I can't believe it's not a real blog!

A New Post? Here? Believe!

2011-08-18T13:32:00.004-04:00

It's been almost 3 years, reader(s), since my last post. Since then, I've had another son and...well that's pretty much all. Still, not bad. How many children have you had?

Why am I resurrecting this blog? I want to write more often, but not on BBG exclusively, which, as the unflinching by-laws state, is reserved for "equipping and edifying Christians around the world to understand God’s Word more fully, and thoughtfully apply it to their daily lives and cultural context." Other way to put it is that I want an outlet for trivia, snark, and my predictions of the outcomes of various reality shows.

Another Shameless Plug

2008-10-31T09:59:00.003-04:00

Have you checked out BBG yet? You should, becuase it's awkward when a grown man cries, even over the internet. *sniff*

Caption Contest

2008-09-12T11:50:00.005-04:00

Since all my "serious" (overstatement?) posts are now reserved for BBG, this blog will feature many more posts of the illustrious Henry Calvin, who today is celebrating his first birthday.

To celebrate, please submit a caption for the photo below. The picture was taken moments before Henry went on his first bike ride (on a bike seat of course. He's not that advanced.) My submission is "Yeah baby! Bring on the bikes!" Yours?

New Blog! Must Read!

2008-09-02T21:50:00.002-04:00

Funny thing about the English language, but you can end every sentence with an exclamation point! What fun! The purpose of this blog is to shamelessly promote a new joint venture of Brian and Danny, Boston Bible Geeks! I'll let the site speak for itself, so check it out and let me know what you think! Thanks!

One Thought

2008-08-25T20:16:00.006-04:00

As I mentioned a few posts ago, I recently read An Evangelical Manifesto. I strongly suggest it for Christians and non-Christians alike. This isn't a wholesale endorsement of everything therein, but it is very well-written, and if nothing else, a catalyst for deeper thinking on Christianity's interaction with culture. I would also argue that it has historical importance as well; not on the level of the 95 Thesis, for sure, but worthy of a half-hour if religion and sociopolitical dynamics have any place on your list of interests.

That said, in the manifesto there is one idea of which I am particularly fond, and is the impetus for this post. I'll paraphrase here without comment: In the first instance, Christians ought to define themselves, and be defined, by what they are for, rather than what they are against.

Anybody else read the manifesto?

Tears in my Eyes

2008-08-08T08:47:00.004-04:00

Henry already knows the fastest way to utterly own his father. The book is "Basics of Biblical Hebrew" by Van Pelt and Pratico (the latter being my Hebrew teacher at GCTS; far and away the best language teacher ever to walk the earth. Ever.) If he had drumsticks in his hands I would have completely broken down :)

A Mid-Summer Night's Random Things

2008-07-14T08:34:00.007-04:00

Roman Numerals are appropriate for this list, I think. After all, Edna Krabappel warned that if we don't learn our Roman Numerals, we may never know the year certain films were copyrighted. As Paul would say, "Mh genoito!"

V. Time flies when you're waist deep in chubbs. HCM turned 10 months this weekend. Henry continues to be an extraordinary blessing in our lives, and a tremendous amount of fun, as evidenced by the picture below.

IV. I started reading Darrel Bock's "The Missing Gospels" a week ago. He is quite good at navigating the treacherously confusing waters of ancient gnosticism, and the book promises to be a good read. It addresses the "new school" on Jesus and the gospels that seem to surface into popular culture every now and then (e.g., there are several other written accounts of Jesus' life and ministry that call for a "new" understanding of who he is/was, etc. C.f., books by Elaine Pagels, The Da Vinci Code, etc. No more Latin abbreviations, I promise). There is much I'd like to say about this, but it is all worthy of it's own post. Year 5, perhaps? We'll see. My Harry fans await.

III. I'm also reading Brokaw's "The Greatest Generation" in part to satisfy a newly developed interest in WWII. It is a very interesting read for sure. More on this as well. (Year 6?)

II. The renovations to our dining room are done! As each weekend draws to a close, we come a little bit closer to reclaiming our house. Things were quite disastrous for a while (disastrous = not neat and clean, per my Seinfeldian bent). When you own a smaller home, every square foot is precious, and doubly-so when Lord Chubbington is on the move. It's nice to be back.

I. I'm losing my taste for swimming. More specifically: I'm losing my taste for tepid pool water at 5 in the morning. No matter my technique or best efforts, it seems I always get (and swallow) pool water in my mouth when I swim in the morning, and I'm growing tired of it. I also watched the Olympic swimming trials these past few weeks, and have to concede that I may not be ready for the team in 2012. Sigh. Michael Phelps, you're so dreamy.

O. << It just ocurred to me that there isn't a Roman Numeral for "0." Interesting. This calls for a little historical sleuthing! Did the Roman's not consider zero a number? Had they no need to ever record it? When did zero come on to the scene? Funny how we take for granted such mathematical advances. Anyway, my 0th random thing: My wife and I were discussing favorite meals last night, and I realized that I get most excited when I hear we're having something Mexican for dinner: nachos, tacos, enchiladas, burritos...you get the picture. I was surprised, since I consider myself quite egalitarian when it comes to food (viz. I'll eat anything, and lots of it), but I guess it's true. If only I could update my 8th grade yearbook picture caption with this information. Pizza be damned*, I say! Bring on the tostadas!

*not really...

Harry Potter and the Personal Confession

2008-06-27T14:52:00.004-04:00

The song "Guerrilla Radio" by Rage Against the Machine ends with Zack de la Rocha's ever-angry whisper:
It has to start somewhere.
It has to start sometime.
What better place than here?
What better time than now?

He then proceeds to shout All Hell can't stop us now. six times before the song ends.

Whenever I hear this song, I always find myself fighting the urge to punch my fist into the air and/or kick something. It's an absolutely wonderful, angry, rebellious song, and it gets me every time. It has 5-stars in my iTunes library.

As for the content of the song, I know very little of Rage's intended meaning. My best guess is that the song is one of anger and rebellion towards some exploitative authority, with the last 30 seconds comprising the call to battle. Huh. Go figure. A band with the name "Rage Against the Machine" is angry with corrupt authority figures. How insightful of me. Thanks Captain Obvious.

Anyway, the song always brings up two interesting thoughts (to me, at least):
(1) Wouldn't the battle cry "All Hell can't stop us now" dovetail nicely into a Christian context? (C.f., Mt. 16:18, most of Revelation, etc.)
(2) Why do I have such an affinity for angry rock music?

As for (1), I don't know how I feel about this. We're back to the notion of borrowing artistic expression authored and intended for one purpose, and using it for another. And Rage Against the Machine? These guys drop enough F-bombs to make Quentin Tarantino blush. Is this a good source from which to borrow art? If not, why? Should the character or intent of the originator(s) matter? Has it mattered in the past to our Christian founders?

As for (2), I can say that I have a soft-spot for angry music. Maybe that's just because I'm a Gen-X-er. I'll leave it at that rather than psychologize myself on the web, revealing to everybody that I have unresolved anger issues because my dog ate my favorite teddy bear when I was three. That aside, I will say that my experience, from very early on, with popular music, especially rock, has been on the rebellious, angry, side of the scale. From a young age until roughly nine years ago, rock music, on average, was redolent of aggression, anger, rebelliousness, and irreverence. Now, had my exposure been different, perhaps it'd be much easier for me to swallow contemporary worship music.

I think that's one of the reasons why I'm always blogging about this stuff. Something just doesn't seem right to me. In my experience, rock/pop is a style of music that has close ties with themes that don't jive all that well with worshipping God. Had I been raised Christian, where my first exposure to a rock song was "King of Majesty" instead of "Cum on Feel the Noize," perhaps I'd be less critical of contemporary Christian music. Perhaps...but let's not get crazy.

A Quick Rant...

2008-06-06T18:34:00.005-04:00

There's a new ad campaign by Mohegan Sun (a local casino) in which capacity they take classic rock tunes and add lyrics that tell of the wonders of casino gambling. The artists do a good job covering the songs, so I have thrice been burned by this when scanning through radio stations. "Ooh, Sweet Home Alabama...wait, no. It's We Come to Mohegan. Drat." Anyway, I'm finding this infinitely annoying.

My Girl P.D.J.

2008-06-03T07:51:00.004-04:00

What better way to kick off the June blogging season than with my original, unique, trademark, in now way copied (bogarted?) from Danny or any other person(s) living or dead, "Random Things" post. In lieu of irrational numbers, I will list said thoughts with primes:

3571 Summer is indeed upon us! I'm very much enjoying the nice weather, and the sense of renewed life and vitality that the beauty of God's creation brings. Since I became a beliver, spring and summer have always brought to mind God's redeptive power, and His plans to redeem and renew all of creation.
2069 Thanks in no small part to a feature in a recent Mars Hill issue, I started to read a mystery novel by P.D. James. This is truly excellent fiction. The world James creates is as rich and deep as her characters. Nary a page goes by when I don't think to myself, "Wow, I wish I could write like that." I'm working my way through The Lighthouse right now; I'm very much looking forward to reading more. It's the kind of adult fiction that doesn't make you feel guilty, like some of the literary junk food upon which I tend to gorge from time to time.
101 Celtics and Lakers in the NBA finals. I still remember eating breakfast at my home in Bridgewater the day after the Celtics took it all from the Lakers back in 1986. The morning news raved and I felt especially cool having watched the game (albeit on TV) the (late) night prior. Good times. I must say that the 21st century has certainly been an embarrassment of riches when it comes to Boston sports. The Patriots got it started, then the Red Sox got the "Reverse [the] Curv[s]e" sign taken off of Storrow Drive, now the Celtics. We're waiting, Bruins...
23 I took a swim lesson last week. It certainly helped me with some nagging issues of mine when I freestyle, but I still suck water (yummy, tepid, chlorinated water, no less) from time to time. This may force me to wait for the 2010 Olympics. Oh well.
2 Of the one participants [sic], nobody got my trivia question correct as to the significance of MCMLXXVI. April 1, 1976 was the date that Apple Computer was founded by the two Steve's. They are both doing very well now, so I gather.

