. This man, as Francisco says, “will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer –because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut.” In other words, real men don’t chase porn-stars and strippers. These women, at very minimum, act like brainless meat. Instead Ayn Rand’s hero will look for someone as accomplished as himself, as moral as himself, as hard-working as himself and so on.

Someone who is secretly insecure is far worse off. Someone who feels worthless “will be drawn to a woman he despises-because she will reflect his own secret self, she will release him from that objective reality in which he is a fraud, she will give him a momentary illusion of his own value.” So the problem with a play boy is this: since they have little value in themselves, and they secretly know it, they try to create through sex with someone equally empty. This is, in Ayn Rand’s terms, is putting the effect (sex) before the cause (self-worth). This is much of fraud as someone who has a college diploma without finishing college, buys a BMW on money they didn’t earn, or takes control of a railroad that someone else built. Most obviously, it may be the attempt to use the effect and expression of emotional intimacy to create emotional intimacy.

Some Flies in the Ointment?

Naturally, there are somethings I don’t like. Ayn Rand believes that sex is a selfish act, and cannot be done any other way. Additionally, what someone admires in another person is all that one sees as good in oneself. Now obviously, people may have sex have their own “rational self interest” but in Christianity I can’t see why it should ever be only this. One’s own interest and the interest of the other need not be disjunctive. Furthermore, Love can never be just a simple extension of narcissism.

Also, in this same conversation, Fracisco decries “charity” as a pitiful response to flaws whereas his idea of admiration is a response to values. It’s evident from the rest of the discussion that this is an implicit criticism of Christian love. What confuses me is that in Christian charity people may respond to flaws, but never because of flaws. Acts of mercy and charity overlook flaws precisely because it sees values -potential values, but still values.

Even beyond that, the type of Love that a Christians have when they take pity or charity on someone in need is different than the kind of love that motivates them to seek out a partner, which in turn is different than the love they have for friends. Ayn Rand is on to a good start, but her look at love here seems very binary, whereas Christian charity is multifaceted.

The end?

So there it is. I really think Ayn Rand had something worth saying here. I like the idea, and am more happy to think of sex and romance being tied closely to my code of values. I like the idea that who I seek out and may be interested in are naturally those who closely reflect those values. I think she is clearly also right about sex and a sense of low self-worth. Even more right that people may use sex to fool themselves.

Naturally though, I think Ayn Rand was off about sex being a purely selfish act. I can’t imagine a healthy sexual relationship can ever happen between two narcissists, and anyone who wants to be lovers to anyone will have to overlook flaws.

Thanks for reading. Please feel free to comment!

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

---

* My apologies to those of you who have the "XX" chromosome set. Obviously, I write from the "XY" perspective. I can't help my gender or what Ayn Rand wrote.

The Death Knell of Evangelicalism?

One of my former monastery brothers posted this interesting article on Facebook today. The article describes the coming break-down of evangelicalism, which follows the break down of old-school protestantism. The author cites several reasons, but sees a new "religious vacuum" and a coming anti-Christian mentality in the near future.

I don't know what to think of the article as a whole, but there a few things in it I would like to affirm:

We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

I have said it before, and I say it here: I question the entire office of youth ministry. This doesn't mean that I think that all youth ministries fail, or that I mean to deride the good work that many of my friends do. What I mean to say is that the assumption that teens need a teenage Christianity instead of just plain Christianity is something I no longer assume.

Admittedly, I am very subjective in this judgment. Personally, my faith today has almost nothing to do with my faith before I was 20. This isn't just that outgrew it, but I have actually repudiated most of it. Were it not for my time at Azusa Pacific, I am pretty sure I would not be any kind of Christian now.

In any case, (as the article states) the current generation of Christians is already monumentally ignorant.

Moving on.

[if evangelicalism implodes] Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the "conversion" of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

I myself pondered a return to the RCC and my best friend converted to Eastern Orthodoxy a few years ago. Neither of us are incredibly rare. These older churches have things that evangelicalism simply doesn't have -history, stability, ability to resist evanescent cultural trends, clarity of doctrine, strong educational tradition etc etc. People are already attracted to these groups, especially the "Christian Hipsters." Numerous books have been written on this subject already.

