David McCullough Speaking with Brian Lamb

Brian Lamb, always excellent, devoted two hours of the Q&A program to David McCullough earlier this year (Part 1, Part 2). They mainly discussed Mr. McCullough's most recent book, The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris.

Thomas Kinkade, Criticism

Joe Carter, at First Things, had an excellent, thoughtful column on the work of Thomas Kinkade (Thomas Kinkade's Cottage Fantasy), touching upon, among other things, why his earlier art is superior to his later, commercial work.

Another fine article, by Greg Wolfe, can be found at Image Journal (The Painter of Litetm).

Storytelling

I recently watched the pilot episode for a new series on AMC (home of 'Mad Men') called 'Hell on Wheels'. It looks great -- the sets, props, scenery -- but the writing is quite weak. Is it that hard to write a good story?

In the first scene, we see a Civil War soldier stumbling into a church. Cut to that soldier in the confessional booth, heavily burdened by what he saw and did during the war, especially the wickedness perpetrated against the civilians in the South, he having fought for the Union. Surprise! The 'priest' hearing his confession is a Southerner out to seek revenge for those injustices visited upon his kin. He shoots the Union soldier through the  screen, then coolly walks out of the church, with scared parishioners scampering about.

What self-respecting writers can begin a story like that? Sadly, it gets no better as the hour goes on.

Church Criticism, Part 1

I mean criticism in both a negative or adverse sense, and the more neutral, analytic sense.

In the context of an ongoing book discussion with my coworkers, many comments have been shared concerning the practices of one church or another, the way we do it, the way they do it, etc. Some of the critical comments applied directly to my local fellowship, with one coworker declaring that he would never return to my church after visiting once because the sermon was a video shown on a big screen.

This has gotten me to thinking about the criticism of churches -- firstly, how harsh and superficial our assessments can be, how full of the flesh, full of judgement of others and justification of self; and secondly, simply how to critique in a good way, how to analyze, assess, what to consider. It is this second type of criticism, the healthy kind, that I am most concerned with in this post. The first, the ugly kind -- I'm concerned with that, too. I hate it. I want to reject it and fight it in myself, and I want to gently encourage others when they level it at me and my beloved church.

The aspects of a particular local congregation that most immediately present themselves may fall under two broad headings -- beliefs and practices. (These are two of the main aspects of culture, by the way.) These categories overlap, mainly in that practices are both manifestations of beliefs (whether more deliberately or less so) as well as teachers, promoters, encouragers of beliefs. Our practices -- habits, rituals, traditions, formal and informal -- communicate and reinforce our beliefs. They contribute to creating a culture where the professed beliefs are more plausible and meaningful. The most significant venue of practices is what happens when the church gathers for corporate worship on Sunday mornings.

Consideration of the beliefs of a church would include its statement of faith and that of its denomination. The most significant aspect of its beliefs would be what is taught -- in Sunday school and mid-week studies, but especially from the pulpit on Sunday mornings.

And so, the church worship service on Sunday mornings is the most central element of their culture, with the preaching of the pastor being the most significant element of that corporate time together.

Therefore, when evaluating a church, we might begin with the preaching. And there is a place for this.

The real beginning, however, ought to be God's word. What does God say about what his church should believe and do?

An Artist Speaks to the President

When President Obama was in Hawaii, hosting the APEC summit, the Hawaiian musician Makana was scheduled to play some background music, presumably instrumental, during their dinner. Rather than strum along in vocal silence, he chose to play a recently composed song, We are the Many, expressing the sentiment of the 'occupy' movements. (A nice interview and the lyrics are at Democracy Now, but a great interview by Marco Werman is at The World.) He sang it for about 45, repeating the song again and again, trying, as he said, simply to impart a message he considered urgently relevant for the APEC negotiations taking place at the summit.

When I first heard about this 'protest' -- a name I reject -- I looked askance at a performer taking advantage of such a special opportunity in this way. He was asked to play before the heads of state of many nations, how shameful that he would insert such petty politics in this way. How discourteous.

I was reminded, however, of Mother Teresa's noteworthy speech at a National Prayer Breakfast during President Clinton's administration, at which she boldly spoke out against the evil of abortion. With the pro-abortion President and the First Lady listening politely in the front row, she minced no words in condemning the wickedness of the killing of the unborn.

How should her actions (the giving of this speech) and her words (the content of her speech) be described? Was it impolite? I think it was. Disrespectful? I think not. Was it true? Yes, it was true. Loving? Yes, also right, timely, urgent and vital.

I remember no one condemning her for saying what she said at that occasion, that is, no one considered it inappropriate. No one said, "We know you believe these things, but it was wrong of you to say them then and there." Rather, you ask Mother Teresa to speak, and this is what you get.

What of the song of Makana? He is an artist, employing his medium to communicate a message. You ask an artist to come and say something, and this is what you get.

And it's a well written song.

'Society' and 'Culture'

In a brief piece on NPR this morning, discussing the hacker community Anonymous, the journalist being interviewed, Quin Norton, repeatedly confused the terms 'culture' and 'society'. The text is not available online yet, just the audio, so I cannot easily review the exact words, quote them, or comment on them specifically.

