Eric Clapton on Recovery

I've been reading his autobiography, Clapton, and just came across the following passage, describing his "rock bottom" moment. Amazing:

"I stumbled through my month in treatment much as I had done the first time, just ticking off the days, hoping that something would change in me without me having to do much about it. Then one day, as my visit was drawing to an end, a panic hit me, and I realized that in fact nothing had changed in me, and that I was going back out into the world again completely unprotected. The noise in my head was deafening, and drinking was in my thoughts all the time. It shocked me to realize that here I was in a treatment center, a supposedly safe environment, and I was in serious danger. I was absolutely terrified, in complete despair.

At that moment, almost of their own accord, my legs gave way and I fell to my knees. In the privacy of my room I begged for help. I had no notion who I thought I was talking to, I just knew that I had come to the end of my tether, I had nothing left to fight with. Then I remembered what I had heard about surrender, something I thought I could never do, my pride just wouldn't allow it, but I knew that on my own I wasn't going to make it, so I asked for help, and, getting down on my knees, I surrendered.

Within a few days I realized that something had happened for me. An atheist would probably say it was just a change of attitude, and to a certain extent that's true, but there was much more to it than that. I had found a place to turn to, a place I'd always known was there but never really wanted, or needed, to believe in. From that day until this, I have never failed to pray in the morning, on my knees, asking for help, and at night, to express gratitude for my life and, most of all, for my sobriety. I choose to kneel because I feel I need to humble myself when I pray, and with my ego, this is the most I can do." (pg. 235-36)

Individualism, Community and Kafka

A few thoughts from our good friend David Browder :

If one is to enter any sort of seminary situation or spend time in any form of Christian subculture, that person will encounter two things. They are two sides of the same coin. One is “community” and the other is Western individualism. The first (one is told) is good and the second is bad. I have been doing some thinking on both and would like to publicly “air” out what I have come up with. Perhaps the reader can contribute something that would help me come to terms with this interesting issue.

Western individualism has always been a bogeyman in various circles. What makes someone from the West different from someone from the East, North, or South is a real mystery to me. We know from the third chapter of Romans that everyone is universally the same. This was written from a Middle Eastern perspective, too. Still, Western individualism is quite famous, so maybe we ought to give it some credence.

In doing so, I have come up with this: Western individualism is a reaction against the Western tendency to suppress the individual and de-value it. Think first of Western systems of government and political theory. On the Left, there are policies based on redistribution between classes. If not totally Marxist, they are at least influenced by his thought. On the Right, there is a free market system based on the utilization of roles and the growth of capital. While theoretically opposed, they have at least one thing in common. Individual dignity is diminished in favor of broader attachments to groups or production.

Western individualism is a reaction against an often violent (physically, emotionally, or any other way) attempt by society to “knock off” the rough edges of the individual for the purposes of smooth running. Is it any wonder existentialism came about? Or Thoreau’s and Emerson’s lauding of the “non-conformist”? These movements did not arise out of nothing. They were reactions to a tearing down of individual integrity.

Consider Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. Gregor, the protagonist, turns into a dung beetle. He loses his job and, after a short period of compassion from his family, loses them, too. Soon, he is neglected to the point that he starves to death. As heavy as it is, Gregor lost his value as a living being when he lost his ability to produce and provide. Western individualism is a form of hurt that any region of the world would experience when faced with the same outlook.

The Christian equivalent to this crushing of the individual is the emphasis on “community”. There is great chatter about “the nations,” “the people of God,” and “intentional community”. The idea here is to exhort Christians into a form of Christian community or group them into some ethereal mass. Like earlier forms of Christian exhortation, it reflects a profound misunderstanding of Law and Gospel. The salve to individualism is not condemnation or exhortation. It is the Gospel. It is plain in the actions of Jesus.

“Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!' "I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” This is one of the three parables in Luke 15. Jesus is retorting the charges of the Pharisees that he “eats with sinners”. In all three of the parables, Jesus uses examples of individuals. He seeks and saves individuals.

Interestingly enough, these sought-and-saved individuals tend to form communities, both organically and spontaneously. Without exhortation. This is the difference between Law and Gospel. The Law cannot enact the changes it demands. The Gospel communicates a one-way love that actually creates love. It is from the Gospel that community is created. The Balm of Gilead and the comforting of the sinner. Not the Law, not exhortation, not abstract “groupthink” and not condemnation.

On guilt: Some excerpts from Clinical Theology (vol. 1) by Frank Lake

It seems to me that a staple of Christian life (even if we aren't willing to admit it!) is the phenomenon of "feeling guilty". Even though we know our sins have been forgiven, we still feel guilty (sometimes even more guilty than we otherwise would feel?) for a LOT of things - for spending too much time obsessing about (and sometimes coveting) new gadgets (i.e., pretty much everything in the Apple store), for spending money on a new dress that you didn't really need, for not having gone on the run you said you'd go on (last week), for secretly disliking someone who is a friend, for not having done the laundry, for forgetting the birthday of someone important, the list goes on. Sometimes we even feel guilty about feeling guilty! Since it's such a "live" phenomenon in Christian life, I thought I'd throw in a few excerpts on a clinical theological treatment on guilt by Frank Lake. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what you think!

