γράψω σκύβαλον

wordpress

2009-08-04T19:08:00.001-07:00

Hi all - busy day for my blog...

I made a big change today, so pay attention! I'm now at wordpress... you can access my blog here: jddamiani.com

So update your readers and whatnot. See you there!

FYI - everything from this blog has been transferred to the wordpress blog - posts, comments, etc. Thank for being faithful readers (you too, mom)!

moral authority - supplement

2009-08-04T08:27:00.000-07:00

I read a blog today from a current Fuller student about the Bible, and here is one thing this person wrote:

"We must recognize that it is the Scriptures- not our conscience, not culture, not religion, etc.- that tell us about God and are the foundation upon which Christian thinking is built."

(I won't post his name or blog to keep it anonymous)

My thoughts: Why? Why is scripture the only thing that informs our faith? Is that really how it works? What about the billions of Christians who did not or never will have access to scripture? How is their faith informed?

Think about it: The Bible as we know it wasn't really compiled until around 300 CE, and even then, there were few people who had access to it. There have been a lot of advancements in making the Bible more accessible since then, but the concept of having 10 different versions of the Bible within arms-length is an extremely new concept in the scope of Christian history.

So can we really say that the Bible is the only thing that informs Christian faith? Can we even go further (as the above quote) to say that conscience, culture, and religion have no bearing on how we live our faith? Is that really how God intended it? Did God want us to turn to the Bible for every little thing, or do we truly believe that God gave the Holy Spirit to guide us?

Rob Bell nails it pretty well in Velvet Elvis with his discussion on "Binding and Loosing." If you haven't read that, read it... but to summarize, "binding and loosing" is the act of determining a concrete response to God's revelation. In other words, those who bind and loose determine how the Christian community will live out the commands of God based on God's revelation. For Bell, it is the community of believers who do this difficult task of binding an loosing with the blessing of God (in light of Matt 18).

That's kind of a terrible summary of a complicated argument, but the point he makes is that it is the Christian community, based on its interpretation of God's revelation that plays a large part in how we experience this life of faith.

The Bible is not the sole contributor in this equation. Our conscience, culture, and religion play a big part.

christianglish

2009-08-04T00:15:00.000-07:00

...trying to do something different than "Christianese..."

Let's start talking about getting rid of some of the common phrases in the Christian world. Here's a few that bug me.

1. Heavenly Father

OK, maybe it's not that bad of a phrase, but let me do what I do and pick it apart. Heavenly - not of this world, not earthly... not present, not near, separated, etc. Father - male, dad, patriarch, ruler, etc. Father is a good word, but not for everyone. So do we want to associate all those things with God? Do we really think about all those things when we say "Heavenly Father?" Or are we just saying it because other people have said it? Could using the phrase make people think God is distant and not present? Could some associate the negative feelings they have of their own fathers with God? Maybe...

Sure, I'm being a little over the top here, but come on! There are better phrases to use. How about "Loving God," or "Gracious God," or anything else that isn't androcentric and outdated.

2. Man

As in "God's ways are better than man's," and "Mankind," and "With man, this is impossible, but not with God." Can we finally get away from this androcentric, patriarchal stuff? Could it be that women would like to be included in the whole mix? I mean, haven't we tried to keep them oppressed for long enough? I know what you're saying - "When I say 'Mankind', I'm referring to men and women." OK, so why not say, "Humankind?" Maybe women don't want to be lumped in to a category that bears the name of the all-powerful (tongue ripping through my cheek), all-fallible "man."

Same thing goes for "Brothers." Paul used that word like crazy, and I'm sure he meant "brothers and sisters..." but that's the culture in which he lived. His culture revolved around the man, so saying "brothers" to refer to men and women was what he did. We don't live then. We live now. Let's try to be a little more gender inclusive. I know we can do it!

3. Just

Whenever someone says the phrase, "Let's say a word of prayer," I always think that the most common "word of prayer" is probably the word "just." Think about it. "Dear God, we just come to you today ask you to just..." and the "justs" keep coming. What's up with that? Are we trying to seem humble in our prayers? Are we trying to minimize our requests? "God, I'm just asking for this..." Or has it become a filler word, like "um" 2.0?

Maybe we could really become a little more "just" as Christians. That would be a good thing. Instead of saying "just" all the time, we could practice a little justice in this world.

4. Relationship

As in, "I don't believe in religion. I believe in a relationship with Jesus." Great concept, and I'm sure it was really profound when it was first uttered. But I think the time has come to retire that phrase. We do believe in religion. It's what we do. It's the particular way we have decided to have relationship with God. It's the structure that we choose to use to respond to God's revelation. Yeah, religion can and often is a really bad thing, but not always. It's necessary.

5. Personal Relationship

Taking it one step further - the notion of a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ. What does that mean? Is that even biblical? God works in communities. Jesus saves the world. The Bible is a book written to and meant to be read in community. This personal stuff seems to be more of a product of American Christianity than anything else. Yes, there are personal aspects to our relationship with Jesus, but there are also corporate/communal aspects, global aspects, etc.

6. What does the Bible have to say about _____?

If you read my previous posts, you probably know where I'm going here. Why have we turned the Bible into the answer key/owner's manual for everything with which we come in conctact? "Abortion? What does the Bible have to say about that?" "Republican or Democrat? What does the Bible have to say about that?" "Speeding on the freeway? What does the Bible have to say about that?" Are we really OK with stripping the Bible of all it's beauty to turn it into some kind of how-to on life? Should we just consider it normal to treat the Bible like we do the US Constitution? Pastors have become Judges who interpret biblical law instead of shepherds who help people experience the kingdom of God here and now. There's a lot more here, but I won't get into it.

That's a good start. Have any others you'd like to share?

my own inspiration

2009-07-30T21:26:00.000-07:00

I'm often inspired. I know... a little bit of a weird sentence to write after my last post. Let me explain.

I get inspired by a lot of things every day - great stuff I read or see online. Pithy quotes in movies. Profound lyrics colored by beautiful melodies. You know the stuff.

But I'm lazy. Really lazy. I want so badly to put this inspiration to words or music, but I end up giving a lot of my time to less meaningful things (hello facebook. I'm talking to you). Why is that? When does it change? I mean, I'm approaching 30 at a full run, and I'm scared that when I hit it, it's going to hit back twice as hard.

What am I saying? Who knows. Maybe this is a prayer. God, help me give life to something significant instead of letting inspiration stir me and then fade. Yeah, maybe it's a prayer... or maybe it's just a rant.

Let me end by saying nothing at all.

inspiration

2009-07-15T17:47:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about the idea of inspiration as it relates to the Bible.

Simple idea. Someone slaps down the NIV and says, "The Bible is the inspired word of God."

OK, but what does that mean? You may say, "The authors were inspired by God to write." Fine. But that's not the end of the story. Much of what is written in the Bible are compilations of oral tradition. So how does inspiration fit with that? Were the people who passed on the oral tradition inspired to do so?

Maybe. But what about the compilation of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible? When the men who compiled the canon of scripture at the various councils in the 3rd to 5th century inspired to do so?

Probably. But what about textual variants? Were the scribes who decided to clarify bits and pieces of scripture throughout the centuries inspired to make those clarifications?

Probably not... So what about the people who decided to translate the various books into English? Were they inspired when they chose which of the many textual variants to use as the most accurate to what was originally written? In other words, were the scholars who saw three different copies of a certain passage, and who ultimately chose one, inspired to do so?

I guess. What I'm trying to get at here is that the idea of "inspiration" is a tricky one. When we hold our English version, it's been in so many hands and so much scrutiny has already been placed on it that it's tricky to say it is inspired.

Sure, Paul said that scripture is "God-breathed," but what scripture did he mean? Revelation? James? Luke? Acts? His own writings? How did he know what would eventually be considered the canon of scripture some 300 years later?

I won't even address the question of what the Bible is inspired to do. That's a different post altogether.

It's a tricky thought, really. And it deserves a little attention. Ultimately, I think the Bible as we know it stands the test of time. It's an incredible book, and I'm more and more amazed when I think about how God is revealed in its pages.

child like faith?

2009-07-12T10:16:00.003-07:00

The following is an interpretive assignment I did for a class at Fuller called "Exegetical Method and Practice" with Marianne Meye Thompson. I'm posting it mainly to link it to another discussion I am having with friends on facebook. I had to transliterate the Greek, and I'm not so good at that, so forgive me. Also, interpretive assignments ask a lot of questions and don't draw very many conclusions, so you'll notice that it doesn't have a thesis or conclusion. It's more of an exploration.

Mark 10:13-16 - Interpretive Assignment (23 January 2007)

In chapter 10 of his narrative, Mark provides a pericope detailing the circumstances surrounding an event in which people brought children to be blessed by Jesus. On the surface, the passage seems to promote ministry to children and encourage a blind, “child-like” reception of “Christianity” into the believer’s heart. However, a closer reading may provide a slightly different conclusion.

This specific narrative in Mark is well documented by all of the synoptic writers. Both Matthew and Luke place the narrative in their gospels, and both stay true to Mark’s order of events in terms of context. Mark and Matthew place Jesus in Judea at the time of the narrative (Mark 10:1, Matt. 19:1), but it is not clear this information affects the interpretation of the passage. It seems the pericope stands as an independent unit and does not hinge on the previous or following passages. Since it is not found in a series of parables or a discourse of Jesus, it can stand alone. Mark seems to be using a story to promote an aspect of the kingdom of God. However, there is somewhat of a thematic context preceding and following Mark 10:13-16. In chapter 9, the disciples (specifically Peter, James, and John) witnessed the transfiguration. Following the description of this beautiful and powerful event, Mark provides several stories of failure and rebuke on the part of the disciples. Was Mark trying to show contrast of heavenly glory versus earthly mediocrity and failure? It would seem so considering the evidence of the pericopes dealing with human failure (i.e. failure to heal the demon possessed boy in 9:14ff, failure to understand the hierarchy of the kingdom of God in 9:33ff, Jesus’ rebukes of the disciples and others in 9:39, 9:42, 10:14, 10:38, 10:49, etc.).

An interesting question arises with the use of apsatai (third singular present middle subjunctive from apto) which carries several meanings depending on the usage. In BDAG apto can mean “to kindle” or “light”, “to make close contact, to touch, cling to, have sexual contact, etc.” In Mark 10:13, the term most likely refers to “touching as a means of conveying a blessing.” Were the people bringing the children to Jesus so that he might provide some kind of rabbinical blessing, or did they recognize him as the Messiah and perhaps wanted some kind of messianic blessing for their children? If the term does not carry the connotation of blessing, were they just bringing their children to Jesus for healing, or simply to have their children held by a “celebrity?” Whatever definition fits best, the question remains as to why the disciples did not want this to happen. Was it beneath their transfigured Lord to do such a thing? Was there a limited amount of time? Were the children interrupting Jesus during an important theological teaching?

The textual variant in this passage seems to be an attempt by scribes to soften the disciples’ actions. The highly supported reading of the text leaves the direct object of the disciples rebuke unclear. They could be rebuking those bringing the children or the children themselves. Some manuscripts added epetimon tois prosferousin or some form of that phrase to clarify that the disciples were rebuking the ones bringing the children. Still, why did the disciples feel the need to stop what was happening? Were children considered less than human or outcasts of society?