So there are my two comments worth about two pennies. What do you think? Will Evangelicalism go the way of the dinosaur? What happens if it does?

“WATCHMEN” for the Aesthetically Challenged

Initially, with this blog entry, I thought that I’d just run my review of it and compare to the novel, but yesterday on Theologyweb I came across this soapbox by Debbie Schlussel, whoever she is. Instead of doing a standard review, I think I will review her review. Hopefully, after this we can all learn how not to understand a film -especially an adaptation.

Schlussel begins opens her review with “If you take your kids to see 'Watchmen,' you're a moron.” She says it is marketed to kids since it has action figures, and has a heroic looking trailer. Throughout the review, she complains of scenes clearly not good for children, such as the lesbian kiss, Dr. Manhatten’s male member, the sex scene, and the bloodshed.

To borrow the catch line of different internet movie pundit, ”I’m confused.”

Who claimed that Watchmen was intended for children? I don’t think Alan Moore ever did. Action figures mean it is marketed for kids? But adults, specifically eccentric and geeky ones, purchase those too. In fact, those action figures are advertised to have ”presentation bases”. Something like that indicates that these are more collector’s items for the early 20s eccentric, not toys for your fifth grader.

What about a “heroic trailer”? Did we watch the same one? The mood, the music, and Rorschach’s misanthropic quote (“I’ll look down and whisper ‘no’”) indicated to me that this wasn’t a normal hero movie. I don’t think there is a lot of reason to believe that Alan Moore or Hollywood thought this was a movie (or book) for kids. I have a hard time believing that Watchmen was marketed as such, besides (as Schlussel mentioned) it had an “R” rating.

In summary so far, Schlussel’s complaints about the movie stem largely about it being inappropriate for children. Yet neither the book nor the movie is intended for children. From here, I must invoke a largely controversial, a little esoteric, and difficult to understand principle of interpretation:

Artistic works not intended for children, should not be evaluated on whether or not they are “good for children.”

Everyone understand? Good. Moving on.

The next complaint leveled against WATCHMEN is that it “isn't a superhero movie at all.” Also, she apparently thinks that if it might be a “conservative movie” as 300 was, but the movie still falls short of that standard. She explains:

A few lines of dialogue by the character "Rorschach" deriding "liberals and intellectuals" doesn't excuse the nearly three hours of poison here. In fact, the movie kind of has a peacenik-themed ending and "message" regarding nuclear weapons. If this move is "conservative," who the heck needs liberal?

Again, ”I’m confused.”

Who said that this was a traditional super hero movie? This movie and book are intended to be a dark parody of the super hero concept. Creator Alan Moore explained:

"I suppose I was just thinking, 'That'd be a good way to start a comic book: have a famous super-hero found dead.' As the mystery unraveled, we would be led deeper and deeper into the real heart of this super-hero's world, and show a reality that was very different to the general public image of the super-hero."

It was supposed to break the expectations of the genre. Her whining in this matter is therefore part of the work’s merit. This complaint is about as a bad as the gripe that “The Village” wasn’t a horror movie.

And what’s this about WATCHMEN not being conservative? Sure, Rorschach was a conservative character, but again she is judging the movie by something other than its intentions. If someone doesn’t like a movie because it grates with your political ideology, that’s fine. But how does it make sense to evaluate a story by not supporting politics it never claimed to endorse?

Finally, Schlussel gets to the movie’s alternate history. There are plenty of things that are changed, such as an American victory in Vietnam, Nixon’s fifth term, and Ronald Reagan running for president in 88. She slams all of this with, “I'm so amazed at this "high-brow art" of deliberately getting dates and timelines wrong, you know, just to be ‘artistic,’ and get the drooling of the critics.”

WATCHMEN is not a history book. WATCHMEN is a work of fiction. What next? Complain about Lord of the Rings because wizards aren’t real? I remember when 300 came out in theaters. I didn’t go see it because, historically speaking, I hardly think that the Spartans had a society worth defending. Later, I saw the movie and realized “Oh, this isn’t supposed to be a by-the-book, historical dramatization. It’s a movie based on a comic book.”