When considering matters of culture, it is important to maintain a distinction between the individual people comprising some group -- a society or community -- and the shared values, practices, etc. of that group. Cultures do not exist apart from individuals comprising a group, and all such societies have a culture, but they are not synonymous. I don't wish to get ahead of myself, but for example, we do not evangelize cultures, we evangelize people or groups of people. Can a person 'engage' a culture? Probably not, depending on what one means by the term.

How should we define 'culture'? A good working definition would include the following elements:

• First, elements of culture exist in common. No common, no culture. Cultures do not exist outside of a context of people living in community.
• Second, individuals are parts of many different communities, which each have their own culture, their own set of things they have in common. Inevitably, there is much overlap between what two different communities have in common when the members of those communities overlap. E.g. the culture of a local church will come to reflect the cultures of the individual families that make up that community.

Lastly, what are those things that people in community have in common? More to come.

Maurice Sendak

Terry Gross recently had a thought provoking interview with Maurice Sendak, author and illustrator of Where the Wild Things Are and many other books. Like in many of Ms.Gross's interviews, her celebrated guest is very open and honest with her. Mr.Sendak even remarks that with no other interviewer does he find himself opening up and sharing as deeply as he does on Fresh Air. A dear friend of Mr.Sendak's had died just two days before, following that man's wife who had died only several weeks earlier.

A Jewish atheist, Mr.Sendak is resolute in his belief that there is no live after this one. I found the interview to be a moving and, ultimately, sad depiction of an intelligent, uninhibited old man approaching the end of his earthly life with a mixture of joy for what life has given him, an enduring love for this life, sorrow for deep brokenness of the past distant and near, despair as his friends and loved ones perish around him, terror at the resulting loneliness, and the vain hope of seeing his deceased beloved brother once again.

This is refreshingly honest. Though never really naming them as such, Mr.Sendak expresses the contradictions within many (everyone?) who moves through life feeling deeply and with an alive imagination. I recognize these contradictions within myself and sometimes grieve that they are spoken of by others so little, sometimes making me feel that it is some defect to be so conflicted.

Yet what of God's light I have eyes to see illuminates enough of this universe to provide glorious order within and without, redemption of all that is broken, and radiant hope in the not distant future, even as the failings and fallenness of this life seem to increase.

Mr.Sendak, there is more beauty, more glory, deeper mysteries, greater love, and a meaning both grand and simple which you do not know. The teller of this story has brought through his son a complete redemption and a satisfying resolution to the marvelous narrative. Seek him before your story ends.

Relevance

Is your church relevant? Do you wish for it to be? Do you value that about your church?

Thinking about this recently, my gut reaction was to reject the word, reject the category altogether. I do not even use that category -- relevance -- when thinking about my church. I think, rather, about the care of my soul, the exaltation of and exultation in God, the re-tuning of my heart as I am drawn away from the things of the world and away from myself, toward God himself, by God himself, through what happens in corporate worship.

So I don't like the word 'relevant'. Seems too world-centered.

Looking up this word, the main definition for this context is simply:

      'directly bearing on the matter at hand'.

Now I see the crux. I have been converted, for now I love what is relevant. Now, I wish to be relevant, and I revel in the relevance of my church and my pastor.

For the issue is: What is the matter at hand.

A Theological History of America

One of my favorite sources of excellent audio (conference and seminar lectures, more so than sermons) is wordmp3.com. I recently listened to a thought-provoking message from Douglas Wilson on the 'Theological History of America 1620-1865'.

A few points made by Pastor Wilson (from listening to it only once):

• The American War for Independence was as much about fear of the King of England appointing a bishop over the colonies as it was about anything else.
• After the high of defeating the British, the colonies, now states, began a spiritual decline.
• While the Second Great Awakening was very real and had lasting effects, the teachings and practices of Charles Finny led directly to an emphasis on experience over teaching of sound doctrine, leading to the liberalization of the Northeast.
• The spirit of independence -- self-sufficiency, get it done by yourself -- which is characterized as a supremely American virtue, was a product of the westward expansion of the nation, not a product of those who first came, who were rather very community-minded.

While not the most eloquent speaker, Douglas Wilson is an astute thinker. I commend this message to anyone wishing to learn more about the early history of America.

Why Teach

From one of George Grant's blogs, Eleventary:

After 20 Years, Why I'm Still Teaching

1. I get to love what I love in front of my students.
2. I inevitably learn more--even more than those I’m teaching.
3. I have a great excuse to buy more books.
4. And then, I have a great excuse to read more books.
5. I am forced to make real-life connections rather than simply pontificate in the theoretical.
6. I am provoked to think about the future and scrutinize the present through the lens of the past.
7. I am able to reacquaint myself with the best of our great legacy of art, music, and ideas.
8. I get the satisfaction of seeing the “lights come on.”
9. I am constantly prodded to hone my communications skills.
10. I get to bear testimony to the grace and mercy of God, in space, in time, and in me.
11. I am privileged to catch early glimpses of the future leaders of our culture in action.

Prīmum

First post, new blog. This blog exists not because the world needs another blog but because I might.

My intention is to collect and share here some of what is engaging, helpful, thought-provoking, edifying to me.

Soli Deo gloria. Non mihi, Domine.