Dig it. Bmarchio out.

Harry Potter and the Illusion of Media Neutrality

2008-05-30T09:16:00.004-04:00

For those of you who were doing the internet equivalent of waiting in line at a book store for "Year 3" of my blog series, the doors have opened! As has been my trend, this post will have even less to do with Harry Potter. However, I defy you to find a more enjoyable hobby than making up blog titles of the "Harry Potter and the..." flavor. As such, I have no choice.

As the title does suggest, I did want to throw out some food for thought regarding the perceived neutrality of media. As an upfront clarification, please note that by "media" I do not refer to the nightly news or such ilk, but rather the media through which human experience is expressed (e.g., music, poetry, movies, television, etc.) As is my custom, my main focus is Christian worship music. I've begun four sentences so far with "as." Good writing? As for my opinion, I say yes. As.

In "The Purpose Driven Church," pastor Rick Warren makes the statement that no musical style is intrinsically "good" or "bad." There is no such thing as 'Christian music,' only 'Christian lyrics' (p.281). I detect traces of such a philosophy undergirding the use of different musical styles in worship. Rock music isn't intrinsically "bad," so we can just take that cultural form, add Christian lyrics, and produce perfectly acceptable worship music, yes?

I don't know if the equation is quite so simple. The reason, as suggested by my title, is that there is no such thing (IMHO) as a "neutral carrier" when it comes to media. Consider music: Would it be appropriate to sing "Jesus Loves Me" to Ride of the Valkyries or Beethoven's Fifth? How about superimposing Alanis Morrisette's "You Oughta Know" lyrics on top of the music to Disney's "Hakuna Matata"? The ideas are are laughable. It follows that music indeed has intrinsic meaning. It is not neutral in its message, waiting for meaning to be assigned to it by the listener (post-modernity, anyone?).

We could even dive deeper and consider the background of such music. What if Anton LaVey pioneered a new style of music that came to great popularity. Would it be acceptable to co-opt said form and add our own Christian touches to it? Rock n' Roll has its roots in youthful rebellion, and other sensual matters that aren't always in line with Christendom. Should this affect how we use it?

What of television? Here is a device whose raison d'etre is entertainment. Does this not affect, even subconsciously, how the viewer interprets and responds to the messages it conveys? In a blink, we switch from some horrific human tragedy in a news clip to a sitcom. Does this not somehow cheapen the human tragedy? Moreoever, if somebody sits in front of a TV, whether to watch "The Simpsons" (ahem) or the Jesus film, aren't they subconsciously expecting to be entertained? Should we care about this?

Of course, Christianity has a long history of borrowing from local culture. Much in classical Christian art employs pagan symbology (e.g., the halo), and the Christian calendar is filled with holy days that were once pagan holidays (e.g., Christmas). Even more, you could drive yourself crazy with this stuff: Levi's jeans were originally developed as clothing for gold prospectors, and in the 50's and 60's blue jeans were often associated with rebellious riff-raff. Shouldn't this inform our choice of dress? Hmmm. This shifts the question a bit. Of course, nobody cares (or knows) the history of blue jeans now, and they've become acceptable attire for Christians. When and how can we draw this line? Is there a statute of limitations?

Back to the matter at hand, what about praise music? Should we sing a praise song in a minor key? To rock music? I can't propose a blanket answer, but I will propose that we do well to at least consider such matters. I feel American Christians tend to err on the side of being too cavalier about adopting cultural forms in Christian expression: "Contemporary music at church? Sure! It'll better connect with the congregation and evoke stronger emotions from them! Entertaining sermons with stunning visuals and drama? Sure! It'll keep everybody's attention!"

My suggestion, then, is a thoughtful pause before the "sure!" The forms we choose carry baggage with them, and we may need to address it in our teaching. At a minimum, we should think about it. The emotions felt during the worship may be in response to the music, not God. The engagement during the sermon may be because of the presentation, not the content. If so, we miss the mark, hence we ought to proceed, as my Spanish teacher would say, "con cuidado." If I were to peanut-butter any statement across this whole subject, I'd say that everything we do should be purposed towards keeping God at the center of it all. We don't want people standing on the Golden Gate Bridge to fall so in love with the architecture that they fail to cross, and reach the more important destination.

More to follow, I guess, but for now, Harry has boarded the Hogwart's Express, and is headed home for the summer. Who knows what adventures await next post. Ah, half-baked ivory tower musings...Whatever would I do without you?

As.

Debate Apology

2008-05-27T09:37:00.004-04:00

As an apology and peace offering for my lame computer-related posts, I submit the following photo (taken with my Mac's built in camera, no less). The shirt says, "Future Rock Star," and it looks like something theophanic in nature is happening behind my wife. Or, it's just her angelic glow. Or, it's solar glare. Or, a large quantity of magnesium powder was just ignited in my yard. Or, it's the beginning of an X-Files episode. Or, my home-spun nuclear reactor just melted down. You decide.

The "Eternal" Debate, Part MCMLXXVI

2008-05-27T08:12:00.003-04:00

This really isn't the 1,976th part of the "eternal" debate, but I so rarely get to use Roman numerals, I thought I'd give it a go. The number has significance, too. Can anyone guess? Correct guesses will win the prize of an honorable mention on this very blog! Think of it! Tens of people may see your name on the internet! TENS!

After much extraneous and self-indulgent background, I shall proceed to make a few comments on the Mac vs. PC question:

1) Mac's are sexier. Sorry, but the ID at Apple is second to none, and PC's just aren't there. The GUI is gorgeous, and the computer itself begs to be displayed as if it were a piece of furniture.
2) PC's are cheaper. And by "cheaper," I mean waaayyyy cheaper. I could have bought 2-3 new PC's for the price of my iMac.
3) Mac's are frozen. What I mean here is that if you're an upgrade addict, ever lusting after the latest nVidia-spawn, buying a Mac is like going cold-turkey. All I could upgrade on my iMac was the RAM. This can be evocative of a "yawn," "sigh," or "whew," depending on your tastes.
4) Mac's are game-free. If you're in to PC-gaming, avoid Mac's like you avoid the ghost monsters in Pac-Man. Mac's aren't not exactly "game-free," but the available software out there is severely lacking compared to PC's.
5) Mac's can pretend to be PC's. With either Boot Camp (included with Mac's), or a cost-effective VM like Parallels ($80 and excellent) you can run Windows as if your Mac was a PC. And it runs very well. So, if you're like me and have a $400 license for BibleWorks that only runs on PC's, you'll want one of these.
6) Mac's tend to have everything you want. ...and nothing you don't. 90% of all the hardware and software that you'll need or want is already there, and there aren't fifty icons for stupid AOL offers, service plans, trial versions of corny software, etc., on your desktop.
7) Mac's work. You'll have to mess around with them a lot less, and won't need an degree in IS to get them humming. And they do hum, by the way. Since they're gone Intel, they outrun most PC's. I've read that the fastest laptop to run Windows is a powerMac. Weird.

Anyway, my bottom line is to consider what you do with your home computer. If you're like me, you do the following:

(1) Word processing
(2) Music management/playing (e.g., iTunes)
(3) Personal photos
(4) E-mail
(5) Internet

If that's about it, then get a Mac. With the exception of (1), Mac does all of those tasks way better and sexier than PC's, and it's tons more stable. As for word-processing, most folks out there are MS-Word junkies. You can get openoffice.org (for very short money, or no money at all if you're cheap) to fill that need and it'll be nearly seamless. I haven't played with Mac's "iWork" software, so I can't make a call there. My first impression is that it's too "template-y" in that it tries to do too much for you, not unlike the stupid MS-Office paperclip: "It looks like you're writing a letter..." Yes. It does. Now get off my desktop.

If you do CAD work (OrCAD, Pro-E, etc.), love PC games, or some other hard-core business-ish stuff at home, skip the Mac. The only exception is in graphical design/publishing. Mac's rule that space, too. Oh, and recording. Mac's rule musical recording, too. Even the rookie stuff like GarageBand rules.

In all, I'm very happy with my pricey purchase. It's fun (yes, fun), easy to use, stable, and has nearly everything you want ready and auto-configured at first power-up. What's more, I won't have to mess with it until it dies, or I come into money and want to blow it on a faster processor. A final caveat would be to remember that if you're a PC-user, you will have to travel up a learning curve of sorts with a Mac. Just expect that going in. It's easy, and the provided tutorials are great, but you'll have to learn some things again.