Jesus becomes angry with the disciples actions and rebukes them, insisting that the children be brought to him. Three times in this passage Mark uses paidion to refer to the children instead of the more common teknon. BDAG defines paidion as “a child, normally below the age of puberty” while teknon usually refers to a descendent or offspring. Mark wants his readers to know that these children are young. Were they babies? Was this a custom of the Jews to bring a baby to a teacher at a certain age to be blessed?

After the rebuke, Mark provides the theological truth intended by the narrative. Jesus states “the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all” (10:14b-15 NASB). Using the strongest negation possible (ou ma) Jesus, in a sense, says it is completely impossible to enter the Kingdom of God in any other way. This use of ou ma should cause the reader to pause and consider what was just read. But what does Jesus mean by the phrase, “receive the kingdom of God like a child?” Does this mean to receive it with blind faith? Does this mean to receive it happily and care free? Does he have something else in mind? Is this concept similar to the one found in Matthew 10:16 when Jesus said “so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves” (NASB)? Does he mean something along the lines of what Paul wrote in Romans 16:19b: “I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil” (NASB)? Is it the innocence of the child that is to be mirrored? Is Jesus teaching the concept of “rebirth” which he describes to Nicodemus in John, 3:3?

Could there also be a nuance in the wording of the passage? Could Jesus mean, “whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like I am receiving these children will not enter it,” as opposed to the more common reading of, “whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like these children receive the Kingdom of God will not enter it?” If this is the case, the focus should be on the actions of Jesus and not the actions of the little children. Perhaps the reader should be considering the way Jesus reaches out to the poor, the widows, women in general, and children. Perhaps the reader should be reminded of the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31ff where the most important thing is the actions of believers to the poor, sick, jailed, hungry, etc. To enter the Kingdom of God, one must accept those to whom the Kingdom belongs, which in Mark 10:14b is the little children. This reading seems entirely possible, except when compared to Matthew 18:3-4 when Jesus is quoted as saying, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (NASB). With this reading in mind, one could interpret Jesus words in Mark in a similar manner, making the Mark passage promote a child-like faith. However, in Matthew 18:5, Jesus also says, "and whoever receives one such child in my name receives me,” (NASB) providing evidence for a social justice reading of Mark 10:13-16. It would seem the passage could go either way.

Finally, Jesus takes the children in his arms and blesses them. This action is common for Jesus. He often touches the socially outcast, the poor, the sick, etc. In Mark 1:41 he touches the man with leprosy. In Mark 5:41 Jesus touches the dead girl and brings her back to life. Jesus often touched those whom society considered outcast or unclean. Perhaps Jesus is showing his disciples in this passage that the ministry of the Kingdom of God is a ministry of social justice.

Further evidence can be found in the fact that Jesus demonstrates his teaching at the end of the passage. He instructs his disciples to receive the kingdom of God as children, and then he receives the children.

Cited: Danker, F. W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)

moral authority?

2009-07-07T17:41:00.000-07:00

I’ve been having a few email conversations with friends about the topic of moral authority as it relates to the Bible. I have so many incomplete thoughts about this right now - but a few that have taken shape as a result of these conversations and some things I’ve been reading.

The basis of all of this is the approach that many Christians have with the Bible. I think this approach is summed in this common question from Christians: “What does the Bible have to say about _______?” The question carries the idea that the Bible is some kind of manual for life; that everything has a solution or answer in the Bible, and that solution or answer is relevant at face value to a contemporary Christian community.

Another way to state the standard approach of Christian’s today is that the Bible is a type of trump card in nearly every area - science, history, morality, ethics, etc. Science says one thing - the Bible says another. Culture says one thing - the Bible says another. In every case, the idea is that the Bible wins.

I have a problem with this. The problem seems to be that many of us Christians read the Bible - an ancient document translated from many manuscripts that are written in languages that are no longer used - at face value with no regard to our own preconceptions.

Please hear me on this: I am not saying the Bible is not relevant in any way. I’m saying that it is a living breathing document that is interpreted by the community of believers and applied to that community in the way the community feels is best, and all of this is through the guidance of God’s Spirit. One must approach the book as aware of preconceptions as possible and know that it is God who speaks, and not the Bible itself.

To make the Bible a type of owners manual for all humanity, in my opinion, severely cheapens it. The Bible is meant to be so much more. It is the beautiful story of how God has redeemed and is redeeming all of God’s creation back to God.

Back to the idea of the Bible being the moral authority - that also is something that ignores what the Bible is intended to communicate. And is seems so often, even in the Bible, that it is culture that determines morality, and the Bible expresses the cultural morality not as authoritative, but more as an expression of how the community of God understood God.

Take marriage as an example. The definition of marriage has changed throughout history - even through the Bible. The are points in the biblical narrative that polygamy is acceptable, when at other points, marriage is defined as being one man and his wife (the wording of “his wife” is very intentional). Both are presented in the biblical drama as somewhat normative. It seems to be more what the culture deemed as acceptable than some kind of moral authority the Bible is expressing. Now, marriage is between one man and one woman - as equal partners (admittedly, this is not true everywhere, but seems more and more true with relationships in the US). Again, this is a redefinition. One might say a marriage based on the standard patriarchal attitude in the Bible is now morally wrong - and I believe that’s right and good! Sure, the morality expressed in the Bible would be in contradiction to this, but cultural morality would say otherwise. And why not? Why is it so bad that the community would determine what is moral for that community at that time instead of forcing the morality of a dead culture on people today?

These are just some incomplete thoughts, and I hope to come back to them later... maybe with a few of your own comments in mind.

graduate

2009-06-17T21:33:00.000-07:00

I'm a Fuller Seminary graduate. That's right - on Saturday, June 13, 2009, the degree of Master of Arts in Theology was conferred to me. President Mouw said something about it not being official yet, but I wasn't listening.

So the big question that everyone (and I do mean everyone) is asking me is some form of "now what?" I complete the degree, so what's the next step? Pastor a huge church? Join the faculty of Duke? Write the next "Velvet Elvis"? Make Bono look like a lazy politician?

Let me give you a short history of my educational life:

In the Spring of 1999, I began to work on a Bachelors degree in Pastoral Ministry at Valley Forge Christian College. The goal at that point was to some day become a pastor. I remember very clearly that I wanted to be a senior pastor and not a youth pastor. I'm not sure why that's important right now.

In December of 2002, I finished that degree and moved to Camp Hill, PA to become the executive director of a singles ministry called CROSSFIRE. Not exactly pastoring, but close enough for the time being. I got to do some great stuff with the group of people I felt most called to work with - college age men and women.

In April of 2004, I decided I wanted more in terms of education. I enjoyed working with college age students, but I wanted to have more impact on them as a professor than as a pastor in the local church. To make that a reality, I needed more education. I looked into Fuller Seminary (really the only school I seriously considered), made the decision with Nikki to move to California to attend, and started making the necessary steps to make that decision a reality.

In March of 2006, we made it out to Pasadena, and I began a Masters degree at Fuller. The original goal was to move into a PhD soon after getting the MA so I could work toward becoming a professor.

That brings us up to today and the question at hand - What's next?

Honestly, I'm not totally sure. I can tell you two things for certain; one more philosophical and the other more practical.

During the graduation ceremony, I had a bit of an epiphany as to what I feel is my calling in life. I devised a crude missions statement on the spot. That missions statement is as follows:

"To cultivate well-informed Christians who are capable of deep and critical thought."

That I know for sure is what makes the gears move in my head. But how does it play out in my life? Sure, at some point I would love to teach at the university or seminary level - to be able to directly influence people to engage in critical thought. That's just not a reality for me right now. I need more education.

Which leads me to the more practical aspect of "what I know." I will be starting a full-time position at Fuller as a recruiter beginning July 6. This feeds directly into my mission because Fuller is a place that cultivates Christians think deeply and critically. As a recruiter, I can have an indirect influence on the intellectual development of these people as I encourage them to consider a seminary education.

Why am I writing all this? Well, mostly for myself I guess. I don't want to forget what makes me tick. I don't want to have an epiphany and then lose it because I forgot to give it much thought. So here it is... and as a byproduct, you get to read it (if you've even lasted this long).

But maybe there are more out there like me. I know a few Fuller students and alum read this blog... you may be in the same position. The reason you started seminary has become obsolete, and the future is not clear. Be encouraged. There is something inside of you that drives you. Find what that is and be creative about how you can live that out.

movie weekend

2009-06-07T22:53:00.000-07:00

Wow... it's been too long. My fault!

I was sick for the last few days (still a little sick now), so I did what any graduate would do with a lot of free time and no energy to go outside: I watched movies. Here's the list from Friday, Saturday, and Sunday:

1. Rambo: First Blood
2. Rocky Balboa (with commentary)
3. Shooter
4. Forgetting Sara Marshall
5. Up
6. Star Trek Nemesis
7. The Dark Knight
8. Tropic Thunder
9. Hancock
10. Milk
11. The Incredible Hulk

Great weekend! I forgot how fantastic a movie Rambo: First Blood really is. Sure, I may have a little Sly bias, but it's still a great flick. Star Trek Nemesis reminded me how amazing the new Star Trek is in comparison. The rest were a lot of fun...

what the Greek really means

2009-05-12T12:14:00.001-07:00

It's one of the most dreaded phrases we as teachers/pastors/ministers can utter. "What the Greek word _____ really means is..." I'm sure those of us who are regular church goers have heard some variation on this phrase many times. Here are a few reasons why it's a bad idea to utter those words:

(side note: I will mostly write about the NT and Greek for a couple reasons. One is that I have mostly studied Greek, so I'm closer to that topic. The second is that I don't find the problems I will explain below to happen as much with Hebrew and the OT. I'm not sure why this is the case.)

1. Most likely, we're wrong:

And if we're not completely wrong, we're at the very least slightly off. Koine Greek (or NT Greek) was not a magical, beautiful, robust language. It was the language of the people. Koine means "common." It was common Greek. When we say how rich and deep each and every word actually is, we're misunderstanding the fact that this language is not necessarily a deep and rich language.

Think about this: We all know about the word "agape." We've heard that it means "unconditional love," or something like that. But when you start to read the NT, you realize that the NT writers used agape all the time. It was the normal word for love. It didn't have any deep and magical meaning. It just meant "love." Now the NT writers used agape in a lot of different ways; sometimes to indicate the love God has for people, and other times to indicate the kind of love the Pharisees had for themselves.

If you think about it, agape functions just like the English word "love." People love their spouses, their jobs, their cars, their American Idols, their parents, and so on. It doesn't mean much without the context.

2. When we say "What the Greek really means..." most often what we really are saying is, "What the dictionary says..."

A great example of this that I've heard is that the Greek word for "believe" in the NT really means, "to trust in, rely on, and cling to." As if the author knew when he or she wrote "pisteuo" that the word was pregnant with such deep and rich meaning. But if we just bust open an English dictionary, we can learn that the definition for believe can be any of those things. So we're really not expressing what the Greek means as much as we are expressing what the English definition of a given word actually is. No Greek needed there.