"What is recommended in clinical theology is not an indiscriminate relief of guilt feelings. It proclaims true guilt and the forgiveness of guilt."
(p. 224)

"The Christian is not interested in condemning persons for unrighteousness, whether it be law-breaking or raging at real or imaginary injustice. He does not condemn this coming short of the law's demand, because the inference would be that he was prepared to approve of its opposite, that is, the ability to justify oneself by having performed the works of the law, or by having ceased to rage, either by displacing it or repressing it." (p. 224)

"There is no danger whatever that any man exposed to the clinical theological approach is going to go away with the feeling that, since his neurotic guilt has been lifted, he is thereby freed of guilt, of all guilt. His actual guilt, as over against the goodness of God, is established, in order that by the further goodness of God in Christ it too may be dissolved." (p. 225)

"Morality created an impasse, for it laid the onus of maintaining the good relationship between ourselves and God on our own moral effort. It laid the onus of restoring the relationship, broken by our evil, on our own reparative toil. The more seriously we took this task in hand, the more self-directed activity resulted. The goal that motivated our good works was our own good, rather than the good of others. The very success of this moralistic way of 'keeping in' with God and conscience tended to self-sufficiency, self-congratulation, and pride in some subtle form. At every stage of this law-centred way of working out our own merited relationship with God, we were faced either with the impasse of failure or the paradoxical impasses of 'success'." (p. 227)

Only God Can Judge Me

Over the past few weeks I have had a number of conversations where I was asked to clarify my/our use of the terms "judgment" and "love". So, I thought I would write a short explanation for the blogosphere.

In our recent book, Judgment and Love, I attempt to define these terms and explain their relevance to understanding our lives. I wanted to present them as being purely descriptive in nature. Here is an excerpt from the introduction:

"Judgment and love [are] primary forces acting on everyday life. In almost any situation, one can identify either or both at play. We constantly react to judgment (and the fear it inspires) and respond to love.

Human culture employs a rich body of synonymous terms for judgment and love. Judgment may occur in the form of a demand, something a person must fulfill or a standard to which one must adhere. It may also be an expectation or evaluation of one's performance. However it manifests, judgment is always conditional in nature: "You will be accepted if you do _____." Love, on the other hand, is always unconditional. It is acceptance without equivocation. It is understanding, and forgiveness. Love includes no aspect of judgment, and simply declares: "You are accepted."

I often use a Paul Zahl phrase from which I think much of the confusion stems: "Judgment kills love, and love births goodness." I have heard some confuse this phrase as the Gospel, or, at least, it has been understood that we are presenting it as the Gospel. This phrase and the use of these terms are, again, meant to be descriptive. We certainly do believe that it is a true phrase, but it is not the Gospel, rather it points to the Gospel. It describes the situation to which the Gospel was given. People live under judgment and are in desperate need of love.

If I were to leave it here, we still would not have any Good News. You could say to me, "That's great Sean. Thanks for the hot tip." It is obvious that no one likes judgment and everyone wants to be loved. Just listen to the radio. Artists like Jay-Z are asking "Where's the love?"

But we are not talking about just any judgment and love here. We cannot divorce these terms from their theological synonyms: law and grace. All forms of judgment are indeed painful, but what we're really talking about here is the judgment of God. As Tupac once said, "Only God can judge me." The law of God is the standard of which we fall short, and therefore we deserve God's judgment.

The same is true of love. Grace and love are great in a general sense, but, again, we are talking about something specific: the grace and love of God. Our only hope against His judgment is His love. So what's the Good News? What is the Gospel? The Gospel is the "how". It is how God gives us His grace and love, which saves us from the judgment of His law. God gives us grace through the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ.

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor. 5:21)

Jesus willingly suffered all of the judgment of the law (which we deserve) so that we might receive nothing but the love of God. This is the Gospel, and this is our message of God's love over God's judgment.

Grace In Practice - Reviewed! (Happy Birthday)

In honor of his birthday, which is tomorrow, I thought I'd post some excerpts of the glowing review that appeared in this month's issue of Modern Reformation magazine of my father's latest book, Grace In Practice. If you haven't read the book, you really should. And if you're not familiar with the magazine, do yourself a favor! It begins:

"It has been a long time since I have read a book that has portrayed such an important topic in such a progressive manor. I found myself stopping numerous times through the first 50 pages wondering if I had understood what the author was saying-not because this is a hard book to read, but because it was so refreshing. I found myself reflecting on the truthful yet raw way Paul Zahl articulates his points on the law, grace, and practical living. With edgy and un-conventional terminology, Zahl's straightforward approach to explaining the origin and application of the law and grace are both informative and invigorating."

The reviewer continues:

"Zahl reminds us that there is nothing inherently wrong with the law; it is our sinful inability to adhere to the law that drives us toward something more. 'Jesus recognized the inability of the law, which shows us exactly who we ought to be, to provide its own fulfillment. Christ did not say the law is bad. He said instead the law is wholly good. But most importantly, he said that the law is no skilled mechanic. It cannot fix what is broken'. In our brokenness we innately desire to be comforted and loved. In our desire for love we find insufficiency. In our insufficiency we find a deep need. Zahl stirs up these reminders as he sets forth the healing to our brokenness, the one who is sufficient, and the love we long for."