Swimmed, Swam, or Swum?

2008-05-19T10:17:00.004-04:00

This is technically a "Random Things" post, but Danny got all, "Hey, quit stealin' my ideas!" on me and I was all, "You just stole it from Dr. Parrot anyways," and he was all "Yeah, but he stole it from Martin Luther," and I was all "Don't be bringin' m'boy Luther into this, yo," and he was all "Psha!" and I was all, "Whatev...L8R luza," and he totally, like, didn't have anything to say. Pfft. Anyway, I've decided to forgo rational numbers for the following list of random things:

Pi) Does anybody know the proper, simple past tense for "swim?" I don't. I think it's "swam." Since I'm a border line olympic-level swimmer now (see this post), I figure I'm going to need to use this word more often. E.g., it hurt when I swam today.

Euler's constant, e) Season finale of "The Office?" Wicked. Awesome. Season finale of "The Simpsons?" Solid. The "man scrunchy" bit got big laughs from me. The rest was good, quality Simpsons, but not great.

Phi, the "golden ratio") How safe or advisable is it for Christian(s) to co-opt other (esp. secular) cultural forms of music, art, etc.? I smell a post coming on this one.

The sqaure root of 2) The boy is officially mobile. Heaven help us.

The "Eternal" Debate part I

2008-05-18T08:31:00.008-04:00

The eternal debate? Surely this post is concerned with some theological issue? Ha! Victory is mine! You have been tricked (punk'd, even) by my misleading title.

No, the "eternal" debate concerns the mundane, though ever-sexy world of computers viz. the "Mac or PC?" question. I'll pause for you to sigh, check your watch and see if you really want to squander the next 10 minutes of your life on such trivia, realize that tonight's Melrose Place re-run doesn't start for another 20 minutes, shrug your shoulders, and keep reading.

First, a little background. For those of you who do not want any background, just wait for part II:
Like most people in my generation, my first computer encounter involved an Apple IIe. I still remember some Logo commands from 4th grade, actually (PU = "pen up"). The Apple IIe was therefore synonymous with "computer" for me through 7th grade.

My family moved to Connecticut in the summer of 1988. Around the same time, we purchased our first PC: It was an IBM clone with an 8088 processor running at 8MHz. It had a 20Mb hard drive (that you had to "park" before powering off) and 256k of RAM. Since I was the new kid in town, I didn't have many friends for a few months (sniff), so I became well acquainted with my PC, and MS-DOS v.3.2.

As such, I was "born" a PC-man, through and through. That summer of '88 is the one I credit with sparking my interest in computers, software, electronics and (8 years later), electrical engineering. Over the next two decades, I would have many different computers, many self-built, all of them constantly upgraded, rigged, tinkered with, etc. DOS was my first love, of course. I adamantly opposed GUI's until they became the de facto standard for PC's. I had a brief summer romance with an original Macintosh in '89, but we ultimately parted ways. It was a classic "summer camp" romance that had to die when camp was over and our parents took us home.

In college, I was a PC evangelist. I hated Mac's and frequently (nerdily) made fun of such "fake computers" with my engineering buddies. We'd also had arguments over who had a better calculator. Seriously. Such arguments really happen. They aren't just exaggerations and jokes that other people make about nerds. I was also strongly anti-Windows '95 and fiercely pro-OS/2. Sadly, I lost that battle. College also required frequent use of ULTRIX (DEC's version of UNIX) and VAX systems. Since these were DOS-y in nature (more properly, DOS was UNIX-y in nature, since the latter preceded the former), I quite liked them.

After college, I softened on Mac's, though in a very post-modern, "they're right for you, but not for me" kind of way. I continued to use a UNIX/PC mix at work, and continued to scoff at all things Apple, albeit to myself.

Fast-forward to 2003, when I purchased what would be my last PC: A Gateway 450SX laptop (P4 @ 2GHz w/ WinXP). This PC took me through seminary, and began a slow death about a year ago. As such, I now type to you on my new(ish) iMac. This of course raises several questions: Why did a die-hard PC-guy convert? How do I like it? Which is better? Well, Melrose Place is starting, so I'm going to sign off and answer these questions in my next post.

Harry Potter and the Repetitious Blog

2008-05-15T07:51:00.007-04:00

I submit the second post (of seven?) in the "Harry Potter" series. I'm not one for beating dead horses, or live ones even, but I'm rather enjoying making up the titles. My original post is here, for those seeking the context that I summarize below.

The question that started this all concerned whether or not Christians should ban, forbid, or disregard certain media. My answer, for those who could read between the lines, was "no" with a "but." The "no" stems largely from the fact that I believe Christians must thoughtfully engage their culture (n.b., "thoughtfully"). The "but" finds most of its basis in stumbling blocks: We have to be watchful of what we ingest, and how much.

The matter of media becomes much more complicated with respect to children, of course. As I watch my son grow up, I'm already thinking ahead to how I balance protection with allowing an instructive bump or bruise. Of course, with the Harry Potter books, I find them as harmless as any other fiction I've read. I will be quite comfortable letting Henry read them when he's of age, and will lose little sleep over him deciding to become Wiccan as a result.

I thought in this post I'd comment a bit more on the comments (I got TWO of them!) I received, particularly the matter of children (or adults) picking up on subtexts within a story. My anonymous commenter expressed certainty that children wouldn't pick up on religious subtexts within books (e.g., Potter, Narnia, His Dark Materials).

I think this is a tough nut to crack, so I'm not as certain. As Danny mentioned, their (our) worldview is shaped, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically, by our culture, and what our minds ingest day to day. If a child (or adult) reads many books with a strong anti-authority or anti-institution bias (e.g., His Dark Materials, Catcher in the Rye) it is quite possible that s/he may begin to develop a suspicion of authority in part thanks to these books.

Now, again, this isn't intrinsically wrong. In my anonymous poster's words, "Isn't it better to allow, and even encourage, our children to read these books, even the most controversial, and then provide the opportunity for safe, frank discussion of the issues therein?" Yea and Amen.

What we mustn't forget, however, is that sometimes these "issues" are hard to get at, because they are subtexts: they're subtle, and often dovetail very nicely with the cultural milieu. They are the unexamined assumptions that litter our culture today: We don't really know whence they came, but they're always there, coating the lens through which we view the world. In this way, I would almost prefer overt assaults on Christianity over and against the subtle ones: they're easier to target and discuss.

This just to say (call it point #6), that with regards to media, we must be prepared to carefully examine the assumptions and subtexts in what our children read. Note that said assumptions aren't necessarily bad. Take Harry Potter: (1) There's a very clear line drawn between good and evil. Even more, Human egalitarianism is clearly associated with the "good" and cultural elitism is clearly associated with "evil." (2) The theme of friendship is honestly portrayed, complete with arguments and reconciliations. (3) Self-sacrifice for a greater good is a neon sign throughout.

So, read and watch everything, and let your kids do the same (age appropriate and within reason, of course!) BUT be ever ready to uncover and examine the unsaid but implied, good and bad. I would go so far as to say that we would do well to apply such advice to anything we encounter.

Finally, (call this point #7) I would add that we should be sure to watch our diet: Watch and read everything, yes, but be sure that you're spending copious time engaging with the Truth, too. Harry Potter will entertain, but God's Word will sustain. Assaults on our faith can challenge and strenthen us, but so also can the Word. Let's thoughtfully engage on both ends, and all across, the spectrum. Given our fallen world and hearts, I submit that the scales of our diet should tip towards "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable...or praiseworthy."

3.5 Random Things

2008-05-12T10:52:00.003-04:00

[Chris Rock voice-over] Why 3.5? Because the man won't give me 95!

3.5: I joined a gym this weekend with the (high) hopes of starting to swim regularly. I'd much rather run, but a few years of that pretty much wrecked all of my joints. The plan is that I'll swim lots, the joints will get better, I'll run again, damage my joints, swim lots...sigh. Ah, the wheel of Samsara, she goes round and round (not really, but it was an appropriate metaphor).

3.0: Henry is a whopping 8 months old today, and is as close to crawling as you can be without actually crawling. Mom and I are bracing ourselves for significant changes once he's mobile.

2.0: We buried my grandmother this weekend, who passed away just one month shy of her 96th birthday. This was the first Christian family member of mine to go home, so it was an interesting mixture of sorrow for our loss and joy for her gain. She was indeed an amazing servant of the Lord. If it were possible to earn one's way into Heaven, I would think that she'd be in serious contention. She will be dearly missed, but praise be to God that she's enjoying His presence as I type.

1.0: Sesquipedalian (=one who likes to use big words). Great word of the day fodder, this one. To me it's also a great way to illustrate the Biblical concept of self-condemnation: If you call someone sesquipedalian, you're sesquipedalian. "Hello pot? Yes, it's the kettle. You're black." Another interesting thing about this word is it requires you to wear a monocle when saying it. At the very least, you need to be at a fancy party exchanging witticisms with other rich people between sips of an overpriced martini.

Generational Snobbery?

