Hunger Games, Dystopia, and Two Kinds of Slavery

catching fireThis week the film adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ Catching Fire hits the big screen. Last year I read The Hunger Games right before the movie came out, and this year I decided to do the same. In the middle of it I was reminded of Andrew Wilson’s insightful analysis of the Hunger Games in light of the two classic, modern dystopias of the 20th Century 1984 and A Brave New World: 

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, as has often been pointed out, imagined two very different dystopias. In 1984, written just after the Second World War, Orwell depicts the forces that held people captive as fundamentally external: coercion, espionage, laws, constraints, threats, lies, the state. By contrast, Huxley’s Brave New World, published just after the Wall Street crash had turned the excess of the twenties into the Great Depression of the thirties, portrays a future in which people are enslaved to forces within themselves: desire, inanity, hedonism, egotism, fatuity. For all the similarities between the two books, it is this difference that is the most striking.

Wilson goes on to point out that the Orwellian slavery is what we in the anti-authoritarian West tend to think of, while the ancients were more focused on avoiding the Huxleyan kind. The remarkable thing about Collins’ works is how she manages to counterpoint both conceptions in the Hunger Games series:

These Huxleyan and Orwellian dystopias, and ancient and modern conceptions of freedom, are juxtaposed (whether deliberately or not) in intriguing fashion in Suzanne Collins’ immensely popular The Hunger Games. The inhabitants of District 12, including the protagonist Katniss Everdeen, are enslaved in a very obvious, Orwellian way: through coercion, draconian laws, sanctions, electrified fences, and deprivation.

Those who live in the Capitol, by contrast, are in bondage in the ancient, more Huxleyan sense, with their vacuous pastimes, obsession with appearance, absurd make-up, and inane conversation bearing witness to the invisible chains of unconstrained desire. The citizens of the Capitol appear free when compared with those in the districts, but they too are trapped, and prevented from flourishing as humans. If anything, the sheer emptiness of the lives they lead make them more pitiable than Katniss, Peeta, and the rest.

For most of us, thinking of the latter group as pitiable is mostly foreign. Still, a truly Christian vision of freedom needs to understand and fully integrate both emphasis if it’s to be in light with the picture given to us in the Bible:

Yet if the human is to be seen as body and soul, physical and spiritual, object and subject, political and religious, then our vision of freedom needs to incorporate both modern and ancient perspectives as well. The fact that the state is best equipped to promote political freedom, which I take for granted, does not mean that it is the only sort of freedom there is.

The Judeo-Christian tradition holds both types of liberation—from the other and from the self—together, with its repeated emphasis on the concept of redemption. Israel is set free from slavery in Egypt through the Exodus, but immediately requires rescuing from her carnality and idolatrous desires in the wilderness. The prophet Isaiah describes the political redemption from Babylon that Judah will experience (chapters 41-48), and then looks forward to the spiritual redemption from sin that will follow (chapters 49-55). Jesus himself articulates his mission in Isaianic terms, promising both freedom for captives and forgiveness for sinners.

If you’re interested, (and I suggest you should be), you can read the rest of the article here.

Happy Hunger Games!

Soli Deo Gloria

Lennon’s “Imagine” – The My Little Pony of Philosophy

little ponyI’ve despised John Lennon’s “Imagine” since the first time I heard it. Beatles fan that I am, it is one of the most vapid, unthinking pieces of marshmallow pop-philosophy I’ve ever heard. I’ve long wanted to rant about it explaining what utter tripe that song is. Thankfully, Francis Spufford did it for me with all the wit, dry humor, and aplomb that only someone from across the pond could muster. In his new defense of the Christian faith Unapologetic: Why Despite Everything, Christianity Can Still Make Emotional Sense (my review is forthcoming at TGC) he levels a devastating critique of the basic lie about humanity that Lennon’s classic tries to sell us:

For a piece of famous fluffiness  that doesn’t just pretend about what real lives can be like, but moves on into one of the world’s least convincing pretenses about what people themselves are like, consider the teased and coiffed nylon monument that is “Imagine”; surely the My Little Pony of philosophical statements. John and Yoko all in white, John at the white piano, John drifting through the white rooms of a white mansion, and all the while the sweet drivel flowing. Imagine there’s not heaven. Imagine there’s no hell. Imagine all the people living in–hello? Excuse me? Take religion out of the picture, and everybody spontaneously starts living life in peace? I don’t know about you, but in my experience peace is not the default state of human beings, any more than having an apartment the size of Joey and Chandler’s is. Peace is not the state of being we return to like water running downhill, whenever there’s nothing external to perturb us.