Next:

"Comparing and expounding on the law and society, motivation of loss, everyday life, and its curse, [Zahl] demonstrates the very depth and presence of the law... After unleashing the law that 'reduces its object, the human spirit, to despair', Zahl subtly begins to introduce the transforming concept of grace. Carrying the reader through the traditional definitions of grace and then in his practical undertones resting on the foundational truth that grace is one-way love (1 John 4:9), he notes that grace is independent of its response but often begets it."

Then:

"[Zahl] goes on to explore four rich theological pillars of grace: anthropology, soteriology, Christology, and the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity. With each pillar, Zahl pulls both the theological and practical implications of grace to the forefront. He emphasizes the necessity of Christ's substitutionary atonement and our total depravity. He also promotes the unpopular view of man having an un-free will. He defends his position stating that 'a theology of everyday life depends on the un-free will. If the will is free, then we do not need someone to save us. We may need a helper, but we do not need a savior'."

Finally:

"Chapters 3 through 6 are filled with exposition on grace in families, society, the church, and the culmination of grace in everything. Whether it is a political philosophy, the family structure, or the church universal, we can ask the question 'Where does grace fit in?'... It does not take long to understand that embracing a grace-filled life is something that scares both the church and the world. Zahl wraps up by pointing out that 'neither environment (church or the world) is safe. This is why I wish to stand in only one specific place, even if it continually moves. This is the place of God's one-way love and its imputing accuracy, which rescues the human situation in every case where it is given play. It witnesses no sector of human affairs immune to the disease, but also none immune to the cure'. This book is rich, practical, challenging, and encouraging. It breathes new life into the timeless truth of grace."

Three More From Flannery O'Connor (Plus One)

From her essay, "The Regional Writer":

"When Walker Percy won the National Book Award, newsmen asked him why there were so many good Southern writers and he said, 'Because we lost the War.' He didn't mean by that simply that a lost war makes good subject matter. What he was saying was that we have had our Fall. We have gone into the modern world with an inburnt knowledge of human limitations and with a sense of mystery which could not have developed in our first state of innocence - as it has not sufficiently developed in the rest of our country."

From her essay, "On Her Own Work":

"I suppose the reasons for the use of so much violence in modern fiction will differ with each writer who uses it, but in my own stories I have found that violence is strangely capable of returning my characters to reality and preparing them to accept their moment of grace. Their heads are so hard that almost nothing else will do the work. This idea, that reality is something to which we must be returned at considerable cost, is one which is seldom understood by the casual reader, but it is one which is implicit in the Christian view of the world."

From her essay, "The Fiction Writer & His Country":

"To know oneself is, above all, to know what one lacks. It is to measure oneself against Truth, and not the other way around. The first product of self-knowledge is humility, and this is not a virtue conspicuous in any national character."

And just in case you missed it the first time around, from her essay "On Her Own Work":

"I have found, in short, from reading my own writing, that my subject in fiction is the action of grace in territory held largely by the devil."

LarkNews and LoftLife

Not sure if you keep up with Lark News, the genuinely funny satirical Christian news site, but Mbird friend Cliff Swartz recently forwarded me a great piece they published a few years ago, which I felt was particularly appropriate considering the Superhero Summer we've just embarked on:

Bibleman Invited To Join Superfriends

And on a separate, more self-promotional note, my wife Cate has just spearheaded the launch of a new shelter magazine called LoftLife. Their awesome website went live last week and everyone should check it out (and order a free issue). This morning they posted my 4 Step Guide To Going Vinyl, which will change your life.

John Donne and Reformation-Anglican spirituality

One of the main points of pastoral contention between Puritans, Catholics and Anglicans, at least during the turn of the 16th century, was over the question of "concupiscence," or sin, remaining in the believer. Both the Catholics and the Puritans, although with different theological reasons, forced the Christian into a state of angst-ridden introspection. For the former, the ever-present fear of sudden death in a state of mortal sin gave rise to compulsive "Eucharist" taking. For the latter, even the genuine, heartfelt sense of being saved could be (what William Perkins called) a "real, but not effectual, calling."

Then there were the real "via-media" Anglicans. Contrary to popular belief, they were more of a halfway point between Geneva and Wittenburg than between Rome and London. With Calvin and the Puritans, Anglicans could rest doctrinally in God's sovereignty as a "most wholesome doctrine," particularly because it gave people the assurance of extrinsic--completely outside of themselves--Justification. And pastorally, with the Lutherans, Anglicans such as Donne would point not to any sense of "growth" or "moral progress," but to an ever-deepening sense of their own moral failings and unworthiness, which would put the mercies of God in Christ in that much starker relief. Here is a poem from Donne, one of such Anglicans--Enjoy!

A HYMN TO GOD THE FATHER.
by John Donne

I.
WILT Thou forgive that sin where I begun,
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin, through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

II.
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I have won
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

III.
I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore ;
But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore ;
And having done that, Thou hast done ;
I fear no more.

Mid-May Mix: The Covers

Every once in a while, I get obsessed with covers: both the good and the bad. Click here to spin/sample/download. I hope you agree with me JoJo isn't all that bad when someone else sings her songs! Give her music a second chance. You'll like it!