I think the problem comes when we don't have enough knowledge of Greek to do a proper word study. We simply open a basic lexicon and list of the various definitions of a Greek word. That's not exactly how it works. In other words, we can't just open up a Greek lexicon, look up "pneuma," read off the definitions of "spirit, wind, breath, etc." and claim we've done a word study. Furthermore, we can't then take those definitions and say the Greek word pneuma really means "spirit, wind, breath, etc." The author may not (and most likely did not) have all of the definitions in mind when he or she used the word.

Think about how frustrating it would be to have someone pick apart one of your emails like this. To a friend, you might write something like, "I'm scared I might lose my job this week." Should your friend bust open the dictionary and read all of the definitions for "scared" in order to properly understand your feelings? Wouldn't that most likely lead him or her down the wrong road when considering the intended meaning behind what you wrote? Think about it...

3. We remove the text from the people:

When we utter the words, "What the Greek really means" in a sermon or teaching, one of the things we are communicating is, "The English doesn't cut it. You have to be able to read the Greek to really understand what's going on here." Think about the kind of frustration that would cause someone. It could have devastating effects to regularly hear that you can't truly understand what's going in the Bible on unless you read Greek. Suddenly the text doesn't seem as accessible as it did before. In order to really "get it," you have to know what the Greek really means.

4. It makes the English versions seem unreliable:

If we keep harping on the idea that the English translation of the Bible is incomplete, we start to develop in people a mistrust of the various versions of the Bible. If we're always saying certain words really mean something other than what a person's English translation uses, we may be cultivating something in the people who hear us that is not healthy.

English translations, by and large, do a good job at translating what is a pretty complicated language and subject matter. I say Greek is complicated more because it is a dead language that no one speaks anymore. This makes it a bit challenging because we can't consult a native speaker to help us with what we've translated. So in the end, most translations do a good job communicating the ideas behind the text. Sure, they could have chosen different definitions for some words, but the spirit of what was written survives.

5. We put ourselves in an undeserved position of authority:

We are the ones who can really know what the Bible means. We know Greek, and since you can only understand what the Bible is really saying by reading the Greek, you must come to us in order to get to the bottom of scripture.

Sure, I might be overstating it a little, but I'm not that far off. If I'm a pastor who is regularly saying, "What the Greek really means...", I'm presenting myself as a type of authority in this area. In other words, I'm saying, "I know Greek. That's why I can know what the Bible really means." And to take it a little further, "You don't know Greek. Come to me, and I'll tell you what the Bible really means."

Add to this the fact that most people can't really check what we're saying to see if it's true. If I say the Greek word means something, who's going to challenge me on that? Most will take it as gospel. That's a bad thing. I'm placing myself and my words in a position of authority that is above criticism. Bad news for any person in a power position over others.

The boring stuff of Greek:

Here's an interesting thought: The title of my little blog is "grapso skubalon." The first word means, essentially "to write." The second word is a crass way of saying "dung." Nothing too enlightening there. But I purposely put the first word in the future tense. My original thought was to title the blog, "I will write crap."

Here's where it gets interesting - The tense of the word "grapso" can be future (as I originally intended it), or the tense can be subjunctive (exactly the same form), which would change the translation to "I might write crap." Small difference, but kind of a big one. And the kicker is that the only way to tell what form I was using is by context. Since there is no context, it could go either way.

And that's the boring stuff of Greek. Did I intend the sentence to be future or subjunctive? Do I think I will always write crap, or do I think I might write crap at some point, but I might not? Big difference...

Note this: it's a long way from saying, "What the Greek really means..." Not to mention, it's a lot more boring too. People get excited about the perceived "magic" of the Greek language. In reality, Greek word studies can be boring and uninformative.

So when you feel yourself about to say those dreaded words, "What the Greek really means...," bite your tongue and express your thought without appealing to the Greek.

*These guys say it much more gracious than I am saying it.

random LA wednesday night

2009-05-07T01:35:00.000-07:00

I'm not ashamed to admit it - I love John Mayer. So when I read the following tweet from him, I got pretty excited:

"Gonna hit up Hotel Cafe in Hollywood at 11ish... 21+ I'll trade you new songs for no videoing them? : ) (((bats lashes))) Need guinea pigs."

My friend Josh had been texting me about the show, so we decide to go. Realize: Nikki and I were just about to go to bed. She had to get up early, so we were calling it a night around 10:30. But how could we pass this up?

I call my friend Ryan: "Wake up. I'm coming to get you." Surprisingly, he's fine with that.

So Nikki and I pick him up around 11 and head over to Hotel Cafe on Cahuenga. After we park, as we're walking toward the entrance, we pass a bunch of rabid paparazzi hoping something good will happen. I felt the same way... I would be lying if I didn't say I was skeptical. Here we are, late at night, at a random bar in Hollywood all because of a 140 character message on twitter from a person we think is John Mayer. Could it be for real?

We get to the entrance to the club, and there are a few people in line... not many. We pay the $5 cover, head in, and make our way to the stage. The place is packed, and most people are just facing the stage wondering the same thing as me and the paparazzi. Is he really coming?

As we're waiting, I turn to say something to Ryan when I notice that Andy Dick is standing next to him. "Nice!" A few minutes later, Zach Levi is chatting to Andy Dick and he has his arms around his girlfriend. "Also Nice!" Still no John Mayer, but the presence of a few other celebs makes his arrival seem more of a reality.

A few more minutes roll by, and I turn again to say something to Ryan when I notice a tall guy carrying a guitar, a little hunched over and walking in our direction. "Ryan. Look." It's John, and he walks right past us. "How's it going?" he says as he passes, but I can't do much but stare. Remember, I love this guy.

He's by himself, so he jumps up on stage and starts getting his guitar ready. Once he's all checked in and ready to start he says, "Hold on. I have to tweet."

For the next hour or so, he plays a collection of new and old songs, including "3x5," "Belief," "Half of My Heart," and a few other new ones. It was unreal! And to think, I almost went to bed!

When he finishes, he starts packing up his guitar to leave. A bunch of us head to the stage like 14 year-old girls. All I want to do is shake his hand, but the giddy girls in the front won't leave, so I fail. I go back to where we were standing, hoping that he would walk that way again, and he does. I grab his shoulder and say, "John. Great job." It's all I could think to say. Nikki said he looked at me when I said his name, but I blacked out for a second. Yeah, I'm ridiculous. I admit it. But what can I say? I really like this guy!

We finally get outside, but decide to wait a few more minutes until he leaves. The paparazzi are breathlessly waiting for his exit. When he finally clears the club's doors, the flash bulbs are enough to make anyone start ceasing. It's intense. He jumps in his car, pushes a few paparazzi out of the way, and he's on his way home.

What a night! It's times like these I don't think I ever want to leave LA. On a random Wednesday night, after watching American Idol, we go to a bar in Hollywood to pay $5 to hear John Mayer play songs that no one else has heard. Somehow, my life actually does feel a little more complete.

swindle flu

2009-05-03T17:23:00.000-07:00

Anyone living in the US who is even remotely listening to what's going on around him or her knows about the deadly swine flu pandemic. It started in Mexico, and there are some cases in the US and other places... etc. etc. With as much media attention that the swine flu is getting, one would think thousands of people have died from it. In reality, there are 19 confirmed deaths in Mexico (as of 5/3/09) and 1 confirmed death in the US. To put that in perspective, the regular flu claims somewhere around 30,000 people per year.

I don't really want to focus on the media hype or any conspiracy connected to that. I do want to bring up a point that a commenter made on a blog I read. Fear of the swine flu will have devastating effects on the economy of Mexico. Think about it: so many people are canceling trips to Mexico, which will cost huge amounts of money to the Mexican community. My wife was supposed to be in Cancun the last 3 days on a major conference, but the whole thing was canceled. There goes thousands of dollars, I'm sure.

And another thing: why do we not care about how many people die of malaria and starvation and obesity and AIDS and so many other things? Why are we investing so much energy into something so (relatively) minor? Is it really worth all the damage that will be done to countless people?

Swine flu will probably end up hurting a lot of people, and most of them will never actually contract the virus.

create

2009-04-23T19:38:00.000-07:00

I've been amazed by creative power lately... so amazed, I'm not even sure how to express it. I have been speechless several times over the last few weeks at the creative power of music, especially live music. Think about it: when you go to a live show, you are hearing pure creativity that probably will never be heard again. Sure, the artist is doing a song that he or she recorded years ago and has performed thousands of times. But they always seem to add something to it that's different - some unusual emphasis - some crazy run - maybe even some raw emotion. And all of that is probably something that will never be duplicated in the same way.

And therein lies the beauty of creative power. With music, we humans get to create something that did not exist before we created it and probably will not exist in the same form ever again. In this way, we get to participate in the creative power of God. It's because of this that I feel music (and other forms of art) connect us to God in a unique way.

We understand God as creator. One of God's most potent attributes is God's ability to create out of nothing. Much of creation will never be duplicated in the same way. It's always changing; always adapting. It's how God created it to be.

When we participate in art; in music, we connect to the Creator God in a deep and meaningful way. We display God's creative power for all who hear or see our art. We mirror the image of God in the tunes we hum, in the words we craft, in the art we create.

This was even more real to me at the India Arie concert last week. At one point, she prompted her vocalists to vamp on the concept of how they knew God to be real (based on her song "God is Real" from Voyage to India). She encouraged them to be free in their expression. What happened was so powerful; so spiritual that I couldn't keep my eyes open, and my breath escaped me. The raw emotionality of their responses are hard to describe and impossible to duplicate. It was pure creative power.

And I'm convinced God was pleased.

I love music. That is not a secret to anyone who knows me. But lately, music - ALL music - has helped me love God more.

worthless degree

2009-04-14T11:00:00.001-07:00

It's time for another venting session. I've hinted at this topic before in a couple posts, but it's been on my mind once again.

Honestly, I'm not sure how really to express this, but the idea that keeps going on in my mind is that I have just spent a lot of time and money to get a worthless degree. All told, I have spent 7 years of my life studying Bible and theology only to come out on the other end and realize that no one really cares.

I have this romantic notion that people will come to me and say, "Hey, I can't figure out this thing I read in the Bible. What do you think?" I guess I thought that at some point, people would want to know some of the stuff I've spent years learning.

But the reality seems to be that no one cares. In fact, most people, when they learn you have a seminary education, just want to argue with you or prove you wrong.

My wife seems to have the opposite problem. She has multiple degrees in the field of Psychology, and people usually approach her hoping she will diagnose them or a friend. Most people see her as somewhat of an expert, and they want to know what she thinks.

I find the opposite to be true. Some people look at me and my seminarian friends, think that we consider ourselves to be experts, and proceed to tell us what they think. It's like, "Oh, you have a degree in Theology, do you? Well, here's why you're wrong..." Maybe that's overstating it. It's not always that obvious. But I do feel a general sense of hostility from the Church world toward people who have seminary degrees. In fact, a pastor recently told me that he would prefer to not hire a seminarian at his church. What?!?! Isn't that why we go to seminary? To be better at church work?

I'm going to keep going here... sorry if this is getting long.

I think the problem is this: Pastors think seminarians are bitter and jaded because of the intense scholarship they encounter. But the reality might be that seminarians become bitter and jaded because all they want to do is share what they've learned with others, but those "others" don't want to hear it. In one sense, it seems that pastors are a little threatened by seminarians. And why wouldn't that make a seminarian bitter and jaded? The very institution they want to serve with their newfound knowledge rejects them.