2008-05-11T19:31:00.007-04:00

There is a provocative new book out that examines how the digital age "stupefies" young americans. I'm thinking the author has Generation Z or iGeneration types in mind. Ironically, you can get a simplified, superficial look at the book here.

The author, Mark Bauerlein, who is a professor of English at Emory University, makes some interesting observations. I can't say I agree with his diagnosis of an entire generation ("Holy broad brush-strokes, Batman! This man just lumped millions of people into one narrow category without any nuances!"), I think his comments are worthy of consideration and discussion.

That said, the topic seems redolent of "generational snobbery," no? And this is part of the human condition, yes? Has any older generation every looked at a younger one with resounding approval? Couldn't a younger generation just return the favor anyway? For example:

"Hey baby-boomers, thanks a ton for the super-high divorce rate, exploited environment, spread of STD's, etc..."

I guess my point is that it's all too easy to point out "what's wrong with" younger generations. It's just as easy to point out the messes the older generations have left for the younger ones to clean up. Let's not forget that the older generations gave rise to the new, either. The fourteen year-old who IM's too much didn't invent the internet, after all. He (or she) wasn't even a zygote when such things started to make their way into the public forum.

What do you think? Is generational snobbery alive and well in America? Is there any value to be gleaned from it? I'm expecting several hundred comments.

The Many Names of Henry Calvin

2008-04-29T21:31:00.008-04:00

That's right: TWO posts tonight, friends. One for each reader...

For what it's worth as random information, Henry (a.k.a., Best. Baby. Ever.) goes by many names in our household. Here are some favorites (you'll notice a dominant theme):

1) Lord Chubbington
2) Count Chubbula (or simply, "the Count")
3) Baron von Chubbinstein (or, "the Baron")
4) The Boy (usage: "The Boy is stirring..." (spoken in horror at 3a.m.))
5) The Jackaroo (or 'Roo for short)
6) Chubber
7) Chubby McGee (or McArnackle)

Overprotective parents needn't worry about our son developing an identity crisis. We call him by his proper name plenty, and all of the above are, of course, spoken with all the love and affection we can muster. After all, he is indeed the Best. Baby. Ever.

P.S.: I had no idea what a jackaroo was until Wikipedia, ever the most reliable source of information in the world, gave this definition: "Jackaroo (or Jackeroo) - a young man gaining practical experience on a sheep or cattle property, to acquire the practical skills needed to become a manager of a property or station." Clearly we do not intend this meaning for Henry, but something sounds good about calling him a jackaroo all the same.

Weorthscipe (wurth'-ship)

2008-04-29T20:27:00.005-04:00

Reader's warning: unorganized, poorly thought-out, late-night ponderings commence below:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In an earlier post I had agreed with my friend Danny that one teaching from the Bible with which I struggle is that of "caring for the poor" in my present (rich, Western) context. What does that look like for a 21st century American?

While I do indeed struggle with this, I've recently been stewing much more on another struggle of mine: worship. I struggle profoundly (and I mean profoundly) with worship. Lo! My etymologically pretentious title is revealed! Marvel, all you who witness my mastery of dictionary usage (i.e., Merriam-Webster's website).

Seriously, though, worship has been especially difficult for me lately, giving occasion for the following, somewhat random questions and musings that scratch this surface:

Emotional experience = worship ???
Put another way: Does true worship of God evoke an emotional experience for the worshipper? Must I feel an emotional connection, something in my heart, when I worship God?

I believe that the answer is an impractical "yes...with a 'but.'" First order, we must agree that an uplifting, emotional experience isn't ipso facto an encounter with God. However, shouldn't true worship be emotional? If one is to recognize (even in part) the greatness and majesty of God, to consider who He is, and respond in praise, surely one must experience some sort of emotion in concert with this praise.

In my experience, I very rarely get there at a church service. If a favorite hymn is sung, my odds are better, but in general, it is a very stale, "will this be over soon?" experience. My odds of feeling an emotional upwelling of praise to God seem to occur more frequently with "head" experiences: reading systematic theologies, apologetics, biblical commentaries, and other such nerd-ery.

We're all made differently, and for sure in God's kingdom there is great diversity. As such, I feel on the one hand that all is well and good. Still, I can't help but feel that I'm missing something.

"I'm not an emotional person"
I've heard this said before, and I've even said it myself. But is this really true? Are there any people who are rightly un-emotional? In our fallen world, perhaps. But is this God's intention for us? I think the real issues at stake are extroversion and introversion. For an introvert like myself, my emotions tend to stay inside, repressed or stifled at worst, moderated or monitored at best. Any fault here? Perhaps the extrovert displays their emotions during worship and the introvert does not. Still, the introvert should feel something, yes? Hence my feeling that I'm missing something.

Can I force an emotion?
Sounds scary, but can't I? I firmly believe that feelings can follow actions. I may not feel something, but if I do it anyway, I've much better chances of my feelings falling to to line with my actions than if I sit it out. Do I, then, go through the motions of worship at church, trying desperately to worship? Man alive! That sounds scary, but it sounds better than just checking out, no?

I can worship elsewhere, in my own way
This is another scary thought. Okay, so I don't connect at church. I can connect at other times in the week, right? Yes, but we're just a stone's throw away from "why go to church at all?" here, aren't we? I think the Bible is clear about the fact that God delights in corporate worship. Individual worship, while still blessing God's heart, cannot be all there is. The Bible does not understand and individualistic Christianity, and amidst the intense privatization of all things religious in America, we should certainly fight tooth-and-nail any Lone Ranger tendencies within and without.

Whose fault is it?
Mine for being such an over-analytical, cynical, introverted sinner? Or the church's, for doing a lousy job at structuring its service? I'm guessing maybe a 90-10 split there. Of course the church could do better, but my gut tells me that I'm the bigger issue.

Is God honored?
I remember once telling my father (who, go figure, struggles as I do with worship) that God is honored by us giving worship the old college try, even if we don't "feel it." In fact, I argued God is honored even more when we don't want to do something. If it's hard for us, our sacrifice to do what we know is right carries more weight. If I love to worship, if it's fun, uplifting and easy for me, God is honored, but maybe not as much as by one who struggles to get there.

I'm not sure I agree with myself on that one. I think God receives more glory by the one so transformed by Him that s/he revels in giving Him glory in corporate worship.

Does this post need to be longer, and fraught with more half-baked thoughts that I'm ashamed to attribute to myself? Perhaps, but my son will soon wake for a drink (Mom is at the Red Sox game tonight!), and I should ready the bottle.

Harry Potter and the Ongoing Controversy

2008-03-17T07:41:00.008-04:00

I'll begin with a scene from a Simpsons episode:
--
Flanders (reading softly to Rod and Todd): ...And then Harry Potter, and all his friends...went straight to Hell for practicing witchcraft!
Rod and Todd: Yay!!!
--
My brother bought me the Harry Potter anthology for my birthday this past fall. I started them after the Christmas holiday and was instantly aware of why the books enjoy such outrageous popularity: they're very entertaining (go figure). I finished book 7 just last week, and have to admit, I'm sad that there are no more left to read.

Of course, as a Christian, I am accutely aware of the controversy surrounding these books. So aware, in fact, that I'm going to address the controversy very little in this post. Instead, I want to think about a bigger issue: Should Christians ever "forbid", "ban," or even disregard ceratin media?

We might also consider how the content of said media plays into our choice. Compare the Harry Potter series with something like Pullman's "His Dark Materials." The former is just Halloween made real, while the latter is a subtle (though ferocious), attack against the Christian worldview (per the author's own admission). What about Nietzsche? Dawkins? Harris?

Like most matters in life, I think a blanket answer is impossible, but here are five random thoughts as fodder for discussion:

1) If a Christian man or woman has never had any serious interaction with something that challenges their world view, I would maintain that their faith and witness is significantly weakened. I strongly believe that faith is like a muscle: if it is not used, it atrophies; moreover, if it is not challenged, it will not grow.

2) Christians must thoughtfully engage with their culture. Automatic and uneducated dismissal of non-Christian media is horribly damaging to our witness in the world.

3) We should guard ourselves agaisnt stumbling blocks. If a particularly raunchy movie comes out to much fanfare and discussion, there are ways I can learn about it without compromising my purity (e.g., Wikipedia, IMDB, Amazon). Clearly, we shouldn't watch pornography so that we can better interact with porn-addicted co-workers.

4) As parents, we certainly must take great care in how we walk the balance of guarding our children against that which would harm them, and teaching them to stand firm in a hostile world (c.f., point #1). Pray for wisdom.

5) Rent or borrow if possible; don't buy. I cringe to think of Harris or Pullman getting book royalties because of my purchase. Buying the media is a kind of financial support that we should avoid if possible.

Other thoughts?

Tag, I'm "it."

2008-03-13T11:44:00.005-04:00

Danny has "tagged" me with the following questionnaire. I have no idea how they track these tags, nor do I understand the social implications of ignoring one, thus I crumble like so much crumbly stuff. As if blogs weren't already the most self-indulgent creation of the 21st century, allow me to fart and sit on a whoopie cushion at the same time by way of the following smart-alecky orgy of self-indulgence:

1. What translation of the Bible do you like best?

If I can't read the autographs, which I never can, I usually pick up NIV. I have a soft-spot for RSV (ESV), but mostly because Danny doesn't like it.