So basically what has happened in this review is that someone saw the movie with the wrong expectations. The movie is not supposed to be anything she demands that it should. It is not a kid’s movie, a traditional super hero movie, a conservative movie, or a historical movie. Rather, it is supposed alternate history, a critique of “Reaganism,” and the death knell of super heroes –all of which are themes for adults.

On a personal note…

It should be said that many people have already emailed Schlussel explaining that she doesn’t understand the background, and otherwise didn’t understand the story. After even admitting that she has not read, and does not intend to examine the source material, she goes on a hateful, name-calling rant (complete with a reductio ad hitlerum):

You're a bunch of dummies with no moral compass, but liking this stupid comic book which pretends violence and the depraved is "edgy" or "sophisticated," makes you feel smart. When you're actually quite stupid. But now, with this movie, you've got pretentious stupidity. You don't realize you're still just as dumb, your IQ just as low and probably lower.

While I didn’t email her myself, I have to take some offense to being compared to one of the future members of Idiocracy, a Roman who watched the Christians (my team!) fight animals, or otherwise getting called barbaric and/or “fanatic.”

Schlussel says, “It's frankly hilarious to read the arrogance of the ignorami.” Somehow, in reading her review, I wasn’t laughing.

The Aquinas Prayer

It's a common perception that trained theologians are prideful and conceited. In many cases this is an exaggeration, but often the reputation is well earned. Additionally, academic study is considered separate from prayer and devotional life.

Recently, in my Aquinas class, our professor shared with us the a prayer attributed to Thomas Aquinas. He encouraged all of us to read it before study. Such a prayer both helps check the pride of the academic, as well as remind us that knowledge is a gift from God.

Ineffable Creator, from the treasures of your wisdom, you have established three hierarchies of angels, you have arrayed them in marvelous order above the fiery heaves, and you have marshaled the regions of the universe with such artful skill.

You are proclaimed the true font of light and wisdom, and the true origin raised high beyond all things.

Pour forth a ray of your brightness into the darkened places of my mind; disperse from my soul the twofold darkness into which I was born: sin and ignorance.

You make eloquent the tongues of infants. Refine my speech and pour forth upon my lips the goodness of your blessing.

Grant to me keenness of mind,
Capacity of remembering,
Skill in learning,
Subtlety in interpreting,
and Eloquence in speaking.

May you guide the beginning of my work, direct its progress, and bring it to completion.

You are true God and true Man, and you live and reign, world without end. Amen.

Apparently, I am a Christian Hipster

A recent blog posting over here listed many of the qualities of a Christian Hipster. I fit them down fairly solid, as do many of "my people." Normally, I am the one making witty, satirical, comments about other people. It's fun being on the other end of the pigeon holing. Here goes:

Things they don’t like:
Christian hipsters don’t like megachurches, altar calls, and door-to-door evangelism. They don’t really like John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart or youth pastors who talk too much about Braveheart. In general, they tend not to like Mel Gibson and have come to really dislike The Passion for being overly bloody and maybe a little sadistic.

Wild at Heart was a dumb book. It was uninteresting and unenlightening. I am surprised that I haven't posted a blog ranting about it, but it doesn't matter. "The Church Impotent" and "To Own a Dragon" are far better publications on Christian manhood. I don't have anything against Mel, and never did see "Passion of the Christ though.

They don’t like people like Pat Robertson, who on The 700 Club famously said that America should “take Hugo Chavez out”; and they don’t particularly like The 700 Club either, except to make fun of it. They don’t like evangelical leaders who get too involved in politics, such as James Dobson or Jerry Falwell, who once said of terrorists that America should “blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”

Fuck Pat Robertson. If people took seriously the prohibition against "false prophets," this guy would've lost his audience years ago. But people only want to apply that test to Joseph Smith et al. Oh well.

Dobson bores me. He is not on my list of people to listen too. Falwell... eh I'd rather not say bad things about the dead.

They don’t like TBN, PAX, or Joel Osteen. They do have a wry fondness for Benny Hinn, however.