Peace between people is an achievement, a state of affairs we put together effortfully in the face of competing interests, and primate dominance dynamics, and our evolved tendency to cease our sympathies at the boundaries of our tribe. Peace within people is made difficult to say the least by the way that we tend to have an actual, you know, emotional life going on, rather than an empty space between our ears with a shaft of dusty sunlight in it, and a lone moth flittering round and round. Peace is not the norm; peace is rare, and when we do manage to institutionalize it in a human society, it’s usually because we’ve been intelligently pessimistic about human proclivities, and found a way to work with the grain of them in a system of intense mutual suspicion like the U.S. Constitution, a document that assumes that absolutely everybody will be corrupt and power-hungry given half a chance.

As for the inner version, I’m at at peace all that often, and I doubt you are either. I’m absolutely bloody certain that John Lennon wasn’t. The mouthy Scouse git he was as well as a songwriter of genius, the leatherboy who allegedly kicked his best friend in the head in Hamburg, didn’t go away just because he put on the white suit. What seems to be at work in “Imagine” is the idea–always believed by those who are frightened of themselves–that we’re good underneath, good by nature, and only do bad things because we’ve been forced out of shape by some external force, some malevolent aspect of this worlds power structures. In this case, I suppose, by the education the Christian Brothers were dishing out in 1950s Liverpool, which was strong on kicks and curses and loving descriptions of the tortures of the damned.

It’s a theory that isn’t falsifiable, because there always are power structures there to be blamed when people behave badly. Like the theory that markets left to themselves would produce perfectly just outcomes (when markets never are let to themselves) it’s immune to disproof. But, and let me put this as gently as I can, it doesn’t seem terribly likely. We long to believe it because it’s what we lack. We dream of the peace we haven’t got, and to make ourselves look as if we do have it, we dress ourselves up in the iconography of heaven we just announced we were ditching. White robes, the celestial glare of over-exposed film: “Imagine” looks like one part A Matter of Life and Death to one part Hymns Ancient and Modern. Only sillier.

Unapologetic: Why Despite Everything, Christianity Can Still Make Surprising Emotional Sense, pp. 10-13

And that’s the deepest tragedy of Lennon’s blind paean to fairy-tale theories of human nature–it’s another attempt to escape the truth that true peace only comes by peace with God through Jesus Christ (Rom 5:1).

Soli Deo Gloria

The Difference Between a Man and a Man-Boy

gastonOkay, more honestly, this is about one difference between a man and a man-boy because I’m not sure what the difference is, but this title reads better as it is. Also, I don’t like the typical man-boy bashing that goes on because it’s mostly guilt/shame-driven and unhelpful, so forgive me if I wander into it here. That’s not my intent. One more caveat: all of this probably applies to women just as equally, so trade in the corresponding female terms if you’re a lady it’s basically about maturity in general.

Still, I’ve been thinking about this in relation to men lately because I work with a lot of boys who are about to become men, men who have recently been boys, and those caught in the awkward middle. What’s more, I’m 27 and like most of my millennial peers, still feel like a boy sometimes, even though I’ve achieved most of the adult male markers (married, job, etc), and probably could have bought liquor at 15 without being carded.

All that said, it has been my, likely not very original,  observation that one of the defining characteristics of modern boyhood, is that, whatever it is,”if I don’t want to do it, I’m not gonna do it.” So if it’s hard, or the kind of hard that I don’t find amusing, I simply will not exert myself to meet the challenge. This, if I had to nail it down, is close to the heart of manboyhood.

Is homework boring? Won’t do it. Is getting to class hard? I’ll just sleep. Is having a real conversation with a friend awkward? Let’s just play a game instead and hope the problem will go away. Is struggling to establish a real relationship difficult? Well, porn is easy. Does it look like I might have to study a regular subject to get a regular, average job, instead of the magical one I thought I deserved since I was fifteen? Mmm, no.

Expand this out in any direction and you’ll recognize the phenomenon. What makes this worse is the general fascination with “motivation” that clouds any discussion about actually doing things in the modern period. Ever since the Enlightenment, or, more probably, the Romantic period, we have this idea that unless we “feel” like doing something it’s false and unauthentic to do it. You especially hear this in the church, when people talk about not wanting to do something like a ‘hypocrite’.