1. Faith (George Michael) - The Boy Least Likely To
2. This Modern Love (Bloc Party) - Smoosh
3. Too Little Too Late (JoJo) - Daniel Rossen
4. Cowgirl in the Sand (Neil Young) - Marissa Nadler
5. Kid A (Radiohead) - John Mayer
6. Ocean of Noise (Arcade Fire) - Calexico
7. Maps (Yeah Yeah Yeahs) - Arcade Fire
8. You're Cheatin Heart (Hank Williams) - Beck
9. Ignition (R. Kelly) - Bonnie Prince Billy
10. Wonderwall (Oasis) - Cat Power
11. Revolution (Beatles) - Elliot Smith
12. Wild Horses (Rolling Stones) - Iron & Wine/Calexico
13. All You Need is Love (Beatles) - Rogue Wave
14. Love Will Tear us Apart (Joy Division) - U2 and Arcade Fire
15. Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Cindy Lauper) - Ben Gibbard
16. I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor (Artic Monkeys) - Sugababes
17. Crazy in Love (Beyonce) - Snow Patrol

Mbird-Approved Christian Rock

As promised, here’s my stab at a playlist of legitimately great Christian rock songs, in response to the one Daniel Radosh posted on the NY Times blog. The criteria I used were:

1. The song had to be something that could honestly be called Christian Rock. Clearly, tons of “secular” music references Jesus, and huge amounts of it deal with Christian themes, sometimes very explicitly. But we wouldn’t call those songs Christian Rock (that’s a playlist for another day). At the same time, by Christian Rock I don’t necessarily mean CCM (Christian Contemporary Music), which is what you hear on the radio mostly. Instead, these songs all come from outspokenly Christian artists, who, even if they wouldn’t be comfortable with the term “Christian Rock”, wouldn’t be surprised by it either. I know I’m stretching things with Pedro and Sufjan (and Elvis!) but I couldn’t resist.

2. I took seriously the word “rock”. I love gospel, but there’s none here. Same goes for country and worship music.

3. They had to be songs I hadn’t already included on a Mockingbird playlist. Or songs on Radosh’s mix.

4. Finally, each song had to be something I’d listen to/recommend regardless of lyrical content (that is, unless the lyrics were bad).

Here goes:

1. I’m Coming Home – Tommy James
2. I’ve Got Confidence – Elvis Presley
3. (He’s Got) The Whole World In His Hands – Dion
4. To Guard And To Guide You – Lift To Experience
5. Of Minor Prophets And Their Prostitute Wives – Pedro The Lion
6. A New Law – Derek Webb
7. Dead Man (Carry Me) – Jars Of Clay
8. All I Need Is Everything – Over The Rhine
9. Less Than Love – The Normals
10. Jesus Loves You, Brian Wilson – The Lost Dogs
11. Life On Other Planets – Vigilantes Of Love
12. Jesus Gonna Build Me A Home – John Davis
13. I Believe In You – Bob Dylan
14. Jesus Never Leaves Me - Duvall
15. The Transfiguration – Sufjan Stevens
16. Ten Thousand Angels – Caedmon’s Call

To listen/borrow, click here.

Looking at the list, I realize a lot of it comes from artists who’ve had dramatic mid-career conversions (Tommy James, Dion, John Davis, Dylan, Duvall). Interesting. I also realize there’s a Waterdeep-sized hole, which hopefully Sean can help us out with.

So… What did I miss? What should I have missed?

Who's on first, second, third?

I came across the following New York Times article today: "Koreans Agog as Off-Screen Soap Becomes Courtroom Drama." Being of Korean descent, it captured my attention immediately. The article details the affects of the South Korean adultery law, "which prohibits extramarital affairs and can land those found guilty in prison for up to two years." South Korea is one of the few non-Muslim countries with such a law making adultery punishable with a jail sentence. Who knew?

As I read the article, I started wondering how to look at the situation in terms of the different uses of the Law--Civil, Theological/Pedagogical and Didactic (the last one is debatable, I know!). One of the main purposes of the South Korean adultery statute is to protect women in a culture that has traditionally given adulterous men more rights. Clearly, such laws seek to protect, just like the 10 Commandments. Yet, they also indicate how morally bankrupt we are. Who would need the law if we weren't prone to commit adultery and other harmful acts? Yet, I'm also aware that although laws may prohibit behavior, they can never change our inward dispositions.

So with that said, take a look at the article and feel free to comment on how the different uses interact. Click here.

While we are on Korean things, check out this tasty goodness from South Korea, now available in the United States. Why does "South" and "Fried" always go together?

Emily Dickinson - Poem 1656

Down Time's quaint stream
Without an oar
We are enforced to sail
Our Port a secret
Our Perchance a Gale
What Skipper would
Incur the Risk
What Buccaneer would ride
Without a surety from the Wind
Or schedule of the Tide —

Sewage Pond

I thought I'd pass this video along. Profoundly simple parable of the Christian life. Check it out... The last 2 min. are the best...

Mr. T

Dylan Quote - "Brownsville Girl"

Second-to-last verse of the 11-minute epic from 1986:

You always said people don't do what they believe in,
they just do what's most convenient, then they repent.
And I always said, "Hang on to me, baby,
and let's hope that the roof stays on."