Those who know me can probably see right through this rant. They see what motivates me to write what I write... so be it. I can't help that. I started this process many years ago to be a better pastor and help other pastors become better pastors. Here I sit on the other side of some painful rejection that makes me doubt I made the right decision.

I have no positive ending to this post. Call it a lament, I guess.

update: I need to add a few more thoughts. First, I love Fuller Seminary. I would not trade my degree for anything. I'm proud of myself for completing it, and I think it is incredibly important for anyone wanting to work in the church world to have such a degree. This leads into the second thing: There is a paradox about all of this. I truly believe people working with the Bible and theology need to be trained. At the same time, it seems that people really don't care if you're trained. To me, that is just an impossible paradox that I can't reconcile and still don't know how to approach.

fyi

2009-04-07T12:08:00.000-07:00

Just a quick FYI: I'm regularly adding to my reading list blog. Be sure to keep checking back to see what I'll be reading. I will also be indicating on that list what I'm currently reading and what I have read. Thanks!

keep calm and carry on

2009-04-05T14:22:00.000-07:00

This is the worst economic climate we have ever experienced. Life will never be the same again. We are doomed.

Or are we? What's with all the fear mongering these days? The economy is not in great shape, sure. But are all these crazy reactions helping? One of the higher-ups at my school recently declared that we are officially in a depression. He deduced this by reading Herbert Hoover's book about the great depression. Really? A depression? Seems a little premature and irresponsible to declare to a group of employees that the country is in such a state... but that's another blog topic.

A co-worker sent me a link to a great article that addresses this kind of narcissism that declares we as a country are in a uniquely terrible situation. I wish so much that the leaders of this country would show just a little optimism through this time. It would do so much good.

I'm not a huge fan of George Bush, but at least he had somewhat more of a positive approach to tough economic times, maybe even to a fault. I remember him coming under so much criticism for telling people to go shop when we were at war. Kind of a weird thing to say, I know, but I think he was trying to tell people to just go about their normal business, and by doing so, they would ensure the economy stays strong.

Here's a quote from the article above that stuck out to me:

During World War II, the UK was facing not only a suffering economy but also a daily pounding of heavy explosives from the enemy. In an attempt to quell the public anxiety, the British government posted signs around the city with the sage advice, “Keep Calm and Carry On.” Perhaps another reason to carry on is that, like all previous calamities, this too shall pass. And, if we keep calm, we may actually look back and gain confidence from the proof that history provides us. Leaders today may want to hunker down and send a similar message.

Oh that I wish the message of "Keep calm and carry on" would be the type of message we were hearing from the government. Instead, there is very little assurance and confidence and mostly a lot of fear mongering.

Can we get a grip for a moment? We're not in a unique situation here. This has happened before and will happen again, and we will survive.

forth-, fifth-, or sixth-coming

2009-03-25T07:49:00.000-07:00

I just went back and read some of the topics I indicated would be forthcoming... and a weird thing happened. I had an overwhelming feeling that I don't want to write about them. When I originally wrote out the list, I had strong feelings about each topic, but right now... I have no feelings. Maybe I'm a little burnt. Maybe the last week of the quarter took all the energy I had to think theologically. I'm sure it will come back some day, but for right now, it's not there.

So instead, I'll write about the nonsense that's been on my mind lately:

1. Why does Donovan McNabb keep getting injured on Madden '09? Can't I play a whole season without losing him? I guess both art and video games imitate life.

2. I bought a macbook and I'm really excited to get it! It's my graduation gift, and I convinced Nikki to get it early. I'm probably a little spoiled.

3. I'm carrying about 20 extra pounds, and I'm getting sick of it. I've been running and trying to eat better, but I think the bottom line is that my metabolism took another turn for the worse in the last few months.

4. I can't decide if I like twitter or if I should put my energy into it or not. Is it the next big thing or not?

5. Boston Legal is amazing, and I wish it didn't get canceled.

6. I want a Kawasaki Vulcan 750 (left). I'll get there someday. For now, I'll keep putting around on my scooter (right).

That's about all the nonsense that's going through my mind right now. I promise, there will be more meaningful stuff later. Just give me a chance to detox from seminary...

book list

2009-03-20T16:15:00.000-07:00

Well my friends, it's done. Last night, I emailed the last two papers of my seminary degree. It feels great!

Now that I have some time to actually read what I want to read, I thought it would be good to compile a little reading list for the next few months. I'm going to post it here and regularly update it when I come across a new book I want to read. So here we go:

1. Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell - Currently Reading
2. Theology of Hope, Jurgen Moltmann
3. Letters from a Skeptic, Greg Boyd - Currently Reading
4. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, Joel Green and Mark Baker (re-read)
5. The Shack, William Young
6. Understanding Paul, Stephen Westerholm
7. Passion for God, Jurgen Moltmann and Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel
8. Theology and the Kingdom of God, Wolfhart Pannenberg
9. He, Robert A. Johnson - Currently Reading
10. The Year of Living Biblically, A. J. Jacobs
11. Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns
12. Surprised by Hope, NT Wright
13. The Myth of a Christian Nation, Greg Boyd
14. The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible, Scot McKight

Any you would like to add?

last paper

2009-03-17T15:08:00.000-07:00

I sit here in the library about to start my last paper for Fuller Seminary. I guess I should say that it is my last masters level paper for Fuller. I'm not ready to rule out a PhD, and Fuller could be an option.

But nevertheless, here I sit, not sure where to start. I guess in all honesty, I know where to start, I just don't want to. I have my passage selected. I have a decently narrow thesis. I have three days to knock it out. I've been under the gun much more than I am right now.

Yet I'm still hesitating, and I'm not sure why. Maybe I don't want to be done. Maybe I do, but I don't want my last paper to be crap. Maybe I quit mentally long before I should have. On Sunday, I wrote a reflection style paper, and it felt like trying to run in the pool. I was pushing hard, but not really going anywhere too effectively. I guess I'm scared that's about to happen with this final paper. And such an approach will not end well for this class. I have to be on. This has to be some of my best work.

I guess I better set aside the distractions (like this blog!) and get to it. See you on the other side!

liberal quakerism?

2009-03-15T09:51:00.000-07:00

Just for fun, I took the "Christian Denomination Selector" test from this website. My top 5 are as follows:

#1. Seventh Day Adventist (I guess because I didn't have a preference for day of worship)
#2. Episcopal/Anglican Church (maybe because I'm OK with women pastors)
#3. Methodist/Wesleyan Church (who knows)
#4. Liberal Quakerism (that just sounds awesome!)
#5. Mennonite Brethren (good insurance plans from what I hear)

I will say that #6 was the AG, so I guess my roots did come through a little bit.

What were your top 5?

tattoo

2009-03-07T17:16:00.000-08:00

Hi friends. Well, I've been wanting a tattoo for a long time now, and I think 2009 will be the year. I've been messing around with designs in my head, and I just can't settle on one thing. I want to somehow combine my love of Greek/NT and music, which is kind of an interesting mix, I know. So what do you think of this?

I'm thinking it will be on my left arm/shoulder, and maybe wrap all the way around.

The word means "rhythm," and although it's not used in the NT, it is in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT). My thought is that it combines what I love most about music - the rhythm - and my love for the Bible/NT/Greek. I thought about using a heart rhythm to symbolize life and all that comes with it (love, friendship, pain, regret, etc).

So what do you think? I'm not sold on this, and if you think it's cheesy, tell me! I can take it.

p.s. I have to give props to my nephew Nelson, because if I remember correctly, he had the idea of a tattoo related to "rhythm." Thanks Nelson!

post-it notes

2009-03-05T10:50:00.000-08:00

Here's a huge pet peeve. I'm talking to someone, and for whatever reason, he or she needs to give me information (e.g. phone number, email address, website). This person grabs a post-it note (or sticky note as some call them) from a nearby desk, scribbles the pertinent info on the demon paper, and hands it to me.

I immediately think, "What am I supposed to do with this? I can't put it in my pocket because it's got the sticky part on the top. I guess I could fold it in half and essentially stick it to itself, but now the (insert pertinent info here) is hard to read. What a worthless invention." I have actually awkwardly carried the post-it note to my desk, written the info on a normal piece of paper and then, with malice, destroyed the post-it note.

Not only am I incredibly bothered by the annoyance that is the sticky section of a post-it note, but I feel that it's ethically irresponsible to provide people with yet another way to clutter their lives. We have all seen this kind of thing:

Drives me out of my mind. The evil creators of post-it notes should repent in sackcloth and ashes for the crimes to humanity.

future blogs

2009-03-04T12:27:00.000-08:00

Hey friends,

I'm 2 weeks away from finishing my degree. Consequently, I haven't had much energy for this blog, but soon I will! Here are some of the topics I want to address in the future:

- The "Front Porch" of the Church (discussion from Joel Green and Acts)
- "What the Greek really means," and other theological red flags
- Other Religions: Responses to God's revelation or creations of the evil one?
- Why I hate post-it notes
- Open Theism - Shouldn't we all be open theists?
- Is the Bible a moral authority?
- Universalism vs. Religious Pluralism
- Christus Victor model of atonement
- "Clandestine" and other words that I can't define but still try to use
- God as gender-neutral and why it's even important

Any suggestions? Or any of the above you want to see first?

everything is amazing, nobody is happy

2009-02-26T09:30:00.000-08:00

This is one of the funnier things I've seen in a long time. Enjoy:

y'all's body is a temple

2009-02-22T10:10:00.000-08:00

A New Testament professor at Fuller, Joel B. Green, shed new light on a well-known scripture the other day. Most of us who have grown up in the Christian world know 1 Corinthians 6:19 - "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?"

It's a standard passage that many a youth pastor has used to encourage kiddos not to have sex or smoke or drink or anything else like that - and they are partially justified considering the context of 1 Cor 6:19. Since we are united with God, why would we want to also unite with a prostitute? We'll ignore the fact this passage doesn't address "smoking" or "drinking" but "fornication," and every faith tradition seems to have a different understanding of what "fornication" means.

But what I wanted to look at for a minutes are the two little words "your" and "body." Since this blog does have a Koine Greek title, I guess I'm permitted to delve into a little Greek. In this passage, "your" (ὑμῶν) is plural and "body" (σῶμα) is singular. So it's "your (plural) body (singular) is the temple of the Holy Spirit." English is a little limited here because we don't have a plural version of "you." "You" can mean you personally or you as a group of people.

In certain areas of the country, people do use a plural version of "you." In the south, it's "y'all." In the Philly area, it's "yous" (as in "yous guys"). In the western part of PA, it's "You'ns."

So a better translation would maybe be "y'all's body is a temple."

What's the point? I think Paul, when using "body" is probably referring to the body of Christ, i.e., the community of believers. His point is that the Jerusalem Temple is no longer where God's Spirit resides on earth. God's Spirit resides in the community, or the body, of those who follow Christ.

Now, as members of that community, we shouldn't be uniting our physical bodies to prostitutes. And beyond that, we should be responsible with the way we treat our bodies so as not to do harm to the body of Christ.

Reading the context of the passage, the interpretation above might be a stretch. Paul seems to be writing a lot in this section about physical human bodies, and given his theology (and that of the early church) of the infilling of the Spirit, it is not a stretch to say he is referring to our individual bodies as temples.