I was just talking to my guys about this a few nights ago in relation to the spiritual life. A couple of my guys were confessing their struggle with actually getting up for church on Sunday, or reading their Bibles regularly. At that point, knowing exactly where they were coming from, I just told them, “Guys, college is the time when you learn to do hard things that you don’t want to do because you just have to do them. If you don’t learn this skill, you will fail as a husband, as a father, and you will tank your career.” (To their credit, they basically know this, and a lot of them put me to shame in this area…I really do love these guys.)

The reality is, in marriage, there will be a lot of times when you don’t want to do something, but in order to love your wife, you have to do it anyways. Taking out the trash. Mowing the lawn. Cleaning up your crap. Doing devotions. Having difficult conversations at late hours. The same thing is true of work. No matter what career you choose, there will be meetings you can’t stand, paperwork you hate, dry drudgery that makes you question the meaning of your whole life, but you have too do it anyways. I am not a father, but I’ve seen my brother-in-law Shawn with his newborn: 3 a.m. diaper-change. ‘Nuff said.

Here’s the thing, none of this is hypocrisy; there’s nothing inauthentic about doing a bunch of stuff you have to do when you don’t feel like it; this is just being a grown-up man. A hypocrite goes around talking how much he loves something that he hates, just to look good. A hypocrite puts a fake smile on his face and says words he doesn’t really mean, because he knows that will gain him praise and acceptance. This is not being a man, but a cardboard cut-out of a man.

One of the biggest symptoms of this outlook is being stuck in the “motivation” trap. To be clear, having the right motivation for doing something is important, but that is not the same thing as “feeling” like doing something. For the longest time I would find myself praying “God give me the motivation to do X.” Then I’d sit around and wait to feel like doing or not doing whatever it is, and wonder why God hadn’t come through. I don’t know how many times I’ve talked to a student or a friend who’s said the same thing.

Thing is, it doesn’t work that way. Half the time, you just have to say, “God, I don’t feel like it, but I’m doing it anyways because I know it’s right. Please bless that”, and trust him to come through as you obey him. The example I always give has to do with marriage: it might be a date night with my wife but I’m tired and just want to stay home and watch TV to decompress after a long week. Making the decision to go through the trouble of getting ready, getting dressed, shaving (my neck–because neck beards are unacceptable), and getting in the car when I don’t really feel like it, surprisingly can lead towards actually feeling like it. The loving action stirs up my loving emotion so by the time we’re on the road, I’m actually excited for the night out with my wife.

A grown-up man (and as I noted before, a grown-up woman too) looks at Jesus going to the Cross, saying “Lord not my will but yours”, even though clearly he’d rather have not had nails the size of cigars shoved through his palms. He wasn’t doing what he wanted to do, but what he knew he had to do if he was going to fulfill his vocation, love his Bride, and bring many sons to glory. God wants to remake you into His image.

Since this is already kind of rambling, I’m reminded of a passage in chapter 8 of the Screwtape Letters where Screwtape warns Wormwood about the dangers of the ‘troughs’, the times when God seems absent to the Christian:

He will set them off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to them, with emotional sweetness, and easy conquest over temptation. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs– to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish. It is during such trough periods, much more than during the peak periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature He wants it to be. Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best…He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.

All that to say, quit waiting around to do things you know you have to do until “you feel like it”. Yes, pray for the Spirit to empower you, to remind you of the truth of the Gospel, to set a flame in your heart for the tasks he has called you to. And then get on it whether you “feel like it”, or not. Growing up, and growing in faith, involves learning to trust and obey God in the troughs, just like Jesus.

And of course, there’s grace in this. You’re going to jack it up–I know I have–I know I do! But that’s one of the lovely things about grace: it’s space to get back up and try again.

The Spiritual Value of Mortgage Banking

houseIn some churches, guys are often fed the lie that unless they’re a pastor, or doing some ‘secular’ work that can be quickly linked to some moral or spiritual value, it’s 2nd-class work. Or if you’re in a church where the whole ‘man of adventure’ thing is being pushed, unless you’re out chopping down wood, or fighting some battle, it’s ‘just a job’ that you have to suck it up and work it for a paycheck. Mike Erre addresses this myth in his book Why Guys Need God: The Spiritual Side of Money, Sex, and Relationships, by talking about his buddy who’s an average, un-sexy job in the mortgage industry:

How should my friend see his job? As simply a means of paying the bills? Or as something much more?

The first thing we might say to this friend is that he must see his job within the big, epic, story we talked about…[creation, fall, redemption]. It is part of being human and being a man. And he must find a way to name the animals in his current occupation in order for him to see its place within the larger story. This is absolutely critical if he is to discover God’s purposes for him in his job. How does he do this?