2. Old or New Testament?

Joke answer #1: The Book of Mormon, a.k.a., the New New Testament.
Joke answer #2: The Pseudepigrapha
Real answer: To paraphrase a Jerry Seinfeld quote (grossly out of context), that's like asking which breath of air is your favorite. So there :P

3. Favorite Book of the Bible?

The Gospel of John, 2 Peter and Hebrews are in a dead heat. 2 Peter might win, since I'd guess Peter the fastest runner. See also answer to question (2).

4. Favorite Chapter?

Even though the question uses the singular, for John, it all has to be all together. Chapters 15-17 if I were held at gunpoint. For 2 Peter: chapter 1. For Hebrews, chapter 10. See also answer to question (2).

5. Favorite Verse?

I will again ignore the singular above: 2 Peter 1:3, Dt. 6:4, Prv. 3:5-6, Rom. 10:9-13, Ps. 31:1-5. See also answer to question (2).

6. Bible character you think you're most like?

The one created in God's image that sins a lot and doesn't deserve God's mercy or favor but receives it anyway.

7. One thing from the Bible that confuses you?

Anything that touches upon the issue of divine sovereignty/human responsibility...and probably 1 or 2 other things per page of text.

8. Moses or Paul?

Danny's analysis here is one of the most smart panted (and funny) things I've read, but I think Moses would still win. He seems better suited for throwing the smack down, as it were. Paul would win a debate though (but I suspect they wouldn't have anything to debate about).

9. A teaching from the Bible that you struggle with or don't get?

I so agree with my brother here, I'm going to quote him verbatim: "The teachings on caring for the poor are something I struggle with, not in understanding them but what that looks like for a 21st century American."

10. Coolest name in the Bible?

Evil-Merodach, king of Babylon! This Sunday at the Centrum-um-um! Evil-Merodach and the 4x4 that transforms into a fire breathing dragon-on! Kids seats just five bucks-ucks!

"Dead Air" or "Awkward Silence"? You decide!

2008-02-11T08:02:00.000-05:00

Last night, lured by the promise of a live performance of the Foo Fighters, I watched bits and pieces of the Grammy Awards. I haven't watched the Grammy's in years, so it was interesting to see how MTV-ish it has become: contest winners ("My Grammy Moment"), text voting, a split stage complete with adoring fans grasping at the pant cuffs of rock stars, ostensibly cool MC's announcing bands (c.f., Carson Daly. P.S.: Jason Bateman? JASON BATEMAN?!?!? Has the world gone mad?).

All that aside, I think the best way to wrap up the show is with two simple words: "Awkward silence." ("Dead Air" is a close second.) Exempli gratia: Ringo Starr's little speech. Also known as "things that happen on T.V. which are so painful and embarrassing that you watch through split fingers." Even pop-favorite Tom Hanks had a few shaky moments. You'd expect more from a guest star of the Simpsons Movie.

In terms of awkward-ness, we could also include every single award presentation, wherein celebrities struggled through horribly scripted dialogue, seasoned with bits of dead air, wherein the audience decides whether or not the stilted banter is worthy of (a) curtosy laughter or (b) curtosy applause.

I have to feel for these people, you know? Put yourself in that situation: You're asked to present an award at the Grammy's. (1) In your line of work, publicity of this kind, however painful, is good fodder for your career, so it'd be wise to accept. In some cases, you probably have to accept; recall many of these performers are legally bound to do such things per their contract with their agent/label, etc. (2) With little or no rehersal, you have to walk out in front of millions of people and trudge through the teleprompter's display of moldy cheese.

Sigh. Rock stars...the things they do for us!

Shave and a Haircut

2008-01-30T09:42:00.000-05:00

Henry got a haircut yesterday. The cuteness level has exceeded national standards and a state of emergency has been declared in our home.

Quiz Master

2008-01-29T15:56:00.000-05:00

I'm reminded of the episode of the Simpsons wherein Homer receives a quiz book, puts a traffic cone on his head (complete with question marks) and assumes the role of "quiz master" for several days...

I couldn't resist taking the quiz that Danny took.

Here's where I wound up. Some surprises here, I guess (save the 96% Wesleyan), but this was just a simple test. Had an actual theological classification been necessary, I would have been properly notifed and coerced to write a statement of faith:

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
96%
Neo orthodox
61%
Emergent/Postmodern
57%
Reformed Evangelical
43%
Roman Catholic
36%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
32%
Fundamentalist
29%
Classical Liberal
11%
Modern Liberal
7%

Good Questions from L'Abri

2008-01-28T08:02:00.000-05:00

Dick Keyes of the L'Abri fellowship in Southborough sends out a newsletter a few times a year to keep L'Abri supporters and alums up to date with current events. (Mr. Keyes was the professor of Cultural Apologetics at Gordon-Conwell, a class which won my prestigious "Best Class I've Ever Taken in My Life" award shortly after I completed it. I honestly think about something I learned in that class every day.)

Anyway, Mr. Keyes includes a short essay with each newsletter, and I found his winter newsletter to pose some good, practical questions to bear in mind during hardship viz. framing them in terms of becoming like Jesus (c.f., Heb. 12), which is, of course, our highest goal:

"How can we learn to love like Jesus if we are surrounded only by people who are easy to love? How can we expect to grow in humility without ever being humiliated? To serve as Jesus did if our service is always extravagantly appreciated? To forgive if we are never sinned against? To willingly suffer unjustly without suffering? To learn courage without ever feeling fear?"

What I like about these questions is that they can both bring quiet and disquiet to the soul: quiet to the one enduring hardship, disquiet (perhaps conviction) to the one who is too comfortable too often.

Body World Ethics Pt. II

2008-01-27T21:06:00.000-05:00

My good friend Brad refers to the Mars Hill Audio Journal as "the best resource of it's kind." I simply refer to it as "wicked awesome," as is my custom. Read their purpose statement and you'll catch my drift. I received a subscription to said journal when I graduated seminary, and the four days it takes me to finish each bimonthly installment mark the only four in which I eagerly anticipate my otherwise boring commute.

Anyway, my faithful reader will recall a post I made over a year ago about Gunther von Hagen's "Body World's" (or as he no doubt likes to call it, Körperwelten) exhibit at the Museum of Science . My wife and I went the see the exhibit, but were equally parts impressed and haunted by the exhibit: Indeed it is wonderful (educational?) to marvel at the miraculous body our Lord has created, but did the exhibit somehow undermine our value as humans? Ought corpses (however beautifully preserved and displayed) be the subject of an exhibit at a science museum, complete with placards signed by body artist von Hagen?

Mars Hill addressed the exhibit with art professor Michael J. Lewis in this month's journal, and I thought they brought up a two other interesting points, which I will gladly boggart:

1) The exhibit is frightfully clean, dry, and almost playful. One hundred eighty degrees away from anything an actual corpse would be. This is redolent of much of what is found in advertising: images of clean, shinny, happy objects for purchase and/or gawking. When purchased, the consumer finds that image <> reality.

2) The exhibit cannot help but be reductionistic in that humans are wonderful machines, to be dissected and understood. The value, honor, dignity and miracle of the human body is lost in a sea of scientific know-how and intellectual curiosity. A cross section of a working jet engine? Quoth the exhibit patron, "Wow, isn't that something..." A cross section of a human being? Quoth the exhibit patron, "Wow, isn't that something..."

This all brought to the fore of my mind (wait! I smell a segue...wait for it...wait for it...) something originally impressed upon me by a professor at GCTS viz. the tremendous value of the human body:

1) Jesus, God incarnate, walked the earth in a human body*, and lives today in bodily form.
2) We're going to keep our bodies, and will be raised imperishable in a body.

Now, we don't get many specifics on what this all looks like, but suffice it to say that the human body has great value: firstly, because God created it, but equally-so because the testimony of Scripture, again and again, powerfully affirms the worth of the human body. Examples abound (hand-waving, I know, but it's late).

So, while my first post was ambivalent about Body Worlds, I think I've officially swung all the way to saying that Body Worlds makes me very queasy, but for no visual reason.

*I struggled with my wording here: I didn't want to launch into a theological treatise on the divinity and humanity of Christ; still, my wording sounds like God just possessed a human body, like he was in a car or something. Not my intent; please withhold your theological hate mail.

Healthy Tastes

2008-01-13T21:11:00.000-05:00

My mother bought Henry some organic teething vegetables for Christmas (we're such hippies), and he's quite taken with them, as evidenced in the video below.

As in earlier posts, I again submit the following: Cutest. Baby. Ever.

In non-baby-related news, the Marchionni family has again been illin' in the physiological sense: I had a cold for about a week, and Catherine's just getting over it, as you can hear in the video above. Whenever I'm sick, I can't help but thank God for all the time that I spend not being sick. If there's anything I'd put in my "top 5 things God has taught me in 2007," it's the fact that every breath is His mercy made manifest. It's a frame of mind in which I wish I could dwell more often, since I can't help but be thankful if I actually take a moment to run down the laundry list of what's good about my life at any given moment, even if these things are otherwise considered "baseline." E.g., I'm breathing, I can walk, it doesn't hurt to swallow, I'm well fed, I don't have a headache, etc., etc. The list could go on forever, not unlike God's infinite grace. Go figure :)

Posting For Its Own Sake?