So why the use of a plural "you" and a singular "body?" Maybe his Jewish understanding of there being one Temple is important here. Maybe he wouldn't want to say that we are all mini temples, but that our entire community is the one temple of God's Spirit.

I am not proposing any enlightening conclusions here. I don't have any. I just thought this was worth a second look. Maybe you will want to keep the conversation going? Post some comments.

valen-times

2009-02-16T12:02:00.000-08:00

Nikki and I just got back from a weekend trip to San Diego. We went to the zoo, had a nice meal, and went to the Wild Animal Park. It was a great time! I had not been to the San Diego zoo or the Wild Animal park, but hearing so much about them, I had high expectation. Let me tell you, they did not disappoint!

I uploaded a bunch of videos I took at the zoo to my youtube channel, and I thought that instead of posting them one at a time, I'd stick them all in this blog. So here they are! Enjoy:

theodicy

2009-02-07T18:10:00.000-08:00

I've read a few things and talked to a few people over the last few weeks about that wonderful topic of Theodicy - i.e. how is God justified in allowing so much evil in the world. It is just a monster of a topic, and honestly, I shy away from it. How can God allow so much evil to thrive in this world? It's not easy to answer.

I've heard differently approaches to the topic from the Christian perspective, and they are generally OK... but not totally satisfying. I would say the most compelling argument is that in order for humans to have free will, there must be the possibility of both great good and great evil. If the possibility of evil is taken away, then free will becomes hollow.

I guess that works for me at least to distract me from having to think about the topic too much. It's kind of like a band-aid over a gaping, disgusting wound.

A thought occurred to me the other day as I was watching Blood Diamond. In the movie, Daniel Archer says, "Sometimes I wonder if God will ever forgive us for the things we've done to each other..." What an interesting twist in the theodicy discussion. So often in this discussion, we're asking if we can forgive God for allowing evil in the world. We are really trying to justify why it seems like God is asleep at the wheel; trying to maintain the doctrine of sovereignty in the face of what seems like an out of control world.

But what if we turn the discussion around and ask if God will ever forgive us for being so evil. You don't have to look far to see human beings doing horrible things to other human beings for nothing more than a little money and power. What a shame! And we have the nerve to ask God why there's evil in the world? Shouldn't God be asking us how we can stand being so evil?

Thankfully, my worldview leads me to believe that God can and has forgiven us for being so evil. But is a proper response to that forgiveness to turn around and demand an answer from God for why we are so evil in the first place?

In no way does this wrap up the discussion with a nice little bow. It's still a painful and tragic topic. But maybe we can balance the rhetoric by asking ourselves how God feels about there being evil in the world, and how so much of that evil is created with our own hands.

just a seminarian

2009-02-03T13:01:00.000-08:00

I'm going to rant for a minute, so bear with me. There's a lot of talk these days (and in years past too) about how formal biblical education has the tendency of decreasing one's spirituality. In other words, the academic focus and the attention to cognitive processes when approaching the scripture and theology are in direct opposition to how one is "supposed" to read the Bible: with the heart, soul, or even spirit.

In fact, so many who have gone through seminary or any other biblical education seem to make similar statements: that Bible school makes them less spiritual.

A lot of this, as I mentioned above, has to do with the approach to scripture and theology of the seminarian; an approach that is analytical and cerebral. It's implied that by reading the Bible this way, one cannot have a spiritual experience. In order to have a spiritual experience of some sort, one has to return to reading the Bible as he or she did before he or she started biblical education.

I have a serious issue with this for several reasons. First, I have had so many deeply spiritual experiences while analyzing text. I have learned some deep truths about myself, the way God works in the world, the nature of humanity, etc. These have all produced some significant changes in my life along with some times of incredible spiritual connection to God.

Which brings me to my second problem with this statement about seminary: It's dualistic (and, in my opinion, dangerous). This is something I'm only beginning to ponder, but I think there's something in it. The dualism is that there is mind and there is spirit, and the two work independently. So when we analyze text, we are engaging out mind and not necessarily our spirit or soul. The same is true in reverse. When we are reading the text for some spiritual meaning, we aren't using our cognitive abilities. In fact, some would urge the reader to put aside his or her "intellect" (or maybe analytical skills) in order to approach the text in a spiritual way.

Now the answer to this dualism has been something to this effect: "The key is to engage both your intellect and your spirit and to hold them both in a healthy tension." Sounds good, but to me, it's still dualistic. Sure, the goal to have both intellect and spirit be equal is good, but this still maintains they idea that they are separate.

I want to move toward a more holistic view of the human being; like the what we see in the OT. In the Jewish mind, there is no outside and inside of the body; no spirit and flesh; no body and soul. We are whole beings.

And in reality, can we really separate our "intellect" from our "spirit?" Are we really able to function fully in one without engaging the other? Or, stated more directly, aren't they really the same thing? Where is my spirit? Point to it. Is it in a different location than my intellect?

All of this is really premature. I've only begun to mull it over. But I know for sure I get exceedingly frustrated when I hear of seminarians who claim an academic reading of scripture strips them of their spirituality. I also know for sure that I want to understand this human life we have in a more holistic way. Am I flesh? Am I spirit? Am I soul? Or am I human?

evolution

2009-01-26T19:13:00.000-08:00

ugh. I just finished an interpretive assignment of Acts 6:1-7. I'm thinking of posting some of my thoughts as a blog, but I'm a little spent right now. So instead, enjoy some concrete proof of evolution:

hillary is president in her mind

2009-01-23T10:33:00.000-08:00

One of the funnier things I've read since Tuesday's festivities:

I guess a girl can dream.

planes are annoying

2009-01-20T13:37:00.000-08:00

Since I've moved to SoCal, I've been on a lot of planes. Nikki and I go back to the east coast several times each year, and most of those trips are not direct. So needless to say, we've been on a lot of planes.

I thought it would be fun to make a little list of some of the things that irritate me when I'm on a plane. Feel free to comment and add to the list.

1. Seating stress (window, isle, front, back, who's going to sit next to me, etc)
2. People behind you who use your seat back to get up
3. Tiny bathrooms (I actually can't stand straight in the forward bathroom)
4. Lack of information (why aren't we moving? How much longer?)
5. Restriction on "electronic devices" (exactly why can't I leave my iPod on when we takeoff?)
6. People who take forever to get themselves situated before sitting down
7. People who talk to the person next to them like they're at the other end of the plane
8. Kicking kids
9. De-icing (could this process take any longer?)
10. Reading lights that are as bright as the sun

There's a start. Add some to the list...

yeah, I'm OK

2009-01-14T13:54:00.000-08:00

There are a series of phrases that I'd like to remove from my phrase vocabulary. They are phrases like, "are you alright?", "everything OK?", "Are you doing alright?", and so on.

You know these phrases. They're the ones we use when we think something is wrong with a friend or when we think a friend has something on their mind. So we say something like, "Hey man, are you doing alright?"

To which the easy answer is, "Yeah, I'm OK." Problem solved. Nothing is wrong.

Here's why the phrase bothers me: Why don't we be more direct? Why can't we ask, "Is there something troubling you?" Or better yet, why can't we just say, "Tell me why you seem sad/angry/hurt/etc." It's like we phrase the question in a way that we don't really have to get involved. In reality, we know something is wrong. We only ever ask the question when a friend seems to be troubled. So why not be more direct?

Instead we say, "Please tell me you're alright so I don't have to hear about what's wrong with you..." Sure, that's probably an exaggeration, but maybe not. Why else would we ask, "Are you alright?" if we're not hoping for a positive answer that lets us off the hook (although we still did our due diligence in asking).

So I'm trying to make an effort to ask, "What's on your mind?" or "Can we talk about what's bothering you?" instead of the non-committal, "Are you alright?"

Join with me...

two or three

2009-01-12T16:18:00.000-08:00

Those who know me know I'm a stickler for context when it comes to reading the Bible. To me it's incredibly important to know the cultural/historical context of a passage in order to understand the intended meaning. I've seen many verses, when taken out of context, used to say all sorts of craziness. But sometimes the discussion of context need not go any further than the immediate textual context of a passage (read: the verses around a particular passage).

For a long time I've been very frustrated by a specific example of this. If you've gone to church on any kind of regular basis, you've probably heard Matthew 18:20 quoted: "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." I've heard it used during prayers, in worship, and even in sermons. The idea intended is that when a group of Christians get together, Jesus is there.

But when we look at the preceding verses, a different reading stands out. Jesus is talking to his disciples about the very specific topic of church discipline, and he is essentially telling them that whatever decision they make in terms of church discipline will be supported by him. So when two or three gather together to make a decision about what to do with someone in the Christian community who has done something wrong, it is as if Jesus is there supporting the decision.

There's a lot of weird stuff in the passage, including Jesus talking about things bound on earth being bound in heaven, and things loosed on earth being loosed in heaven. I'd have to study a little more to really understand what he's trying to say.

But the fact remains the passage so commonly quoted is often removed from its context to express some kind of point.

And here is where I'm really confused. What point is being made? That Jesus is only around when two or three are gathered? Are we saying Jesus is not with us when we're alone? If so, then why pray? Exactly what are we trying to say here?

My confusion grew when I read Henri Nouwen's, In the Name of Jesus a few weeks ago. In his book, he quotes this very passage to illuminate the importance of ministry being done in groups and not by individuals. But is that what Jesus is saying? Maybe more so than what others claim this passage means. But I still can't shake the sense that we are missing the point of this passage, and I'm frustrated to read that someone like Henri Nouwen uses Matthew 18:20 in a way I feel is inappropriate.

I don't want to rule out the fact that I am wrong with my understanding of the text. I may be. I'm often wrong more than I'm right. But this is something that has bothered me for quite some time, and it is an example to me how often we misuse scripture because we fail to consider context - whatever context that may be.

days inn debacle

2009-01-06T20:43:00.000-08:00

back on the left coast

2009-01-04T20:12:00.000-08:00

We're back from our much needed holiday vacation... we were gone for two entire weeks! It was a great time with family and friends, and we really packed a lot in. We were with my family, with Nikki's, in NYC, in Camp Hill... it was a great time.

I also ate some incredible food and I have really missed. Here's the short list (food is important to me. Get over it):

Pizza (both in Philly and in NYC)
Lee's Hoagie
Chicken Chessesteak
Regular Cheesesteak from Pat's (gross but fun)
Wawa Tuna Hoagie
Wawa Turkey Hoagie
Diet Iced Tea (long story)
Tastycake Lemon Pie
Homemade Apple Pie
Coffee Chiffon Cake

Ah it was a delight. Not so much on my waste line, but that's what New Year's Resolutions are for.

There's so much I want to blog about in the next few weeks, so check back. I've got a bunch of stuff swimming around in my head that I need to get out somewhere, so stay tuned.

Peace!

inpirational

2008-12-26T14:47:00.001-08:00

This was pretty interesting... What do you make of it?

cold

2008-12-26T10:18:00.001-08:00

2008-12-25T07:34:00.000-08:00

It's Christmas morning! Peace and Joy to all of you. I hope you have a wonderful day, and don't be the Charlie Browniest Charlie Brown:

no room upstairs

2008-12-15T17:48:00.000-08:00

Christmas is 10 days away, and I've been thinking about the birth narratives of Jesus. We wonderful Christians have such an easy time romanticizing the things we read in the Bible, and the birth narratives are no exception. Honestly, I'm not sure why we do this... maybe we're insecure about the stories and we feel the need to spice them up. Maybe we don't get the point so we make up our own. Maybe we just love the dramatic so much that we need to over dramatize things so they appeal to us.