What many people don't realize is that the TBN building sucks up so much energy (they keep the building perpetually floodlit) that it raises electricity prices in the neighborhood. Also, the building is so un-holy, that it actually blights the surrounding earth that it is built on. Plant life in the area died slowly after the early broadcasts. No new plants grow in the area.

Joel Osteen creeps me out. He is a very good marketing/sales guy. I don't have anything against marketing/sales guys, but buyer-beware, snake oil still sells! I think I can have indirect fondness of Benny Hinn for the same reason I enjoy the Star Wars prequels.

Christian hipsters tend not to like contemporary Christian music (CCM), or Christian films (except ironically), or any non-book item sold at Family Christian Stores. They hate warehouse churches or churches with American flags on stage, or churches with any flag on stage, really.

CCM drives me nuts, even after I have gotten over the negative association I had with it. I know it is hard for some to believe, but I don't need to raise my hands before a pop-singer to worship God. American flags are an annoyance to me, although I am not as strongly opposed as many of my friends. But still, I remember one of the reasons I left my old church back in Modesto was they had a card-board cut out of George W. Bush, and nobody thought it was odd except me.

They prefer “Christ follower” to “Christian” and can’t stand the phrases “soul winning” or “non-denominational,” and they could do without weird and awkward evangelistic methods including (but not limited to): sock puppets, ventriloquism, mimes, sign language, “beach evangelism,” and modern dance. Surprisingly, they don’t really have that big of a problem with old school evangelists like Billy Graham and Billy Sunday and kind of love the really wild ones like Aimee Semple McPherson.

All of this listed here is a type of "evangelism" that I think has had its day in the sun, and is not breathing its last. Even Billy Graham's own organization admits that only 10% of the altar call people stick with it. Soul-winning makes us forget that we have plenty to overcome in our souls. Non-denominational churches still bother me.

Things they like:
Christian hipsters like music, movies, and books that are well-respected by their respective artistic communities—Christian or not. They love books like Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger by Ron Sider, God’s Politics by Jim Wallis, and The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis. They tend to be fans of any number of the following authors: Flannery O’Connor, Walker Percy, Wendell Berry, Thomas Merton, John Howard Yoder, Walter Brueggemann, N.T. Wright, Brennan Manning, Eugene Peterson, Anne Lamott, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Henri Nouwen, Soren Kierkegaard, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Annie Dillard, Marilynne Robison, Chuck Klosterman, David Sedaris, or anything ancient and/or philosophically important.

Okay, I have not read everyone on this list, but I have highlighted everything that either me or a some of my close friends have read. It is so scary. I just don't know why Clark Pinnock and Jurgen Moltmann aren't in that list. I really expected them to be.

Christian hipsters love thinking and acting Catholic, even if they are thoroughly Protestant. They love the Pope, liturgy, incense, lectio divina, Lent, and timeless phrases like “Thanks be to God” or “Peace of Christ be with you.” They enjoy Eastern Orthodox churches and mysterious iconography, and they love the elaborate cathedrals of Europe (even if they are too museum-like for hipster tastes). Christian hipsters also love taking communion with real Port, and they don’t mind common cups. They love poetry readings, worshipping with candles, and smoking pipes while talking about God. Some of them like smoking a lot of different things.

Oh man.... do I need to say anything? This is so freakishly accurate. I mean, one friend wonders If I will revert to Catholicism. I even have some friends who went and joined the Eastern Church. Are you reading this Dane? Even after you converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, you're still a hipster!

Christian hipsters love breaking the taboos that used to be taboo for Christians. They love piercings, dressing a little goth, getting lots of tattoos (the Christian Tattoo Association now lists more than 100 member shops), carrying flasks and smoking cloves. A lot of them love skateboarding and surfing, and many of them play in bands. They tend to get jobs working for churches, parachurch organizations, non-profits, or the government. They are, on the whole, a little more sincere and idealistic than their secular hipster counterparts.

Okay, I haven't done any of this yet, but so many of my friends have.

So it seems that if I am not "Some Kind of Christian" I am actually a Christian Hipster.