2007-12-09T08:37:00.000-05:00

I've nothing substantial to say here, but it's been ever so long since I've posted on this blog. My reader (n.b., singular) is no doubt vexed by my silence, so I submit the following:

Christopher Williams is a remarkable talent. In the eight or so years since I've come to Christ, I've been consistently underwhelmed by contemporary Christian music. Christopher Williams falls on my short list of Christian artists who I consider exceptions to my unhappy discovery (however subjective).

My wife and I recently had the pleasure to see him play live last weekend. In the five shows I've seen, I've never walked away disappointed. His lyrics have all the poetic beauty, honesty and subtlety of some of my favorite hymns, yet they remain contemporary and unique in every sense. He's not just putting "Come Thou Font" on the procrustean bed of modern songwriting.

To boot, he plays (both guitar and djembe) with all the skill and finesse you'd want from a high-end artisan. Wicked. Awesome. Anyway, he has a new album coming out soon for which I cannot wait. So go buy a bunch of his stuff because I would weep to think that such a talent would go under-appreciated.

Best. Baby. Ever.

2007-09-23T16:29:00.000-04:00

Henry Calvin Marchionni was born on September 12 at 10a.m. weighing in at 8lbs. 2oz. The birth experience has planted seeds for several more posts, but for now, sleep deprivation prevails, and I shall sign off.

P.S.: His name has nothing to do with the Church of England or Swiss reformers :)

Son of Ecclesiastes 6:11

2007-09-08T20:53:00.000-04:00

Sometimes you just need to get things off your chest. I think blogs are the perfect forum for such chest-getting-offing. You can technically say that you've communicated something of your thoughts or feelings, but you get the risk-free, consequence-free anonymity that has made the Internet what it is today.

I therefore give you my second, (shorter), list of words in the Ecclesiastes 6:11 series. The category today: Words that I wish would come back into common use. (Forgive my simplistic definitions.)

1) Ere (= before). Say this outloud: "I should stop now before I make a fool of myself." Say the same sentence, replacing "before" with "ere." Sounds classier, no?
2) Whence (= from where). "I don't know where it came from." Awful, cumbersome English. "I don't know whence it came." Music.
3) Pate (= top of the head). Nothing fancy here. It's just much cleaner to say "my pate," than "the top of my head."

Anyone want to add to the list?

Christo- and Eco-hypocrisy

2007-08-08T08:53:00.000-04:00

Hypocrisy is an interesting concept, and one that is more or less universally condemned. I know of few systems of thought that would uphold hypocrisy as a good thing. As a Christian, Jesus reserves some of his harshest rebukes for those whom he dubs "hypocrites" (e.g., the 7 woes in Matthew).

Ironically, Christendom has suffered much from hypocrisy. How many attribute their rejection of Christianity to hypocrites within the church? Hypocrisy has been a mighty thunder-stealer from Christian attempts to speak into social issues as well. Sanctity of marriage? Right. Talk to me once the divorce rate within the church falls well below the national average. On and on it could go...

A few things are worthy of note in any discussion of hypocrisy, however:

1) Forgive my Aristotelian (Randian?) tautology, but truth is truth, yes? If cigarettes are bad for you, it doesn't really matter if the person telling you this fact is sucking down Pall Malls. So also with Christianity: If Jesus is Lord, then Jesus is Lord. That's the fact that should be investigated and accepted/rejected. If the pastor telling you that Jesus is Lord is a shady character, it doesn't change whether or not Jesus is Lord.

2) Of course, the fact that truth is truth doesn't liberate us from any obligation to actually live in accordance with what we profess to believe. Hypocrisy is egregious sin, especially with respect to our faith, and precisely because so many are disillusioned because of it. If you don't live what you preach, you've just stolen all of your own thunder. Why would somebody believe what you say if you don't act like you believe it yourself?

I think that a recent (trite?) example of hypocrisy can be found in Al Gore & Co., Live Earth to wit:

**Each member of Dave Matthews Band has his own bus on tour. Okay, so +5 points for using bio-diesel, -100 points for using four busses more than necessary. How many tons of CO2 were unleashed to produce those extra busses, anyway?

**Al Gore's personal energy bill was 20 times the national average. Come again?

**Any of these celebrities live in a modest home? Driving a Prius doesn't negate the eco-cost of owning a 20,000 sq. ft. estate, you know.

I believe that Gore's eco-movement (sorry to keep putting "eco-" in front of everything) is good stuff. Our planet is in dire need of better stewardship. Christians should lead the charge, too (c.f., Gen. 2:15). However, the Live Earth folks hurt their own campaign when they won't live the life they're selling. For me this reinforces the foundational importance of walking my talk. Praise be, I have God's help, without which I'm sure my life would have all the evangelistic efficacy of a Jack Nicholson smoke-out campaign.

Rock stars...is there anything they don't know?

2007-08-07T16:02:00.000-04:00

Live Earth? Did anybody watch this? My complaints, now weeks away from being anything close to a propos, follow. I'd like to join in with the other critics who have lampooned the high-rolling rock stars and celebrities for advocating eco-friendly lifestyle, but first, the music:

1) The Beastie Boys: You know, I'm a big fan, but will somebody please keep these men away from instruments? Man alive! Their live version of "Sabotage" ought to have been subject to the same. I don't care how much energy you pour into a song, timing is timing, you know?

2) Foo Fighters: Wicked. Awesome. Ditto for John Mayer. However, Dave Grohl's hair is getting a bit out of control for me these days. Just pull it back in a pony tail, for crying out loud.

3) Roger Waters: There was a time in my life (ca. 7th grade) when "The Wall" nearly melted from overuse in my CD player. The performance of "Another Brick in the Wall Part II" was well done (kudos to the lead guitar player for filling David Gilmour's BIG shoes).

4) The Police: This is what kept me up until 11 that night, and the network did well to bait me at every commercial break: "Coming up...the Police." All for one song? And what's up with Kanye West's guest appearance? What was going on in that meeting? Perhaps I'm too much of a purist, but that was all bad. Ever since Sting let Sean Combs steal "Every Breath You Take," I've seriously questioned his discretion in such matters. Balancing out West was John Mayer on rhythm guitar. Again: Wicked. Awesome.

5) Crowded House: You can tell that Neil Finn is having some trouble hitting the high notes in "Don't Dream It's Over," (red flag: whenever an artist holds the mic up to the crowd to sing in his/her stead). CH is still worth watching.

Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...

2007-07-10T11:12:00.000-04:00

Ah, Judas Priest, we hardly knew ye...

Before I get into my "problem," I need to explain why I put "problem" in e-quotation fingers: My wife and I, after three solid years without, have finally decided to get a TV. The decision was in large part based on the fact that we were sick of watching movies on my laptop. Generally speaking, I hate television, though perhaps in the same way that a smoker could still hate cigarettes. Television's redeeming qualities are, for me, three shows. (I'll allow the reader to deduce which; hint: one of them is mentioned below). But I digress...

I'm a big fan of "The Office," and since I've been sans-TV for so long, I need to catch up through season 3 before season 4 starts in September. We've watched seasons 1 and 2 (thank you, DVD-inventor), but season 3 won't be out until September, but that's when we need to be watching season 4. Hence, my e-quotation fingers around "problem." It's almost embarassing to call this a problem, because it's such an American, spoiled-rich-kid kind of problem. Another post, perhaps, but for now, I shall press on...

My options for catching up are as follows:
1) Buy all of season 3 on iTunes (~$42)
2) Wait for the DVD's, buy them, and watch them all in one giant, 24-hour loser-marathon
3) Download the episodes from the internet

But, as a follower of Jesus, is option 3 really an option? As far as I can tell, it is legal to record television broadcasts for personal use. Recording for profit, or mass-distribution without permission from the owner (NBC, in this case) is the recording equivalent of counting to 5 with the holy hand grenade: "right out."

So we're up against a Napster-esque problem here, yes? A web-site that offers downloads of a TV show is illegal, as far as I can tell, and technically robs the network, writers, etc., of the monies they are due for producing and broadcasting the show. If I download from such a site, even though my intentions are purely for personal viewing, I'm supporting an illegal practice. Is this wrong?

Thinking Biblically about it, I understand the Scriptures to say that you should submit to the law of the land (e.g., Rom. 13:1-7), so long as it is not in direct contradiction to God's commands (c.f., Acts 4:18-20). As such, I feel that option 3 is truly a non-option.

Still, this is very convicting to me, because (perish the thought!), my law-abiding bent lacks consistency. To wit: I repeatedly and unashamedly violate traffic law on my way to work every day. I rarely observe the speed limit. I'm not dangerous about it, and I go with the flow, but aren't I breaking the law? Ouch.

Herein lies another spoiled-rich-kid "problem" for the Western Christian: drive the speed limit. As a Massachusetts native, this is especially hard. But is speeding not a sin? Let's assume we're not on our way to save anybody's life, nor was there a clear leading of the Spirit to floor it on the way home. Ouch, anyone? Or are my hermeneutics way off base?

Man-crush?