So what about the birth narratives of Jesus? We all know the story: Mary and Joseph are traveling on a cold night, trying to get to Bethlehem. Mary is obviously pregnant, and they need a place to stay and fast! They go door to door to the different inns finding none that are vacant. Finally a kind innkeeper allows them to stay in his barn with the animals. This is where Jesus is born, and Mary and Joseph nudge the animals away from the feed to lay Jesus in the feed-trough. Soon Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and the animals are joined by shepherds and kings and apparently some kid with a drum.

Sounds about right, doesn't it? The crazy thing is that most of this info is not in the birth narratives. Most of what we know of the birth of Jesus is from Luke 2, with Matthew helping a little (Matthew adds the wise men, but some time after the birth).

Luke's story goes a little more like this: Emperor Augustus decrees a census (and a tax) be taken, and as a result, everyone has to go to their home towns (well, the men do at least). Since Joseph is from Bethlehem, that's where he goes. At some point after they are in Bethlehem, Mary goes in to labor and gives birth. After birth, she wraps Jesus in some infant clothes and places him in a manger/crib, and she does this, as the text indicates, because there is "no place for them in the inn" (Luke 2:7). Later, some shepherds, after hearing from angels that the Messiah is born, go to see Jesus.

And that's it. No innkeeper. No going door to door. No sense of urgency because she's about to have the baby. Not many of the details we're used to.

In fact, the word Luke uses for "inn" does not necessarily refer to a "hotel" of sorts. Luke uses this same word one other time in his gospel, but this time to refer to the upper room where Jesus had his last meal with his disciples (22:7-12). Even more interesting is that Luke uses a completely different word later in his gospel (10:34) to refer to an actual inn or guest lodging.

So it's very likely Luke is referring to the upper room of a private house when he uses the word "inn," changing the details we know so well just a little. Mary and Joseph find that there is no room in the upper room of Josephs ancestral house (where they most likely would have stayed during the census period), so they move to the lower level where the animals are kept, kind of like the garage. The most obvious place to lay a newborn in this kind of garage is one of the feed-troughs. Incidentally, the word for "manger" can also be translated "crib," but "manger" is probably a better translation here.

So what's the point? Why does it even matter? I'm not completely sure, and maybe you can weigh in on this, but I think it's generally a bad practice to romanticize biblical texts. Maybe I'm being cynical when I write this, but I would rather focus on the intended meaning of the texts rather than spice them up with fancy details, especially when those details are misleading.

What can we say about the birth narratives of Jesus? Well, especially in Luke, the announcement of the in-breaking reign of God and the redemption of humanity is made to a bunch of shepherds, not to kings and rulers. And this king has a birth that is not special in any way. He's not born in a palace and wrapped in purple cloth. He's born like everyone else and in normal circumstances. He represents what the humility of humanity means. Even in his birth, he identifies with us; with normal people and not with the most powerful and influential.

If anything, this is the beauty of the Christmas story: That God has come and is setting up a new way of life; one that is not based on power structures and amassing wealth but on humility, joy, and peace.

To me, that is a powerful message on its own.

relief

2008-12-13T14:12:00.000-08:00

The quarter is finally over... a quarter that has been one of the most hectic of my Fuller career. I'm not sure why, but pushing through to the end has been harder than normal this quarter, and I'm glad it's behind me.

Now I have a few weeks to relax, read what I want, watch what I want, and enjoy the holiday season. I have a few topics for my blog that I'll probably explore over the next few weeks, so we'll see how that goes.

Right now I'm all about basking in the glory of another completed quarter. I'll probably end up wasting a significant amount of time over the next few days, and for me, that's just fine.

echo mountain

2008-12-08T19:00:00.000-08:00

You can't hear me that well in this video, but this is part of my day on Echo Mountain this past Saturday. It was a great day and nice to be alone for some deep thinking...

On the way down, I passed a bunch of guys biking up the mountain. This takes some serious skill and stamina. Here's one guy I passed:

ape hangers

2008-12-05T19:34:00.000-08:00

I learned about something new today. It's a style of motorcycle called an "Ape Hanger." Here's an example:

Obviously you can see why the call it an "Ape Hanger." The handle bars are way up high, and the feet are spread out. Now consider the antithesis in the biking world of the "Ape Hanger," the SuperBike:

It's the polar opposite. For the ape hanger, the higher the handle bars, and the wider the feet, the better. For the superbike, the more compressed and tight, the better. Check out this dude's extreme ape hanger:

My question is this: Is one a response to the other? Do the ape hangers want to go higher and wider because the superbikes are lower and tighter, or vice versa?

Here's another thing to consider. Check out the way emo/punk (not sure what they're called now) people dress:

Now consider their antithesis, the thug/rapper/gangsta (again, not sure what to call them):

(it's lil wayne!)

So while the emo people go tighter and smaller (to the point of boys wearing girls jeans), the thugs go bigger and baggier. Again, is one a response to the other? Do the emo people go tighter because the thugs are baggier?

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say with this, but it just seems interesting how both of these examples show opposite extremes, and it just doesn't seem coincidental. But maybe it is. I'm just wondering if each style is a response to be as different as possible from the other.

Maybe a flaw of what I'm saying is that these four groups are not in competition or "rivals" of each other, so the link I'm trying to make is illegitimate. But maybe it's not.

Any thoughts?

My Christmas Mix

2008-12-01T22:01:00.000-08:00

There are only a few absolutes in my life, and one is absolutely no Christmas music before Thanksgiving (we can talk about absolutes later)... So now that Thanksgiving has come and gone, I thought I would blog about my favorite Christmas songs. So here we go in no particular order:

1. Christmastime is Here - Vince Guaraldi Trio

- Quite possibly one of the most beautiful Christmas songs every written. Imagine yourself on a snowy night sitting by the firelight in silence with people you love.

2. Let it Snow - Ella Fitzgerald

- One of the best renditions of this song I know. Ella is smooth and perfect. And, I love this song... especially living in LA where it never snows. It makes me miss the East Coast.

3. I've Got My Love to Keep Me Warm - Dean Martin

- Fun song, and Dean's voice is relaxed and conversational. It's a perfect fit for this song.

4. Cool Yule - Kurt Elling

-Fun song. "You're gonna flip when you see ol' St. Nick play a lick on a peppermint stick."

5. Christmas Song - Nat King Cole

- It's a classic, what can I say. Some other great renditions: India Arie and Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Mel Torme, Vince Guaraldi.

6. Christmas Wrapping - The Waitresses

- It's kind of a cult classic. Not one of the nostalgic pieces, but it's a lot of fun to listen to.

7. Christmas is Coming - Vince Guaraldi Trio

- I guess you should listen to this before "Christmas is Here." But I like "Christmas is Here" better...

8. Santa Baby - Eartha Kitt

- Kind of sexy if I'm allowed to say that.

9. Christmas (Baby Please Come Home) - U2

- Classic raspy/shouty Bono in a Christmas song. Can you ask for more?

10. O Come, O Come Emmanuel - Steven Curtis Chapman

- One of my favorite Christmas hymns. It has such power and emotion in the melody, and SCC does a great job with this one.

11. O Holy Night - Mariah Carey

- Another favorite Christmas hymn, and Mariah rips is in a freaky way. Is that whistling or singing?

12. Jingle Bells - James Taylor

-Nice twist on a classic. It's funky...

13. Soulful Christmas - James Brown

- How can you not like a Christmas song where the singer thanks his fans for buying his albums and coming to his concerts?

14. Sleigh Ride - Ella Fitzgerald

- All of the above about Ella applies.

15. My Favorite Things - Diana Ross

- I never understood why this is a Christmas song... because it says "mittens" and "packages?" Anyway, Diana's version is classic. It's got attitude and swings real nice.

On a side note, as you listen to Christmas music this season, listen to how many different Christmas songs actually quote Jingle Bells at some point. The most obvious one is Nat King Cole's Christmas Song.

steep thoughts

2008-11-24T16:58:00.000-08:00

I just want to write something really deep. I want to blow your mind grapes with my incredible insights. But I can't think of anything good. Shouldn't I just be brimming with depth... wait, does that sentence even make sense? Can you brim with depth? Isn't that like exploding with insight? Or being manically reflective? Or slowly rushing? Or maybe silky turbulence? Or unflushing a toilet?

I've derailed.

I'm thirsty.

I formally announce that I know it all

2008-11-20T22:18:00.000-08:00

I wrote this for xanga a while back, and I just reread it today. I like it...

I think people misunderstand the purpose of doctrinal and theological studies. I don't think the point is to properly define God. I think the point of studying is to learn just how much of God there is yet to know.

The people I have met who suffer from the "I know all there is to know about God" syndrome are not the people who have devoted their lives to study. They are usually the people who have never properly studied doctrine or theology at all.

When you encounter someone who has deeply studied issues of doctrine and theology, you usually encounter someone who is humbled by what they have learned and wouldn't dare say anything about God in any definite terms.

It's like the person who sees the vastness of the universe for the first time. They don't walk away from that experience thinking they have seen all there is to see. They have a feeling of smallness that makes them realize how much there is to know, and how far they are from even knowing a fraction of it.

abusing the new ride

2008-11-19T23:32:00.000-08:00

Here's Ricardo abusing my new ride... I swear it doesn't ride the same anymore:

ironic? or just lazy?

2008-11-18T15:11:00.000-08:00

I just realized something interesting that's happening this quarter at Fuller. I have been working way ahead in one class... I don't have another assignment due in that class until December 12. Crazy ahead in Fuller time.

But there's an IDL (kind of like an online class but not) that I had to get extended over from the Summer that I'm way behind on. Like way behind. This is work that was really due in the beginning of September that I still haven't done.

Something's wrong with this picture.

still divided

2008-11-08T10:41:00.000-08:00

The presidential election on November 4, 2008 was an historic event for our nation. Given our painful history, an African-American president-elect is a step in the direction of reconciliation. Yet we cannot ignore the deep divide that still exists not only in our nation but in the Church. We hear some believers as they express excitement about a president-elect who is decidedly against unnecessary war and believes we are not doing enough to address poverty in our nation and a broken health care system. At the same time, there are other believers who see a president-elect Obama as a sign the end is near. They believe his tax plan hints of socialism and his ethical views are sinful. Make no mistake: we are deeply divided, and this divide goes beyond race.

As believers, or in a more general sense, as human beings, I fear we have lost our sense of humility and our tolerance for ambiguity. Without hesitation we promote our opinions as if they were not frail human creations but absolute truths from God. It is a sad time when we cannot or will not admit we do not know all that we claim to know with any certainty. No matter where we fall on these issues or for whom we voted on November 4, we have to be willing to admit that we are not as “right” as we think we are. Too often, it is this attitude of certainty that alienates our brothers and sisters who believe differently. Until we are willing to reach across the aisles of the church and dialog with those who follow the same Jesus but supported different candidates, we will continue to perpetuate the great divide that says, “I’m right and you’re wrong and I will treat you poorly because of it.” Now is a time for a humility that admits human weakness and a perfect love that casts out fear of one another.