Charles Bukowski and the Importance of Depravity in Art

“Philippians 4:8--
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”

These words have inspired a lot of bad art. False art. When taken outside of the Gospel context, they have made artists (and I include myself here) look beyond the cross, beyond Jesus, for that which is beautiful.

Perhaps it is because the TRUE image of Christ on the cross is nothing if not an image of total human depravity. A picture of humanity’s failure to be true, noble, right, pure, lovely and admirable. It was not a victory, it was a defeat. A tragedy of incomparable proportions.

When I read the words of Charles Bukowski, one of my favorite poets, I am reminded of what we are incapable of:

there's no chance
at all:
we are all trapped
by a singular
fate.

nobody ever finds
the one.

the city dumps fill
the junkyards fill
the madhouses fill
the hospitals fill
the graveyards fill

nothing else
fills.

(Excerpt from ‘alone with everybody’ by Charles Bukowski)

Artists like Bukowski or Anne Sexton or Elliot Smith were INFLICTED by the failure of humanity. It’s an understatement to say that their inability to be anything but transparent in this regard was a burden to them.

When depravity is denied, art becomes a pathetic commercial for a belief system. Another word for this is Propaganda. (Admittedly, I have a huge obsession with some propaganda, but we’ll get to that at a later date). But when depravity is realized there is "transparency" in the craft. And it is through this transparency, this mirror of our depravity, that Grace allows the truth, nobility, righteousness, purity, excellence and praiseworthiness of Christ to be revealed.

Ultimately, in Christian art or non-Christian art, the victory of the resurrection is diluted in the denial of depravity.

Rapture Ready-Approved Christian Rock

As a follow-up to Aaron's excellent post the other day, William Writes alerted me that Daniel Radosh, author of Rapture Ready, recently posted an annotated playlist of his favorite Christian rock songs on the NY Times blog. I thought his introduction was particularly good:

"This is a list of 10 great Christian rock songs. Really. I know what you’re thinking. I’m a secular Jew who always took it for granted that Christian rock stinks. Indeed, until a couple of years ago I knew virtually nothing about Christian rock except that it stinks. But after spending time inside the “evangelical bubble” I had to admit I was mistaken. It turns out there’s Christian music that never gets played on those radio stations you accidentally stumble across on road trips — and that doesn’t reduce all expressions of faith to crass evangelism, anodyne praise, or crypto-romance."

The list ("Ten Great Christian Rock Songs. Really") could use some work but isn't that bad:

1. Larry Norman - Why Don't You Look into Jesus?
2. Sixpence None the Richer - Kiss Me
3. Over the Rhine - Born
4. Bob Dylan - Every Grain of Sand
5. The 77s - The Lust, The Flesh, The Eyes and the Pride of Life
6. Pedro the Lion - Rapture
7. mewithoutYou - Nice and Blue (part 2)
8. Jonathan Rundman - My Apology
9. Vigilantes of Love - You Know That
10. Andy Hunter - Come On

You can stream it here.

So what's he missing? I'll work on a playlist, if you will... And speaking of Larry Norman, I'm excited for the anthology coming out on Arena Rock(!) later this month.

A Few Things To Look Forward To This Summer

From a pop-culture standpoint, I could not be more excited about this summer. At the box office, it's a comic-book fan's dream come true (Iron Man, The Dark Knight, The Incredible Hulk, etc), while at the record store (...), a number of highly anticipated projects are finally seeing release. The small screen has a bit less going on, but maybe that's for the best, especially if it helps the networks sustain the excellence we've seen this Spring (LOST, 30 Rock, John Adams, Battlestar, etc). Here are the three days/events I'm looking forward to most:

1. June 17th: Pacific Ocean Blue by Dennis Wilson will finally be reissued, complete with nearly 20 unreleased tracks! Dennis was brother to Brian and Carl, with whom he formed the greatest band of all time: The Beach Boys. Dennis was the cool one, the only one who surfed, a true rock n' roll wild man a la Keith Moon before drowning(!) in 1984. After Brian checked out and retreated to bed in 1967, it quickly became apparent that Dennis had a similar gift. His songs started appearing on Beach Boys records in 1968, and soon thereafter he started planning a solo album. Nothing materialized until Pacific Ocean Blue in 1977 and man, it's great. Watch out though: Pacific Ocean Blue is really raw. Dennis was in a lot of pain (7 marriages, serious alcoholism, constant Beach Boy-dysfunction, etc), and it comes across, big time. But like everything Beach Boy-related, it's really beautiful. Also like everything Beach Boys-related, it's been under a cloud of litigation for the past 20 years, keeping it out of print. So this is a big day!

Also being released on June 17th is Stay Down, the long awaited reunion album from The Smoking Popes. This Morrissey-endorsed Chicago pop-punk band broke up in 1998, following frontman Josh Caterer's dramatic Pentecostal conversion, but last summer they reunited for a couple of gigs. I've heard a couple of the new tracks and they rock! For anyone interested in the intersection of Christianity and (good) rock n roll, this is an event.

June 17th also sees the release of new records from two of my favorite guilty pleasures, Weezer and Coldplay.