2007-06-27T07:57:00.000-04:00

So I've been listening to Sting's "Brand New Day" a bit on the way to work (esp. track 8: "Fill 'Er Up"), and I just want to restate, via blog now and by affidavit later, that you just don't get any awesome-er than Vinnie Colaiuta. He makes me cry, but in that good, teeny-bopper sort of way (c.f., old Beatlemania videos for examples of this).

The tears are tinged with pain these days because my wrist doesn't seem to be getting much better, so I've started an indefinite drumming fast in the hopes of allowing my overworked joints and tendons to heal.

(N.B., the title is a blatant rip-off of Danny's term, which he used last night during a Bible study. The referent? NT scholar Gordon Fee.)

Ecclesiastes 6:11

2007-06-21T13:46:00.000-04:00

Television? Irredeemable poison? Most definitely. Still, for the purposes of this post, I say pish-posh! If you watch a good show with a dictionary handy, you can discover some great words. To wit, I give you...

Top 10 Cool Words I've Learned From Television
(And by "Television" I mean "Seinfeld and the Simpsons")

10. Superfluous: Moment of discovery? Lisa comments on Krusty the Clown's ___ third nipple.
9. Volition: Moment of discovery? Jerry remarks to George that a conversation should resolve itself by its own ___.
8. Dageurrotype: Moment of discovery? Mr. Burns predicts that the internet's popularity will take off, not unlike the ___.
7. Au Pair: Moment of discovery? Given Bart's bad behavior, Homer recommends to a judge that Bart be assigned an ___.
6. Shixa: Moment of discovery? George tells Elaine that Mr. Lipman's attraction to her is due only to the fact that she's a ___.
5. Nexus: Moment of discovery? Krammer is lost in Manhattan and thinks he might be at the ___ of the universe.
4. Perspicacity: Moment of discovery? With school cancelled, Lisa laments that she's losing her ___.
3. Intransigence: Moment of discovery? Lisa cannot properly spell ___ during the spelling bee finals.
2. Phrenology: Moment of discovery? Mr. Smithers reminds Mr. Burns that ___ is no longer en vogue.
1. Minutiae: Moment of discovery? Elaine can no longer stand to pour over the ___ of Jerry's day.

Blog from August 5, 2007

2007-06-01T08:16:00.000-04:00

Remember when the Sox were up 13 games over the Yankees and that's all we could talk about? Every sports report kept saying how we have the best record in baseball? Youk had a major hit-streak going? Some obscure blogger posted something about Dice-K's future looking bright? Remember those days?

Well, the all-star break has come and gone, and now the Yanks are 6 games over the Sox, Wake is injured, Dice-K can't find the plate, and Youk pulled his left achilles in the All-Star game. We're trying to stay ahead of the D-Rays.

We all saw it coming, but we hoped against hope that our hearts wouldn't be broken again. 2004 gave us a reason to believe, but like mutual funds, past performance is no guarantee of future gains.

Matsuzaka Madness!

2007-04-06T10:57:00.000-04:00

4 - 1 Sox. 7 innings and 10 strike outs. A pretty good debut, yes?

I've very little insight or knowledge of professional sports, baseball inclusive, but, like most people, this will not stop me from offering up observations and passing them off as intelligent. To wit: I will say that this looks like it could be a good thing for the Sox. What really impressed me, though, aside from the pitching part, was Dice-K's fielding. Three times (by my count) his fielding was key to an out (or double play, as in the first) and he was right on the money. He even had to duck under a line drive once, exhibiting cat-like reflexes. Cool.

For some reason I always hold my breath when the pitcher has to field a ground ball or something. Perhaps I shouldn't, but I do. With Matsuzaka, I'll probably be a little less tense, though.

So, by my estimation, Beckett and Dice-K are winners, and Schilling is 50/50. I'm very interesteed in Wakefield tonight, since he is ostensibly 100% healthy now. If he's on, then we just have to keep Tavarez from getting into a brawl every other pitch and we'll be all good. Sox all the way in '07. Called it.

Drumming Woes Part II

2007-04-05T09:07:00.000-04:00

Tendonitis? Me? Man alive! This is killing me. A few weekends ago I was extraordinarily blessed in being able to play drums for a missions conference held at my church. It amounted to 4 straight days of fairly regular playing, and as a result, my right writst got tweaked, and I haven't played since.

I've been wearing a brace to bed, and taking it easy, but there's still some pain there. Tendonitis anyone? Probably. Well, I managed to avoid it for 32 years, but in my old age, it was bound to happen.

It makes me wonder how guys like Cassey Brohard are able to do it. These drums corps guys play with sticks like baseball bats for hours and hours on end. How do their tendons not snap in half? More importantly, why can't I get tendons like that?

Anyway. Sorry the last two posts have been laments about drumming. I promise the next one will be something cool. Like, about my favorite Atari games or something. That'd be cool. Or a top ten list of words that almost rhyme with "silver." Dig it.

Bass (the Drum, not the Fish)

2007-03-13T14:51:00.000-04:00

I've finally had it with my bass drum. After 24 years of playing drums, I've recently become so disgusted with my bass playing that I've dropped $39.95 to but an instructional video by Matt Ritter.

So far, things are going okay with this, but I'm still not up to snuff, whatever that means. My leg has been killing me, and my control is just so-so. I'm hoping that as I continue to practice things will get better.

To me, bass drum playing is a lot like good grammar: you can still communicate without it. To wit: You ain't got no need for well grammar to communicate more better then anyone else. You got the gist of that, yes? So also with the bass drum: As long as your timing is okay, you can play serviceable drums for ages without any real issues. Such is my life.

Still, it's a crying shame, and as I search the web, it seems that hordes of other drummers share in my woe. Hence, my post, to commiserate with you all. Anybody out there among my scores of readers have any good tips or encouragements? Heel-toe, heel-ball, heel-down, heel-up, toe-ball...all worthy for different playing situations, yes, but then there's superstars like my hero Vinnie Colaiuta who seem to have no issue going with plain 'ol heel-up. Sigh. Oh, Vinnie...when God handed out chops, why'd you have to go and hog them all? Sigh.

Unfalsifiable Prayer

2007-03-05T08:07:00.000-05:00

As of late, Bmarchio's household has fallen ill...and not "ill" in the cool Beastie Boys sense, but "ill" in the physiological sense. In short, we're ill, but not illin'.

My wife and I have been praying through this, as it's been a marked drain on us both. She has been coughing and sniffing for close to a week now, and I've just moved from one cold to another. This season of momentary and light afflictions has brought to my mind a few thoughts that I shall declare blog-worthy:

(1) Praise God for His mercy! Sometimes it takes a toothache to truly appreciate how merciful God is in that we spend the majority of our lives without a toothache. As illness is clearly the exception for me and my wife, I must praise God for His mercy and grace that we've spend most of our lives as healthy individuals.
(2) Empathy 101. What better way to have a heart for the sick than to be one of them yourself? Granted, a cold hardly ranks among the panoply of chronic illnesses so many struggle with day-to-day, but just a taste of that helps me empathize with such persons.
(3) Prayer. Here comes the more challenging thought: My wife and I have of course been praying through these illnesses, as we both believe that, to quote the t-shirt, prayer changes things. The wonderful Wayne Grudem made a comment (though I doubt it's genesis is with him) that if we truly understood the power of prayer, we'd pray lots more. Amen. Still, I was thinking about the efficacy of prayer, and was drawing a blank as to the criticism that it is an "unfalsifiable hypothesis:" I pray for healing for my wife's cough. If she (a) gets better right away, then praise God, my prayers are answered. If she (b) doesn't get better right away, then praise God, it must somehow serve His purposes for her to remain ill for a while. It seems that no matter the outcome, prayer still works. We just back-fill in an explanation.

To me, it is redolent of the documentary hypothesis (I promise this is the last time I'll talk about that): The critic looks at the text, then back-fills in the categories. If something bleeds over and doesn't fit any category, the critic just invents a "later redactor" and we're done! It's unfalsifiable.

Are we guilty of the same process with regards to prayer? No matter the outcome, we find a suitable explanation. How do we answer to this? Are we back to presuppositions? Or should we simply refrain (or at least, drastically cut back) from trying to explain God's work in our lives when, truth be told, we often do not fully (or correctly) understand the extent of it. Should I have just paid more attention in systematic II? Will Giligan ever get off the island? Who shot J.R.? Please advise.

ANE Mythology

2007-03-02T14:34:00.000-05:00

Most folks who have studied the Old Testament have come across the documentary hypothesis (JEDP), its various permutations, claims, and other things dead German people wrote about the Pentateuch decades and decades ago.

One of the keys to debunking the hypothesis (which is pure bunk, wholly worthy of debunking), and assigning earlier (traditional) dates to the Pentateuch, is to note ancient near-eastern parallels (ANE) to Biblical literature (of which the dead Germans were not aware).

For instance, JEDP supporters often point to the occurence of "doublets" in the Bible: two creation accounts (Gen. 1 & 2), two accounts of Abraham and his wife (Gen. 12 & 20), etc. A repetition of the same story, they reason, must evidence two different sources (authors) of the story, which were put together some time later; an ancient "cut and paste" if you will. Discoveries of ANE literature , however, such as the Ugaritic story of Keret (pre-1200 B.C.), show that ANE cultures had a preference for repetition. Understanding that repetition was a cultural norm for the ANE (n.b., not us) helps explain why certain episodes are repeated in the Bible.