We might begin by saying that human beings need shelter. That is not optional. Owning a house, then, is a good thing. Helping people to live in a way that brings comfort and security is an important thing. Not only that, but because of the legal and financial gymnastics involved in buying a home, my friend is offering a valuable service to his clients by guiding them through the bewildering maze of numbers, points, and payments.

This man also does his work with honesty and integrity. He genuinely seems to put his clients first and tries to bring Jesus glory by speaking kindly and considerately to all around him. He truly does his work “as unto the Lord.” Is this not worship? Is this any less spiritual than pastoral work or missionary work? Of course not. Many have come to faith because of this man’s life and work. He demonstrates what Jesus is like through his kindness and honesty. And he is generous with his money. He works to remedy injustice around him, and he supports several ministries as well as his local church. (pg. 68)

This is an ordinary man following God’s call. Through the way he carries out his daily work as a mortgage broker he is living as an Image-bearer and a disciple of Jesus, on mission in the world.

Honestly, whatever you’re doing (excluding the obviously immoral), you can do as part of your call as an Image-bearer and a disciple of Jesus. Do not be fooled into thinking that the only ‘spiritual’ things you do are those that happen in the local body. I love the local body, and I think people need to serve in it, but don’t for a minute think that the other 40-50 hours a week you spend at your job isn’t also an opportunity to love your neighbor and glorify God in what you do.

Soli Deo Gloria

Modern/Postmodern Ideological Moralism

protest“My life has meaning because of the Cause. You oppose the Cause. You must submit or be destroyed. –modern/postmodern ideological moralism”

I posted that status after reading a little section towards the end of Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self (yes, after two months I finally finished it) on Nietzsche’s analysis about the modern demand of benevolence. Nietzsche has one of the most insightful examinations of the way that the modern idea that humanity must maintain a goodwill towards all, (“a secularized agape“) especially apart from the context of grace, can provoke feelings either of unworthiness or self-satisfaction in the human soul. Basically, the options are despair, or smug self-satisfaction depending on how well you think you measure up to the standard.

Taylor goes on to analyze one further implication that Nietzsche left unexplored:

The threatened sense of unworthiness can also lead to the projection of evil outward; the bad, the failure is now identified with other people or group. My conscience is clear because I oppose them, but what can I do? They stand in the way of universal beneficence; they must be liquidated. This becomes particularly virulent on the extremes of the political spectrum, in a way which Dostoevsky explored to unparalleled depths.

In our day as in his, many young people are driven to political extremism, sometimes by truly terrible conditions, but also by a need to give meaning to their lives. And since meaninglessness is frequently accompanied by a sense of guilt, they sometimes respond to a strong ideology of polarization, in which one recovers a sense of direction as well as a sense of purity by lining up in implacable opposition to the forces of darkness. The more implacable, even violent the opposition, the more the polarity is represented as absolute, and the greater the sense of separation from evil and hence purity. Dostoevsky’s Devils is one of the great documents of modern times, because it lays bear the way in which an ideology of universal love and freedom can mask a burning hatred, directed outward onto an unregenerate world and generating destruction and despotism.

Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, pp. 516-517

Taylor penned these words, maybe twenty, twenty-five years ago, but as I read this I couldn’t help but think of my own generation and the one coming up right behind us. It’s pretty common to either demonize or idolize our moral sense; we’re either relativists, or morally superior activists depending on who’s telling the story. I’d say there’s quite a bit of both.  One ‘ist’ I’d definitely add to the list is ‘moralists.’

Pick a hot subject (gay marriage, the environment, misogyny, healthcare, etc.) and I’ll scroll through my facebook feed to find someone updating vociferously on the subject, trumpeting their position and damning the opposition in bold, apocalyptic terms. It’s not just that people are wrong, confused, and possibly in need of correction, they’re downright wicked. Of course, this phenomena spans generations, but as younger generations increasingly identify as ‘nones’ (no religious affiliation), it’s not that they have no moral or spiritual bearings, but that they find them elsewhere.

Taking that sense from the reigning Causes linked to the demands of benevolence (“love”, “justice”, “equality”) of the day, is the increasingly popular option, more  than any explicit religious system. This is why our political arguments aren’t just about the issues, they’re about a much-deeper justification of the Self. If I am defined by my position on health-care and corresponding self-image as a moral, caring (or pragmatic and free) person, then when I argue with you about it, I’m defending my raison-d’etre. You don’t simply have a different opinion on a subject, you threaten my very being.