2. July 11th: Hellboy II: The Golden Army hits theaters! I loved the first one, and everything I've been hearing about the follow-up sounds incredible. Director Giullermo Del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth) has promised it'll be even more eccentric and weird. Just check out the trailer:



3. Late July: No official date has been set for the premier of HBO's new mini-series Generation Kill. All we've been told is July sometime. This is the next project from the creators of The Wire, a seven-part drama about the first phase of the invasion of Iraq. As if that weren't enough cause for excitement, it stars Mbird friend, Mark Menchaca.



What are you looking forward to?

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

When I had the idea of writing a series on the “New Perspective,” I initially thought that it would be a group of posts about its intricacies and arguments, how it distorts and misunderstands the Gospel. But then I realized - it's simply not that interesting.

That's not to say that the New Perspective is unimportant, just that there is nothing that I would write about it that hasn't already been (better) said/written regarding the way it misunderstands sin, God, and people. (Other than that, it's really good stuff). If any of you are interested in the details of the “New Perspective” argument, please go to www.thepaulpage.com, because for our purposes, the particulars of what N.T Wright and co. have discovered in relation to rules of table fellowship in 1st century Palestine, while helpful in a social-studies-fair sort of way, is not as important as the profound misunderstanding of the Gospel that the larger movement reveals. I'm sure that not everyone will agree with my assessment, and I look forward to hearing what you think.

When reading proponents of any of these supposedly "new" takes on the Gospel, its clear that they all spring from the same fountainhead of righteous indignation. Fed by disillusionment with the church universal, these movements claim to have found a new way of understanding Christianity and want to rescue the Gospel from narcissistic, individualistic, a-political, a-communial, “Western” people, who have overemphasized "Luther's understanding of Justification." This (perceived) over-emphasis, it is argued, has been the cause of everything from church disunity to global warming.

So, I realized that what I was really interested in was this fundamental disenchantment with "Justification by Faith alone", and what, if anything, the Gospel has to say about this. By "Gospel", I mean the particular message of God’s justifying act through the Cross—not some sort of abstract conception of Love, the holiness of beauty, or a thinly-veiled neo-Marxist socio-political agenda. At the end of the day, the “New Perspective” and many of its arguments can be lumped together with those made by Brian McLaren and the “Emergent” church, those arguing for a “New Monasticism”, and similar movements. When the focus of a preached message is on what your response or duty should be as opposed to what God has done for you in Christ, you can be sure you are not hearing the Gospel.

While I admit that it may be reductionist to lump all of these movements into the same camp, church history does show that there has been, essentially, only one argument against the Gospel message from its inception: preaching Justification by Faith alone will bless sin, increase lawlessness, and let people "get away with murder." Based upon this fear, it is argued that the Gospel must contain the imperatives necessary to answer Francis Schaeffer's famous question, How Then Shall We Live? In every instance, these imperatives eventually become standards by which one can know (in the words of Heidi) if he/she is either "in or out." In his book What St.Paul Really Said, renowned Anglican theologian N.T Wright states, “Justification is not a matter of how someone enters the community of the true people of God, but of how you tell who belongs to that community”(119). This is no mere semantic debate; at stake here is the very understanding of the relationship between God and man. It is my contention that these arguments, in all forms, rest on a misunderstanding of the distinction between the Law and Gospel.

This distinction is not an addendum to Christianity, nor is it some sort of esoteric idea. It is the only message that makes sense of the Bible, the Cross, and our lives. How are the people in Myanmar supposed to understand that "God is Love?" What does the message of being part of a "New Covenant community," have to offer one diagnosed with terminal cancer? Where is the hope of being one part of the "ancient mystery," or in the "5th act of the narrative of Redemptive history," when your spouse leaves you? It is in these sorts of instances, where abstractions break down and idealism is destroyed, that despair sets in.

Dr. Mark Mattes, in The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology, explains:

That people are unaware that they are under God’s wrath does not mean that they are unaffected by it. That people substitute creatures as their ‘higher power’ in place of the creator implies by definition that they subordinate themselves to an idol and suffer the consequences of separation from their true source of life. They thus experience God’s wrath, which hands them over to their sin. This wrath, for Europeans and North Americans, is finally nothing other than the apparent meaninglessness of it all—and ‘eternal recurrence of the same’ (Nietzsche) outside of Christ. . .”(183)

This is the missional understanding of the Law that forces a rejection of the New Perspective and all other such iterations of the “Gospel,” on the grounds that they do not do justice to the place where people actually live. In contrast to much of (what passes for) contemporary theology--which sees the Cross as more of a metaphor/motivational tool than a continuing reality--what we’re trying to do here is re-focus the wonderful, hopeful, life-giving message of the Gospel on the specific areas of human experience that the are most universally affirmed and easily verifiable: longing, fear, despair, disillusionment and loss.