CPBS

2008-10-21T14:33:00.000-07:00

Wherever you stand on the election, one thing is clear. Both candidates have been completely silent on an issue that plagues America every day:

Creamy Peanut Butter Supremacy.

That's right. Forget the financial crisis and the environment. This is a serious issue. Every grocery store near my house AND the Target show blatant texture bias toward creamy. A consumer can find cans of creamy peanut butter in every size, from the personal to the family size. But try to find a fair representation of chunky. You're lucky to find a tiny little can of it shoved way back on the shelf.

It is a sad day when chunky peanut butter lovers are not treated equally, and that day has come. I dream of the day when peanut butter will not be judged by texture and consistency but by those who love the product.

Please, end creamy peanut butter's reign on the peanut butter isle. Support chunky. That's change we all need.

pros and cons of Obama

2008-10-19T14:43:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm sort of on the fence right now with the election. I will most likely vote for McCain at this point, but not with much gusto. In my opinion, he's only a marginally better option than Obama... but lately, Obama has been looking better to me. I'm just not ready to say he will get my vote, and I'm not sure I will be able to.

So I thought it would be good for me to put together a little pro/con list for Obama. Keep in mind, what I consider cons, some people consider pros, so this list is really specific to me. Let's start with the cons:

Cons:

1. Obama's tax plan.

- I'm not thrilled at the idea of a tax credit for 95% of Americans, 40% of which do not pay income tax at all. So it's really not a tax "cut" per se, but a refundable tax credit for everyone. That leans a little too much toward socialism for me: taxing the rich to give to the poor, even those who don't pay into the system anyway.

2. Obama's Healthcare plan.

- Sure, free healthcare sounds great. So does free car insurance, free life insurance, and free clothing. The healthcare system in this country is sick, but I don't think nationalizing it is the answer. I think that will only add to the sickness. Healthcare needs to be affordable, and to become affordable, it needs to be competitive. If we are actually able to afford healthcare and companies are able to compete for our business, I think that will help heal the healthcare system, even if it's just a little bit.

3. Obama's Iraq plan.

- Ok, no one wants to be in Iraq anymore. It's been pretty rough on the country. Obama's plan to have the troops out in 16 months is commendable, but only if it's safe to do so. But my real problem with the plan is that too much of his other proposals hinge on the success of his withdrawal plan. In other words, he plans to help fund his healthcare plan and tax credits with money that is currently going to fund the war. That's what scares me about his withdrawal plan. If it doesn't work out and we have to stay in Iraq but the tax credits and healthcare plans pass, then we're in trouble.

4. Obama's idea about the economic crisis.

- He keeps blaming Bush and therefore McCain for the current financial crisis, when everyone knows who's really to blame: EVERYONE! Democrats, Republicans, Wall Street, ambitious home buyers, etc. I don't like that he is willing to use the crisis to advance his campaign by making these statements.

5. Obama's experience.

- He only has one solid year in the Senate before beginning his candidacy. That's not quite enough in my opinion. I'm not sure how this got turned around. Why is it we can talk about how little experience Palin has but the same conversation doesn't even come up with Obama? Even Hillary doesn't think he has enough experience (at least that's what she said before he won the nomination).

Pros:

1. Obama is unifying.

- This is a big one for me. Obama is not nearly as polarizing a figure as McCain and definitely Palin. The public's opinion of Palin is either one of blind love or ruthless hatred. There's not much middle ground. I've heard friends say they would vote for her as president in a heart beat while others think she's a joke and will destroy the country. Obama is not nearly as polarizing, and that's something we need right now considering how polarized Washington is.

2. Obama is well spoken.

- Sad but true. This matters. He can articulate his thoughts well, whether they are his own or his parties'. When he talks, it sounds right. We're coming off a time when the current president struggles in this area... big time. I don't think we need anymore second hand embarassment everytime our president speaks.

3. Obama has Biden.

- At least there's some experience with Biben. But that's all I'll say.

I'm sure there's more pros, but that's all I got right now. I'll have to put some thought into all of this.

solved

2008-10-11T12:54:00.000-07:00

Financial Crisis solved... maybe a little too late:

economic discomfort

2008-10-09T10:37:00.000-07:00

My fan requested I update my blog. So here we go!

Financial Crisis... huge issue in the US right now. HUGE! Everyone is blaming everyone else, and the problem gets worse. We're even talking about the second Great Depression.

But here's my question: How is it really effecting you? I can tell you specifically how it's effecting me and Nikki, but I would call that more of a frustration than a crisis. It's not really destroying the quality of my everyday life.

Also, I keep hearing how no banks are loaning anymore and no one can get a credit card and other similar complaints. I get credit card offers almost daily, and the TV and radio commercials are constantly offering mortgages and other loans. A talk show host recently asked listeners to see if they can qualify and obtain various loans, and many of them were able to with little prerequisites.

So yeah, the stock market is in bad shape and tons of people can't pay their mortgages (although many of them should never have qualified for a mortgage in the first place). And I know a lot of people are losing money with their 401Ks and other such investments (but those investments will eventually come back... we hope). But is that really the situation most "Main Street" Americans are facing? Or is the fear something drummed up by all the media attention to the issue?

And who really is to blame? Democrats? Yep. Republicans? Yep. Wall Street? Yep. People buying houses who really can't afford them? Yep. Me and you? Probably not.

I know, I don't have a real clear point with this blog, but the whole financial thing is just driving me crazy!

checking in

2008-07-17T18:59:00.000-07:00

Hey.

How's it going?

Good?

Good.

Just checking in.

Why is the grass this color?

2008-07-02T15:33:00.000-07:00

Oh yeah, I'm really in a bluegrass mood lately. Not sure why... I guess since I grew up around this stuff, there's still a soft spot in my heart for it. My dad would be proud! Enjoy a little with me:

random golf blog

2008-06-19T09:29:00.000-07:00

Well, I just got back from a visit to PA to see my family. I did a lot, but what was especially fun was the two golf tournaments I played with my dad and brother. Good times, but one small fact became painfully obvious: I suck. I wish I could play like I think I can actually play. Ya know?

Which reminds me... Why is everyone so amazed that Tiger Woods won the US Open with a torn ACL? I guess it's impressive, but it's also kind of stupid. It's not like this was the world series or superbowl, and that his team hasn't made it that far in 80 years. It's the US Open. It happens every year. Let you knee heal. Listen to your doctors. Win it next year. Instead, he risks his career by playing on a torn ACL. Smart.

Hey, enjoy this video of my brother hitting a golf ball on the 10th tee of Waynesborough Country Club in Paoli, PA:

...or it's yours for FREE!

2008-05-16T11:19:00.000-07:00

Ok, time for another pointless rant. You've all heard the marketing where a retailer offers to beat anyone's advertised price or they will give you the product for free. If you're from LA, you know about Larry the mattress guy who uses this technique... (You're killing me Larry!)

I'm in Binghamton, NY this weekend and I heard a used car advertiser on the radio saying he will beat any advertised price or he will give you the car for free plus an extra $5000. "5 Gs and the keys!" Ridiculous!

And let me tell you why. Do you really think these people are going to give you the product for free? Let's say I want to buy a 06 Accord from the guy. He's selling one for $18000. I find the same one advertised for $16500. So his choices are to sell it to me for less than that (beat the advertised price) or give me the car plus $5000. Uh, gee. What's he gonna do?! Will he take maybe a couple hundred dollar hit on the car or lose the car and five grand? Or will Larry sell me a mattress for a little less than he would like, or will he give me the mattress and lose all the money he had in it?

This is just the stupidest marketing ploy I've ever heard. Am I the only one that sees through this crap? Am I the only one so entirely furious about this? Ok, I'm not really that mad, but come on! I think we're smarter than this.

I guess one thing these people could be saying is, "I can sell this product for cheaper than anyone else because I paid less for it than other retailers, but you have to do the work to get the cheap price. You have to find it cheaper and prove it or I'm taking you to the bank."

Nice.

some music I like

2008-05-12T12:29:00.000-07:00

It’s not secret. I like music. And lately, I’ve been trying hard to listen to a lot of different stuff, just trying to broaden my horizons musically. Here’s some stuff that I like:

Delirious: Kingdom of Comfort

I’ve never been much of a Delirious fan, but I love this new record. Thematically, it’s right where I am right now. Many of the songs are about social justice, reaching out, dealing with life, etc. It’s a smart and well written record (with the exception of a few rough tracks). Try “God is Smiling,” “Wonder,” “Break the Silence,” and “Kingdom of Comfort”

Gavin DeGraw: Self-titled

It’s been a long time coming, but finally Gavin came out with a new record. It’s pretty good for the most part. Gavin seems to be able to get away with some weird stuff that would not work for anyone else. His melodies are interesting, and some are really catchy, but I think it would be hard for anyone else to translate his songs. There’s some pretty awful tracks, but most are good. Try “Let it Go,” “I’m in Love with a Girl,” “Cop Stop,” and “Relative.”

Jonny Lang: Turn Around

This one’s a few years old, I think, but it’s really great. Jonny’s pretty talented as a writer and his grooves are sick! This albums a great lesson in playing on the back of the beat. Try “The Other Side of the Fence,” “Thankful,” and “Anything’s Possible.”

Alicia Keys, As I Am

I don’t know much about Alicia’s music, but she collaborated with John Mayer, and that’s all I need to know. Ok, not really, but I do like this record. She’s creative and emotional in her writing and singing. Try “No One,” “The Thing About Love,” and “Lesson Learned.”

India Arie, Testimony, Vol. 1 Life and Relationship

This woman is slowly taking my #2 favorite artist spot. She’s a lot like Gavin in the way that she can get away with so much in her writing. She can write so literally and still make it believable. And her voice will change your life, no doubt. If you want something real, soulful, uplifting, and downright spiritual, this is it (and all her other albums). Try “There’s Hope,” “Private Party,” “The Heart of the Matter,” and “Good Mourning.”

Guilty Pleasure – Daughtry: Self-titled

Yeah, he was an American Idol contestant. So what. Does that mean he can’t make good music… ok, maybe the odds are against him. But this is good! Well produced, well written, well performed. It’s good stuff, I promise! Try “It’s Not Over,” “What I Want,” “Breakdown,” and “Feels Like Tonight."

Ok, more later...

epi

2008-04-29T19:48:00.001-07:00

So I kind of made an idiot of myself last night during my Greek reading class... this may be a little hard to explain, but I'll try.

There's a preposition in Greek that is used often and with many different meanings. The preposition is transliterated "epi". So we were trying to figure out what it meant in a certain context, and my Greek prof, the famous David Keifer, said, "Everything takes epi at some point."

I laughed because I thought he was making a joke by using a double entendre. He looked at me as if to say, "Please, share." So I told him how I thought he was making a joke by saying, "Everything takes a pee at some point."

Apparently he wasn't trying to say that and didn't think my joke was very funny. oops.

tired

2008-04-17T08:50:00.000-07:00

My new schedule is killing me! Let's review:

Monday:
Fuller Admissions: 8 to 5
Greek Reading: 6:30 to 8:30

Tuesday:
IHC: 9 to 5

Wednesday:
Fuller Admissions: 8 to 3
Perspectives on Christ and Culture: 3 to 6
Greek Reading: 6:30 to 8:30

Thursday:
IHC 1 to 9

Friday:
Fuller Admissions: 8 to 12
Softball: 12:30 to 3 (ok, that's just fun)

Saturday:
IHC: 3:30 to 7:30

Sunday:
IHC 7:30 to 12:30

Oh, and class work somewhere in between all of those.