What’s more, if supporting this Cause is what makes me righteous and pure, your opposition demonstrates your impurity and wickedness, possibly even your inhumanity. You must be opposed, hopefully only through argument, but if you persist in your perversity, other, stronger means of enforcement may need to be used. This is modern/postmodern ideological moralism.

None of this is new, of course. Postmodern thinkers have been describing the way we construct oppositional identities like this for years, but what’s been interesting to see is this sort of logic at work in the lives of my peers and contemporaries in today’s debates. Of course, posting aggressive memes on Facebook isn’t exactly coercion, or fanatic violence yet, but the language used, and, at times, the political measures advocated by partisans verges on it.

Christians reading this might be tempted to take this as a simple condemnation of secularists, saying, “See, look what happens when you don’t have God.” I mean, in a sense, that’s what’s going on. But that doesn’t let religious believers off the hook too quickly. As a friend of mine pointed it, this simply the logic of Holy War, sublimated and secularized. All it does is point out one more way that the whole dichotomy of ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ breaks down at the functional level. Get rid of God, and something else fills in the existential vacuum. In other words, at this point, they’re only doing what religious people have done with their gods for years, including Christians.

Actually, this ought to put believers, especially Christians, on notice to examine where we’re getting our sense of self, our purity, our wholeness. Is it from the righteousness of our own moral positions, or from the righteousness we have in Christ by grace, apart from our own moral achievements? If the former, we’re in the same boat. If the latter, that sets us in a position to be able to disagree, even forcefully with others, without feeling our entire sense of self threatened. Even if others oppose us, not only on moral issues, but set themselves in vocal opposition to Christianity itself, how can we look on them as totally other than ourselves? For is this not what we ourselves were apart from God’s condescending grace? Enemies of God in need of redemption (Rom. 5:6-11)? And are we not secure, no matter what accusation or charge brought against us (Rom. 8:30-39)?

In other words, there’s a visible, practical difference we observe in the lives of those who trust in the Christian Gospel as opposed to merely subscribing to its morals. In fact, unless you believe the former, you won’t be able to practice the core of the latter, at the center of which stands the command to love our enemies the Christ has loved us. Moralism, secular or ‘religious’ can only inspire demonization of the enemy. Only the Gospel of grace can lead us to true goodwill towards all.

Soli Deo Gloria

A Few Looks At Crouch’s “Playing God”

playing godAndy Crouch, executive editor at Christianity Today and author of Culture Making, just released his new book on power called Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power. I haven’t read it yet, but apparently his thesis is that we’ve been given some shallow thinking on the topic lately, so Crouch wants us to re-examine our views of God’s gift of power in light of our creation in the Image of God and the redemption of that Image in Christ. Personally, I coudn’t agree more. Ever since reading James Davison Hunter’s critique of the Religious Right, Left, and Neo-Anabaptist rhetoric of power in To Change the World, I find myself constantly chafing at the inadequate ways we’ve been trained to conceive and exercise it as Christians.

While I haven’t read Crouch’s book yet, I have found some stimulating reviews floating around the web worth checking out.

First, Justin Taylor interviews Crouch over at the Between Two Worlds blog:

Taylor: The concept of flourishing is crucial for your book. What does it mean to flourish, and why is power such a key means and threat for the promotion of human flourishing?

Crouch: I think of flourishing as fullness of being—the “life, and that abundantly” that Jesus spoke of. Flourishing refers to what you find when all the latent potential and possibility within any created thing or person are fully expressed. In both Culture Making and Playing God I talk about the transition from nature to culture as a move from “good” to “very good.” Eggs are good, but omelets are very good. Wheat is good, but bread is very good. Grapes are good, but wine is very good. Et cetera. And the Bible has a third category, which is glory, which I would define as the magnificence of true being, a kind of ultimate flourishing. It is significant that the New Jerusalem will be full both of the glory of God—the magnificence of God’s true being fully known, experienced, and worshipped—and “the glory and honor of the nations”—which I take to mean the fruits of human culture brought to their deepest and fullest expression.

The interesting thing is that flourishing never happens by accident. Intentionality is always involved. And for most parts of creation, intelligent, attentive cultivation is required for things to flourish. If wine is one “very good,” flourishing expression of the grape, well, you don’t get wine if you just let it ferment on its own—you get vinegar, or worse. Wine only comes with tremendous skill, patience, and indeed creativity.