In the last paragraph of Chapter 5 of the AA Big Book is the following statement, “In this book you will read again and again that faith did for us what we could not do for ourselves”(70-71). This counterintuitive pattern of complete surrender preceding victory has been so successful that it has spawned countless other groups aimed at helping the oppressed find freedom. It is no coincidence that the founder of AA was a Christian, the Rev. Sam Shoemaker. AA is so successful is because it encapsulates and communicates, in non-religious language, the message of the Gospel. As Jesus says in John 12:24, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit”(ESV). The death to life pattern of AA forces the alcoholic to admit defeat, to die so that he/she can be freed. For the Christian, this posture of defeat, of utter helplessness, forces complete reliance on the mercy of God founded on the promises purchased by the Cross.

This is the Gospel; this is the message of the Bible. It is not abstract. It is not conceptual. It is the "old, old message," continually proclaimed, that, “if anyone sins they have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.” This is the message for Peter who cried out “Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man”(Lk 5:8) and Paul who asks, “Oh Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”(Rom 7:24). The promise of the Gospel assures us that that the words of Isaiah 42:3 still stand, “a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench. . .”(ESV).

Thanks be to God.

"God Is Good"

A little quote from Dr. Siang-Yang Tan's plenary, at this year's CAPS international conference:

Many of us say "God is good" - "God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good!". When I go to church and I hear that, I cringe a bit. What do you mean by that? More often than not, what you mean by that is that "God is good, all the time - because God gives me convenience, comfort, and control."

A section from The Horse and His Boy from the Chronicles of Narnia:

"I can't see you at all," said Shasta, after staring very hard. Then (for an even more terrible idea had come into his head) he said, almost in a scream, "You're not--not something dead, are you? Oh please--please do go away. What harm have I ever done you? Oh, I am the unluckiest person in the whole world."

Once more he felt the warm breath of the Thing on his hand and face. "There," it said, "that is not the breath of a ghost. Tell me your sorrows."

Shasta was a little reassured by the breath: so he told how he had never known his real father or mother and had been brought up sternly by the fisherman. And then he told the story of his escape and how they were chased by lions and forced to swim for their lives; and of all their dangers in Tashbaan and about his night among the Tombs and how the beasts howled at himi out of the desert. And he told about the heat and thirst of their desert journey and how they were almost at their goal when another lion chased them and wounded Aravis. And also, how very long it had been since he had anything to eat.

"I do not call you unfortunate," said the Large Voice.

"Don't you think it was bad luck to meet so many lions?" said Shasta.

"There was only one lion," said the Voice.

"What on earth do you mean? I've just told you there were at least two the first night, and---"

"There was only one: but he was swift of foot."

"How do you know?"

"I was the lion." And as Shasta gaped with open mouth and said nothing, the Voice continued. "I was the lion who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I was the lion who gave the Horses new strength of fear for the last mile so that you should reach King Lune in time. And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to the shore where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you."

"Then it was you who wounded Aravis?"

"It was I."

"But what for?"

"Child," said the Voice, "I am telling you your story, not hers. I tell no-one any story but his own."

Rapture Ready! - Adventures In The Parallel Universe Of Christian Pop Culture

From Aaron Zimmerman, friend of Mbird:

This is a reflection on a review of a book. So call me derivative. Hey, this is the Internet. Daniel Radosh's new book, Rapture Ready!, reveals to secular America what many of us have known for a long time: Christians have no taste.

The book, which is an examination of the parallel universe of the evangelical Christian subculture, has a lot to make you think.

Here's a key passage from a review by Hanna Rosin on Slate:

"In the '80s, Christians were known as the boycotters, refusing to see movies or buy products that offended them. They felt about commercial culture much the way a Marxist might: that it was a decadent glorification of money and meaningless human relationships. Then, sometime during the '90s, when conservative evangelicals started coming out of their shells, they took a different tack. The boycotters became co-opters and embarked on the curious quest to enlist America's crassest material culture in the service of spiritual growth.

Most non-Christians are aware that there is something called Christian rock. We've all had the slightly unsettling experience of pausing the car radio on a pleasant, unfamiliar ballad until we realized … Ahhh. That's not her boyfriend she's mooning over! But few of us have any idea of how truly extensive this so-called subculture is. Reading Radosh's book is like coming across another planet hidden somewhere on Earth where everything is just exactly like it is here except blue or made out of plastic. Every American pop phenomenon has its Christian equivalent, no matter how improbable. And Radosh seems to have experienced them all."

So this shows us something about Christians living under the Law: In the 80s, they tried to go cold turkey: "We will not ingest anything from corrupted mainstream culture."

Then, casuistry set in: "Well, let's see if we can just re-jigger the culture so that it conforms to our narrow and self-righteous morality. So now rock music is OK, as long as it's about Jesus."

But this article also says something about non-Christian understandings of Christianity: They are just as legalistic as Christians--just in a different way.

Check out this bit from Rosin:

"What does commercializing do to the substance of belief, and what does an infusion of belief do to the product? When you make loving Christ sound just like loving your boyfriend, you can do damage to both your faith and your ballad. That's true when you create a sanitized version of bands like Nirvana or artists like Jay-Z, too: You shoehorn a message that's essentially about obeying authority into a genre that's rebellious and nihilistic, and the result can be ugly, fake, or just limp."

Now, there's a lot there I can agree with. No one likes bad art (except when it's so bad it's great). But look at how Rosin characterizes Christianity in the last sentence: "a message that's essentially about obeying authority."

What? That's the essence of Christianity?