But one thing I can say is that I love my new Thursday mornings... sleep in a little. Do some work. Leave by 12:30. It's great!

Not much of a blog here, I realize. But it's been a while, and I can't keep my fan waiting.

Sometimes you just gotta praise him

2008-04-04T16:43:00.000-07:00

We're just not ready... or are we?

2008-03-31T13:57:00.001-07:00

I would like to follow up on something here… a few months ago I wrote about Obama and Hillary and the possibility of someone voting for a non-white or woman president just to “break the mold.” There’s more to that, and you can read it below.

I did have a follow-up thought to add. If McCain (since he is the Republican nominee) beats either Obama or Clinton, there is a possibility that many people would begin to say something to the effect of, “This country is just not ready for a non-white, non-male president…” as if to suggest we’re not as culturally enlightened as we think we are.

But is that really the case? If McCain was elected, would that really mean we are still racist and sexist? Or could it possibly mean he was the better choice?

All of this is not to say we, as a nation, are in a great place in terms of race and gender equality. There is always much work to be done.

But at the same time, I think we ARE ready for a non-white or non-male president! And I think we should make those types of statements now. If someone really thinks we are not ready, then the result of the election should not change his or her mind.

I guess one thing that I'm saying is that, if the election goes to McCain, I don't want to hear people saying, "we're just not ready." To me, that's a copout. Say it now if you believe it.

more Bill

2008-03-30T19:15:00.000-07:00

Best song intro... ever.

A simpler time

2008-03-26T00:52:00.001-07:00

Watch this video and try not to say, "uuuhhhh," Barry White style:

Paramorons

2008-03-19T12:04:00.000-07:00

A little experiment me and my friend Ryan are working on...

Hypochondriacs make me sick.
Melodramatic people are ruining my life!
People who never finish their sentences really make me
People who use figures of speech are the cat’s meow.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I think about emotionally unstable people.
I’m not sure how I feel about indecisive people.
Sentimental people are so sweet!
Prepositions are terrible words to end sentences with.
Self-Centered people always interrupt me when I'm trying to talk
People who use metaphors ought to shampoo my crotch
People who state the obvious always point out things that most people think are obvious.
I just can’t handle intolerant people.
People who are vain make me look bad.
Racist people make me angrier than Asian drivers.
People who work on an assembly line have another thing coming.
People who ramble on are so frustrating because it seems like they never know exactly when to stop making the point they are trying to make even well after it seems like they made their point they just go on and on and don’t stop no matter how much you want them to stop or no matter how well they made the point they are trying to make.
People who think they are humble are not as humble as me.
People who repeat themselves repeat themselves.
People with bad grammars, is so! hard to around with.
I really, really, really hate whiny people so much!
I remembered how much I hate people who name-drop when I was hanging out with John Mayer's manager last week.
I know more than a few ambiguous people.
I’m really put off by people who procrastinate.
Abbrevs are sweeping the naysh.
I just don’t get it when people feel misunderstood.
People with low self-esteem are just not worth my time.

Why I Love LA

2008-03-18T16:13:00.000-07:00

Tonight, the day after St. Patrick's Day, I'm going with a French guy, two Belgian guys, a guy from Indiana, and a Mexican girl to hear some Latin Jazz at a place that only makes Baked Potatoes just across the street from Universal City. What?

I heart diet Coke

2008-03-12T12:50:00.000-07:00

I'm over this whole "Diet Coke is so horrible" thing. "Don't drink anything with aspartame in it! It's a poison!" Right. So is caffeine. So is water for God's sake! You can actually die by drinking too much water. So get off it already! People have been drinking diet soda for a long time with no detriment to their health.

Sure if you drink it in huge quantities, it will probably mess you up. But so will too much pasta or too much fruit. I know someone who ate too many carrots and drank too much carrot juice and literally turned orange.

That being said, I do want to warn everyone of the dangers of drinking Diet Cherry Chocolate Dr. Pepper. This stuff is a poison to your taste buds. It's like drinking a liquid tootsie pop. Nasty! For the love of real diet soda, stay away from this filth.

Barack O'Clinton (from xanga)

2008-03-07T18:12:00.000-08:00

#2 from xanga. I wrote this one a while ago before it was just Clinton and Obama in the race for the Democratic Nomination. After Super Tuesday, we realized just how much what I wrote about was actually happening. So many women who did the exit polls were saying how they just "had to vote for Hillary because she's a woman..." Sad. here it is:

I want to tread very lightly here as I type out the following thoughts... This is just a theory, and I don't want anyone to be too offended. But here's what I'm thinking:

I haven't really decided on which Presidential hopeful is the best choice for '08, but I'm a little concerned at this point. My general thought lately has been that, if we're being honest, the first non-white, non-male president does not necessarily have to have been the best of the candidates. The fact that such a person is non-white and non-male already gives him or her a head start. My fear is that we will be too eager to break the ol' white male only presidential mold to pick the most capable candidate.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear. Let me preface by saying that I believe the day this country has a female or non-white President will be a great day! It will be a beautiful display of the amount of progress we have made as a country, and will also most likely bring the amount of work we have left to do to the surface. It truly will be no small thing when we have this person as our leader.

But I'm afraid the desire to hasten that day will be strong enough to influence any one of us to choose an inferior candidate because of race or sex. That would really be a mistake.

Now I'm not saying anything against the two candidates who fit the above profiles running in the current election. It may be that one of them is really the best person for this country. But if that is not the case, I'm worried one of those people would be elected hastily in order to break the mold and prove to the world we're not as racist and sexist as they all think.

But wouldn't it be equally as racist or as sexist to vote FOR a candidate simply because of the color of his or her skin or the sex she so happens to be? If racism can be partially defined as judging the quality of a person by the color of his or her skin, then shouldn't that go both ways, whether they are judged to be less qualified or more qualified simply by that standard?

Am I making sense or am I just sounding like a white male?

clawed my way to victory

2008-03-03T14:11:00.000-08:00

I had an interesting experience at Dave and Busters on Saturday night. I got bored with the arcade games, so I decided to try my luck at the claw stuffed animal machine thingy. You know what I'm talking about: Those frustrating glass cases with all the wonderful stuffed animals and the most ineffective grabbing claw ever created. Most people think these things should have a big sign on them that says, "Don't bother. You're not getting anything. Just drop your coins in and walk away."

Well I had heard some "tips" on how to beat these things (don't ask my why such information would even be important to me), so I decided to give it a try. To get to the point, I went 14 for about 20. That's 14 crappy stuffed animals out of 20 tries! Not bad odds... I was doing so great that the lady had to come and keep filling the machine.

So I thought it would be cool to let my readers (both of them) in on my experienced tips. Here they are:

1. Don't look for what you want, look for what you can get.

-Most people approach the machine and look for a toy they would really want and go for that. This is problematic because what you want might not actually be accessible. It's better to actually win something than try for what you want and never get it. It's best to survey the pile and see what is ripe for the picking. The next tips help you decide which is best.

2. Go for a toy that's resting softly on the top and not under any other toys.

-We all know how weak those claws are, and that there is no chance they will pull anything up that's under something else. So try to go for something that has no part under anything else.

3. Go for a toy that's in the middle.

-Since the claw has such terrible range, you have to go for something that's toward the middle of the pile. The toys around the edge are probably too close to the glass to grab right.

4. Go for a toy with "grabable shape."

-Something long and skinny will probably be difficult to grab. Look for something with a size and shape that would be perfect for the claw. Something with a big head or body would work great. Also, check to see if you can grab the string or tag of a toy.

5. Go for a toy near the edge of the chute.

-There may be something close to the hole that you can just nudge with the claw and it will drop in the chute. Then you don't even have to worry about the claw and it's terrible grabbing power.

6. Go for a toy that's up high.

-These claws have terrible range, so a lower toy might be out of reach of the claw. Then you're screwed and there goes 50 cents.

7. Take your time.

-You usually have a time limit before the claw automatically goes, so use the whole time if you need it. Go to the side of the machine to check your angle to make sure you get the perfect grab. There's nothing worse than hitting the button and finding out you had the right "left-to-right" position but weren't deep enough or shallow enough.

That should give you a good start. Have fun cleaning out the machines. Fight the power!

diversity and soda (from xanga)

2008-02-29T09:47:00.000-08:00

Here's a blog I originally posted for xanga. Not new, but worth reposting:

I think diversity (in terms of racial/ethnic/cultural/etc diversity) is a lot like soda. Think about how many different kinds of soda are out there: Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Sprite, Mt. Dew, Cherry Coke or Pepsi, Fresca, Grape, Birch/Root Beer, and on and on. And each kind has a diet version. In some cases, there are kinds that have extra caffeine versions. So the possibilities are endless.

But in terms of color, there aren't very many sodas: brown, clear, yellowish, purple, maybe a few more. So if we look at the diversity of soda in terms of appearance, we are really looking at it in a limited sense. But when we consider flavors, the possibilities become endless. Sure, Dr. Pepper and Diet Coke might both be brown, but they have very different flavors. Sprite and Sierra Mist Free (or whatever it's called) may both be clear, but one has a ton of sugar and the other has caffeine (at least I think...). So to just talk about the color of soda really limits the discussion of diversity.

I'm sure you figure out where I'm going here. A lot of people may look at a group of people and say, "I see a lot of white people. That's not very diverse." But is this really fair to say? Pick any two of the white people from that crowd and you will find two very different cultural backgrounds. And really, isn't that what diversity's all about? Or should we just limit it to color?

So the question could become, "What is diversity, really?" Is it different skin colors? Or is it different cultural backgrounds. Think of it like this: there are many families that have adopted children of a different race when they are very young. These children then grow up in a certain culture that may be very different than the culture of their specific ethnicity. Say a family has one child and adopts another of a different ethnicity. Are those two children very different from each other just because of skin color? Or does the culture in which they were raised determine who they are?

I guess what I'm getting at is that we have really limited the discussion on diversity by making it about color. In one sense, you could say this actually works against diversity since it limits it to a kind of stereotype. It may cause someone to look at a group of people who appear to be the same "color" and consider them all to be pretty much the same.

I guess I'm not ok with that.

Hallow... I mean, Hallo!

2008-02-28T10:57:00.000-08:00

So I have been blogging with xanga a little, and I thought it was about time to graduate to a big persons blog (is that what this is?). I'll probably being doing one of three things here: writing some deep thoughts, writing something stupid, or posting something I wrote on my xanga that's worth reposting.

So for all you Jon Damiani fans out there (Hi Mom!), I hope you like what I have to say.

Here's a little about me: I live in Pasadena and am married to the beautiful Nikki Damiani... been married for about 4 and a half years. I go to school at Fuller Seminy(I’m in the “take-too-long-doing-too-little” program), and I also have the pleasure of working there in the admissions department. I love music and have an unhealthy love for John Mayer. I know, I know. Criticize me all you want. The man’s got it going on.

Ok, now that my first blog has turned very awkward, I'm going to end it abruptly with out any punctuation