And this is why power is so intimately connected to flourishing—flourishing requires the exercise of true power, power that is bent on creating the best environment for someone or something to thrive. And while human flourishing is of paramount importance, the witness of Scripture seems to be that we human beings are here not just for our own flourishing, but for the flourishing of the whole created order. I think this is why Paul says the creation is “groaning for the revealing of the sons of God”—that phrase “sons of God” (which of course includes redeemed image bearers both male and female) is meant to signal true authority and dominion. If the true “sons of God” were to be revealed, the creation would flourish in ways we only dimly glimpse now.

James K.A. Smith forwards the discussion in his review over at Comment, especially when he  notes the ‘different story’ Crouch is telling about power:

Crouch reads cultural phenomena in order to discern the spirit that animates them, the worldview that undergirds them. “The premise of the Western,” for example, “as with the Nietzschean strain in literature from Lord of the Flies to The Hunger Games, is that when you strip away the trappings of civilization, you will find raw, primal conflict, bodies in competition to occupy all space.” In the face of this, Crouch asks the most fundamental question: “What is the deepest truth about the world? Is the deepest truth a struggle for mastery and domination? Or is the deepest truth collaboration, cooperation, and ultimately love?”  His reply is no less foundational: “I want to argue,” he emphasizes, “that Nietzsche’s ‘idea’ can be countered, point by point, with a very different vision of ultimate reality.”

This tack is just right: it goes to the root to recognize that how we conceive power comes down to fundamentally different mythologies, different faith-stances. What you think about power is always and ultimately rooted in some confession. In this sense, Crouch’s critique and counter-narration unwittingly replays—in much more accessible prose—precisely John Milbank’s critique of Nietzsche in his landmark book, Theology and Social Theory (especially chapter 10). A Christian understanding of power begins from a fundamentally different confessional standpoint. We refuse the myth that collapses power into violence and domination. We affirm a fundamentally different story in which power is a creative gift, and when we exercise that power rightly, we image God and love our neighbour.

Finally, towards the end of his review over at the Gospel Coalition,  John Starke addresses what Crouch’s ‘good news’ about power has to do with our view of institutions:

But I thought institutions frustrated creativity and cultivation. Isn’t that what we’re led to think? Crouch recognizes institutions can make that mistake. He also recognizes institutions can cultivate a culture of injustice and oppression. But institutions provide, he contends, roles (think “father” in the institution of the family), arenas (think “galleries” for art), and rules (think “regulations” for day traders on Wall Street) where image bearers can flourish as fathers, artists, and bankers. The power of institutions is to distribute power for comprehensive flourishing, not merely private thriving.

The most helpful and intriguing part of Crouch’s book is his formula for what makes institutions that leave behind cultural significance. They must have four ingredients (artifacts, arenas, rules, and goals) and three generations (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). This is a helpful guide as he then turns to churches and church leaders who have “poured their energies into creating forms of church life that serve just a single generation.” Crouch sees institutions as something of a remedy for churches and other organizations to flourish across space and time, to be a blessing to our children’s children.

I don’t know about you, but it looks like I’ve got another book to read.

Soli Deo Gloria

Misogyny’s Horrible (Even When It’s Online) and God Will Judge It

We all know the internet is a horrible place most of the time, though occasionally I forget that. I read mostly charitable Christian blogs and avoid the comment sections on most news articles because, well, I generally understand that people can be terrible. That said, sometimes I’m still struck by how utterly gross we can be.

CHVRCHES, with Mayberry  to the far left.

CHVRCHES, with Mayberry to the far left.

This week Lauren Mayberry, member of the band CHVRCHES, wrote an excellent op-ed over at The Guardian about the misogyny she has to put up with online. She makes a basic, common-sense argument: Her being online and famous doesn’t make that misogyny okay. It’s never okay. Here’s an excerpt (WARNING: explicit and offensive comments ahead):

There are, however, downsides to being known on the internet. Last week, I posted a screengrab of one of the many inappropriate messages sent to the band’s social networks every day. After making the post, I sat back and watched with an increasingly open mouth as more and more people commented on the statement. At the time of writing, Facebook stats tell me that the post had reached 581,376 people, over five times the number of people who subscribe to the page itself, with almost 1,000 comments underneath the image. Comments range from the disgusted and supportive to the offensively vile. My current favourites from the latter category include:

“This isn’t rape culture. You’ll know rape culture when I’m raping you, b#$#h”

“I have your address and I will come round to your house and give u anal and you will love it you t@#t lol”

“Act like a slut, getting treated like a sluy [sic]”

So, in case you didn’t know, that’s bad. That’s really bad. Actually, let’s upgrade that to wicked. In fact, let’s go further and say comments like that are straight-from-the pit-of-hell wicked.