Rosin's article implies that Christians growing up with iPods are wising up to the fact that Christian pop music/art/comedy/literature is almost all bad. But if the remedy is to get more in touch with the "true" Christianity of obedience to authority, or to simply become insufferable snobs about art, then, as my grandmother used to say, Lord have mercy.

Contrary to what this article says, and what the Christians who make bad art (appear to) think, Christianity is about freedom. And if we understood that, there would be no such thing as "Christian rock" or "Christian T-shirts" or, as this article mentions, "Christian planetariums."

As 20th-century German theologian Ernst Kasemann said: Jesus means freedom.

But you already knew that...

The Man In The Yellow Hat

A few excerpts from the final chapter of Dr. Dorothy Martyn's 1992 dissertation, the full title of which is "The Man in the Yellow Hat: Theology and Psychoanalysis in Child Therapy":

"Human growth is generally understood to proceed in a line of movement originating in the human subject. In looking back to the children's journeys [described earlier in the book], I would certainly affirm that forces of growth and maturation are very much in evidence. I believe, however, that the activating of these forces is dependent on a prior line of movement, that is, God's own action in moving toward us." (pg. 167)
---------------

"At this point, it is enough to mention that manipulation is powerless to evoke any deep motivational change [in an ill-behaved child].

What does evoke genuine change of motivation and behavior in these impulse-ridden children is a mode of relating to them that has this 'can't-earn' quality. It is an attitude of a prevenient, uncontingent offering of the ego of the caring adult in a freely given alliance with the ego of the child against the destructive impulse, which is then revealed to the child also as alien and undesirable.

This stance of offering to lend aid to the child's person against a common enemy can be expressed quite simply to a child trapped in his own aggression: 'You seem to be having trouble with your hands this morning - try holding on to me.' 'If your feet are giving you trouble, sit on them'... 'That stick is no help to you - give it to me'...

While such phrases as these are not magical in themselves, they derive from an attitude of being with, not against, the child, and this attitude has an effect not unlike what Barth refers to as the difference in a response of gratitude as opposed to 'a tribute to tyranny'. Obedience obtained from a child as a tribute to the tyranny of an adult, however disguised as reward for good behavior, is quite different from the obedience that is the spontaneous offering of gratitude for the free, uncontingent gift of the person of the adult in alliance against the alien force.

It is also striking that a child recognizes the destructive force as alien to himself only in the light of such a relationship, a fact that brings us back to Barth's point that the true situation of human beings and their idols is revealed only in God's grace happening to them." (153-54)
---------------

"Grace is unhindered by unworthiness or opposition. Again, it is these children who are hospitalized because they are overrun with destructive urges who illustrate... this characteristic of grace. I have observed that a mode of relating to the children that is informed by the nature of grace is distinguishable by a greater invulnerability to the rage and aggression of the child.

The adult, without doubt, can be vulnerable and provoked into aggression also. But when given an attitude of grace, the attitude itself is not affected by unworthiness or opposition. When grace is present, its power over enmity against it reveals itself. The level of aggression has no effect on it, while the grace distinctly has an effect on the level of aggression. This fact reveals where the real power lies." (pg. 154)
---------------

"William, who had such trouble with 'hitting people in the face,' manifests the relative power of an attitude informed by grace and one of forced compliance. For most of his few years, William had been subjected to attempts to control him by various methods, generally based on 'what he deserved'. What he deserved was mostly punishment, which led to more anger, which led to more punishment. The impotence of that line of power is thus revealed.

The power that reached him, that enabled him to subdue the wild animals, was the power of a relationship in which uncontingent, prevenient acceptance came first, allying itself with him and not against him... Something called forth life in him, and that something was grace." (pg. 156-57).

Belated April Playlist

A week late, but definitely worth the wait:

1. Lido Shuffle - Boz Scaggs
2. Petals - The Jackson 5
3. This Is Not A Test - She & Him
4. Latitude 88 North - Electric Light Orchestra
5. Kids - MGMT
6. We Both Go Down Together - Colin Meloy
7. The Bones Of You - Elbow
8. Change In Louise - Joe Cocker
9. I Think I Love You [David Cassidy cover] - Paul Westerberg
10. Billie - Pavement
11. Baby's Home - The Lemonheads
12. He Set Me Free - Thad Cockrell
13. Broken - Tift Merritt
14. Driver 8 - R.E.M.
15. That's What Counts - We Are Scientists
16. Graveyard Girl - M83
17. The Light Of Day - The Divine Comedy
18. Rockferry - Duffy

To listen/obtain, click here.

Gotta Serve Somebody - Gospel Songs Of Bob Dylan

I finally got around to watching the DVD this past weekend, and it was incredible! It's so gratifying to see someone do justice to Dylan's Gospel period. Do yourself a favor:



Even cooler, a clip of the man himself singing "In The Garden" in 1986, complete with jaw-dropping preamble (just a few months after the release of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome!):

The Worst of the Internet

"Their friends weighed in on every hookup and breakup. Now, as the MySpace generation begins to marry, everybody's invited to help plan the wedding."

As if the solution to weddings and planning were more advice! Read the full article of the internet and wedding planning here.

Wes Anderson's AmEx Commercial