Instead of continuing on a rant about how wicked this is, I just want to make three basic points—and really, they are kindergarten basic—on why Christians, and especially Christian men, need to never participate in anything remotely resembling this behavior, and furthermore, why they need to step up and say something about it whenever they see it happening.

1. Image of God – Right at the very beginning of the Bible God creates humans, and when he does he makes them in his sacred, inviolable Image. Now, please note that in the text he makes humanity in his Image, and that the text specifies “male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27) So, just in case you’ve forgotten, women are made in the Image of God every bit as much as men are—and in case you can’t immediately draw out the implications of this, Jesus’ little brother James tells us:

With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water. (James 3:9-12)

Women are not objects for lust, punchlines to jokes, or props to a deformed male ego. They are made in the Image of the creator, judge, and redeemer of the universe. This means when someone curses a woman, that person is cursing the holy, beautiful, and just God in whose Image she is made. This is not only foul and blasphemous, but thoroughly unwise. Really: Think about the ‘just’ part for a minute.

2. Your Mom’s a Girl – No, but seriously, men: your mom, your wife, your sister, your daughter. All women. Yes, I already reminded you that women are made in the Image of God as much as men are. But let’s put a living human face on that. As Mayberry says:

It seems almost too obvious to ask, “Would you condone this behaviour if it was directed at your mother/sister/daughter/wife/girlfriend?” but maybe going back to basics is what the trolls or 4chan addicts need. To learn a little empathy. To have a little respect for other people. To think before they speak.

I’m not a violent, macho, or aggressive guy, but honestly, if I ever heard some jerk say something like what was said to Lauren Mayberry to my wife, my mom, my daughter, or a woman in my college group, that jerk would be in for a quick back-hand to the mouth. I think most men feel the same. So why would a guy ever sit there with crossed arms when some jerk says such foul, offensive things to a woman online?

3. The Internet Is Still a Place – People have this silly idea that the internet doesn’t count. Whether it’s the anonymity that allows people to let out whatever foulness they usually keep inside, or simply the facelessness that encourages us to forget our common humanity, we seem to forget that the internet connects living, breathing humans across spaces. This goes beyond misogyny to general interactions, but even so: If you wouldn’t say something to a person face-to-face, then don’t type it either. It’s that simple.

One of the most terrifying lines in the Bible comes from Jesus’ lips: “Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops.” (Luke 12:3) That’s true not only of the whispers of dark rooms, but the anonymous comments left by cowards online—or courageous ones left unwritten.

God cares deeply for the women of this world, so do not for an instant imagine that misogynistic words will go unanswered. There are only two options:

  1. Repent, turn from wickedness, and trust in Jesus’ work on the Cross to undo evil words and redeem sinful hearts.
  2. Keep at it and give an account for them at the judgment.

This is our choice.

Soli Deo Gloria

“Where is Your God Now?” (Or, That Brief Horrible Moment When We All Thought Justin Bieber Was Robin) #CaPC

“Where is your God now?” accused one of my friends. “I’d have to rethink the problem of evil and God’s goodness, if it were true” said another. I, who usually am not thrown off in situations of theological doubt in the face of pain, stood there, silent, unable to muster up a response in the face of such pointless evil.

What horror could throw my friends and I into such deep, existential and theological instability? This:

102332-bieber-robin-hoak-screenshot-from-instagramIn case you weren’t aware, over the weekend Justin Bieber threw up pic on Instagram and Twitter, of himself holding a copy of what appears to be a personalized script of Zach Snyder’s upcoming Superman/Batman movie. He hashtagged it ‘robin’ sending the world into a tailspin of insanity and fear. 

Read the rest of my ordeal and post-horror reflections over at Christ and Pop Culture.

Christian Guy, Stop Trying to Date Yourself

So there have been a couple of good articles on dating out recently, one of which was my buddy Brad Williams’ over at Christ and Pop Culture. He knows what it is to be a weird Christian guy who doesn’t have commitment issues, but courage issues, so out of pity, he offered up a few tips and a little hope to guys convinced they’ll always be alone. It was hilarious, wise, and pretty popular. Go read it right now, if you want.

Now, in the comments on Facebook, another friend (who shall remain nameless) playfully joked something along the lines of “But where am I going to find a girl who is into: a, b, c, d, e, and f quirky particular interests that I have.” To which I responded, “The point isn’t to date yourself, ______.” Again, we were joking, but it got me thinking, “How many guys do I know that are single because they’re so busy trying to date themselves, they won’t date the girls around them?”

(Before I go on to describe what I’m talking about, hear me loud and clear on this: I am not saying that if you’re a single Christian male, you must be doing this. If you comment and complain that your situation is different, and that’s not the people you know, and so forth, I’ll nod my head in agreement and say, “Good, I’m glad. I wasn’t talking to you.”)

You with a wig on.

You with a wig on.

In my time as a twenty-something male, hanging out with twenty-something males, and pastoring them, I’ve noticed that a number of them are convinced they need to find a female version of themselves to date and that anything else is “settling” or won’t work. In their minds, dating is this project where you attempt to find your long-lost second self who shares all of your habits, quirks, taste in movies, and political views.

This is nonsense and should be dropped immediately.

Obviously, I get the desire to have a person who understands all of your loves and joys, the things that stir your imagination, and so forth. Marriage is, at least, a type of friendship. And friendships are based around common or shared joys and commitments. At some point, though, finding someone you can be friends with crosses over into finding someone you could confuse yourself with.

If I had to lay down a principle here, I’d say this: some overlap is good; total overlap is unnecessary and maybe weird. What you need is someone who is okay with you being you on the personality stuff, and willing to encourage you to stop being a sinner when you need it.

I’ll take my own marriage as an example, mostly because it’s the one I know best at this point. Beyond Jesus Christ, McKenna and I share enough things in common to make life enjoyable. There is a certain overlap in movie tastes (although we frequently watch things by ourselves that the other doesn’t want to), and music (she doesn’t like country and will listen to certain metal with me), food tastes, etc. What’s more, I know that she would never forced me to sleep in the dirt or climb a big rock, or something similarly horrible. We also have a shared sense of humor, which is important.

That said, she is by no means a theology nerd, which is probably my greatest passion and hobby in life. I mean, she knows the faith and will let me babble on about whatever I’m reading about, but she’s not pulling the latest text in trinitarian theology off the shelf to discuss with me. I on the other hand, will listen to her talk about the things she writes on for her beauty blog, used to watch ‘Project Runway’ with her when we had normal TV, and have learned the names of some important designers, but I don’t sit there looking up previews for the Fall or Spring line-up like she will. I’m a morning person, she’s a night owl. I could watch comic-book movies for days, and she likes art house films where everybody dies and is unhappy at the end. I could go on for days here, but we are very different people in many ways.

The great thing is that we’re okay with that. McKenna is happy to let me babble at her about theology, and I’m happy to let her babble about beauty stuff at me,  but neither of us expects the other to be as interested as the other in those things. I mean, marriage changes you and so over time we’ve become more interested in each other’s hobbies. At the same time, we’ve become more comfortable acknowledging our differences and it’s been healthy.

Here’s the thing: happy, God-glorifying couples come in all shapes and sizes. Some seem like two peas in a pod. Others look outwardly like they’re worlds apart. Others are kind of a blended middle. While I’d suggest a certain amount of overlap of interests for a healthy friendship, don’t get caught in the trap of passing by a great girl simply because she won’t play video games with you, or whatever sine qua non you’ve chosen as your must-have quality. Try to find a girl who shares the main thing with you (Jesus), is okay with you being you, and then everything from there is gravy.

Soli Deo Gloria

P.S. Since writing this, it’s become clear that this is not simply a male phenomenon. Ladies, obviously, feel free to rework the grammar and apply this to yourselves.

Three Reasons Not to Buy Your Kid a Brightly Colored iPhone (Sorry kids) #CaPC

iphone colorAlong with the new iPhone 5s,  Apple released another iPhone, the 5c, that will feature plastic backings making them a lot more affordable and accessible to a broader audience. As cool as that is for some of us, a lot of parents who’ve been playing the ‘we can’t afford it’ card with their kids in order to keep them at bay, will be out one more excuse to put off buying their youngsters a smart-phone.

So what are parents supposed to do? Do you get the kid an iPhone? You’re kind of apprehensive because it’s been such an adult thing, but, I mean, all of their friends have them. They feel excluded. Also, the colors are pretty. It’s kind of the way the world works now, and you know, you had a Gameboy when you were a kid and you turned out fine. Plus, they’ve got to have a phone so you can get a hold of them. I mean, why not? What’s really standing in your way?

Watch me ruin kids’ days by telling their parents not to buy these things over at Christ and Pop Culture.