We might also consider the account of Noah and the flood (Gen. 6-9). Several documents (Epic of Atrahasis: ca. 1600 B.C., The Gilgamesh Story: ca. late 2nd millenium B.C.) reveal 17 formal parallels between Noah's flood account and these other parallels. This again supports an early date for Genesis 6-9, as it follows what was the norm for flood accounts at the time.

While this is wonderful for matter of dating and authorship in the OT, it has often troubled me because it seems that with different presuppositions, the ANE parallels do naught more than confirm for non-believers that the Bible is just another ANE mythology among many: The Babylonians have a flood story, the Israelites have a flood story. It's common mythology of the period, not divinely inspired truth.

I'd be interested to hear what my multitudes of readers have to say about this. I have a few thoughts of my own, but they all ultimately rest upon presuppositions. For example, given the Bible is true, other flood accounts are (a) misinterpretations of God's revelation, or (b) demonic perversions of God's revelation to another culture. Is there another way to respond? Anyone?

Back...

2007-03-02T14:30:00.000-05:00

Right. I'm back. Back in black, as it were. I hit the sack. I've been too long, I'm glad to be back. I'm cut loose, from the noose...

Anyway, my absence is due to naught more than wanting to make sure that Danny's victory over me was decisive. No photo finish there. Spite isn't that powerful after all, I guess. I'm glad we're all a little wiser now.

Judging First Corinthians

2006-09-07T09:26:00.000-04:00

I've been reading through the ever-controversial 1 Corinthians lately (as opposed to the rest of the Bible, which isn't controversial at all, right?) , and something struck me that I'd never really digested before. On the surface, it would seem that Paul is talking out of both sides of his mouth:

1 Cor. 4:5 - "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes."
1 Cor. 5:12 - "Are you not to judge those inside the church?" (implied answer: yes).

On the one hand we're told not to judge, on the other, we're told to judge. Granted, the context of the two verses above is very different. In the first, Paul is speaking about judging himself as a faithful teacher of the gospel; in the second, he speaks about judging an "immoral brother" among the church at Corinth. A deeper look I'm sure could resolve the apparent conflict, but it brought to my mind the deeper issue of judgment in the Bible.

Is there 'bad' judgment and 'good' judgment? The teaching of the Bible seems clear enough that we're not to pass judgment on others; in so doing, we condemn ourselves, because we don't even live to the standard by which we judge others (c.f., Mt. 7:1-5, Rom. 2:1-2). But how does this square with verses like 1 Cor. 5:12?

Perhaps one distinction is that 1 Cor. 5 is dealing with those who call themselves Christians (brothers) in the church. So are we to judge those within but not without? I would venture to guess that the spirit of judgment comes into play here as well: are our judgments done in a spirit of (1) humility, and (2) such as way as to aim for restoration and repentace for the offending brother or sister? (c.f., 1 Cor. 5:5).

Anyway, plenty to write and discuss here, but that should be sufficient fodder to start. The issue of judgment has always been a sticky one for me. In the end, I suppose walking in the Spirit is the only real solution when discerning such matters. Go figure :)

Bodyworlds Ethics?

2006-09-05T10:08:00.000-04:00

This weekend my wife and I went to see Bodyworlds at the Museum of Science in Boston. For those unaware of the exhibit, is essentially consists of several (close to 200, in fact) actual human specimens that are preserved by a process called plastinisation. These are positioned and cross sectioned in various ways to show the intricacies of the human body.

The exhibit was tastefully done; and all the specimens were persons who bequeathed their bodies be given to science in the public interest. So as far as we know, everything is on the up-and-up.

Still, however, I found myself questioning the ethics of the exhibit from a Christian standpoint. No doubt, the exhibit is amazing, and to see the intricacy and brilliance God's creation is nothing short of astounding. It is a great learning opportunity, and even one that gives one pause to reflect on life and the stewardship of one's body.

What does the Lord think of this exhibit, though? Whether the persons used in the exhibit consented or not, does this undermine the sanctity of human life? In one way, it would seem to uphold the value of the human body. It puts some real force behind the notion that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. Even more, it is offered an invitation to reflect upon one's own mortality. Still, there is something intrinsically trivial about real human bodies being an exhibit at an institution which, though ostensibly a place of education and exploration, is also a venue of entertainment. The use of cadavers to educate future doctors seems easily defensible, but to educate (entertain?) lay people? I feel as if the line blurs.

Much more to write here, but I thought I'd kick off a discussion (among both of my regular readers).

Nuts...

2006-08-30T09:22:00.000-04:00

Thus begins the diminished quality and value of my posts, but I must press on until Danny cries "uncle."

Anybody here like peanuts? You know, I think I've officially reached the "you might want to call an 800 number because you have a problem" stage with peanuts. No kidding, I simply can't stop eating them. I'm burning through about a pound a week. Is that a problem?

I've read that certain nuts, including peanuts, can contain aflatoxin, a carcinogenic poison. The jury seems to be out as to whether or not eating raw nuts is therefore a risk.

Favorite nuts, anyone? My top three are peanuts, cashews, and pistachios. Almonds get an honorable mention, whereas walnuts are a disgrace to the nut family. Macadamia have been overrated since Higgins did those Mauna Loa adds in the 80's. Pecans? They're the Michael Bolton's of the nut world: sure there's plenty of avid fans, but most are older women.

The End of Netscape

2006-08-29T07:24:00.000-04:00

What happened to you Netscape? You used to be cool. Remember the days when your logo was just that flashing "N" in the corner of the browser and people thought that Mosaic was better? Well, I stuck by you. For almost a decade me and you were best buddies. You were the cheese, I was the macaroni. What happened? Why did you have to go run off and get mixed up with that floozy AOL? For shame!

Frankly, this hurts me more than it hurts you. We had some good times, you and me. You were the vehicle through which my wife and I arranged our first date; you were there to confirm my Ebay bids on potato chips that look like Tony Danza; you were there to protect me from 800 daily e-mails about Viagra, and multi-millionaire Kenyan diplomats who needed to deposit $10 million in my bank account while fleeing the country.

What happened? Now you're all AOL'd, and G-mail never looked so good. And your home page...I don't even know where to begin. "Today's Hot Stories Voted by You"??? "Netscape anchors recommend..."??? I thought you were above jumping on the social news site bandwagon. Do we really need another DIGG? Sigh. I don't think I can even talk about this anymore...let me collect myself, and maybe we'll talk later.

The Power of Spite

2006-08-28T08:45:00.000-04:00

Shouts out to Danny who has been kind enough to shout me out on his worthy blog. All the same, there's a whiff of condescension in said shout out: Brian, the cute newbie to the blog world, all unawares of the trials of posting daily? The (ostensibly) seasoned blog veteran shakes his head and clucks his tongue. "Oh, he'll learn. He'll start posting once a month in just a few days, tell you what."

Enter the power of spite, as the cute newbie officially vows to post five times a week, if for nothing else but to say "In your face, once-a-month-ers!" :)

Caring for the Widows

2006-08-28T07:46:00.000-04:00

One thing that has always struck me about the Old Testament (one among about 50 million other remarkable things) is the Lord's oft repeated call to care for the disadvantaged, typically expressed as "the widows" and the "fatherless" (e.g., Dt.14:29; c.f., Ps. 68:5). This is culturally remarkable in that the laws of other ANE cultures largely disregarded anybody save the wealthy. The same string runs through the New Testament (e.g., Jas. 2:27).

The notion of caring for widows hit home with me this Sunday when I went to pay a visit to my grandmother (a.k.a., NaNa). NaNa is 94 years old now, her mind is well afflicted now with age related dementia, and she needs full-time care to make it through her day to day. My wife and I paid her a visit yesterday, which is always very hard.

For sure, it's difficult to see the grandmother whom I love in such a different state. She's so quiet, and the conversations are naught but a few exchanges of simple thoughts. From time to time she'll wreck me by holding my face (in the way only an Italian grandmother can) and tell me that I'm a good boy. Since we can't talk much, the visit is mostly me and my wife sitting by her, holding her hand, and just letting time pass by. The way she holds my hand leads me to believe that this is all the visit she needs or wants.

Thinking of my grandmother always brings verses like James 2:27 into my head, and I question my obediance thereto. Is my grandmother being cared for? How do you know for sure, when the person in question cannot express their own needs? Is she suffering? Is she in pain? I don't suppose I'll ever know. And how do I care for her? I can pray and I can visit, but thus ends the list, so far as I know.

I think with it all comes a double dose of helplessness: On the one hand, I see and experience a woman who is three times my age yet helpless as an infant. On the other, I experience my own helplessness to do anything about it; my own inability to do anything but sit next to her holding her hand and looking out the window, or watching the second hand on the clock.

Whence Arises Musical Anger?

2006-08-24T08:56:00.000-04:00

On my commute in this morning I was listening to what I believe is the high-point of Dave Matthew's career: Listener Supported. For my money, this is his best offering since Remember Two Things and Under the Table and Dreaming. Much as I have loved DMB, and especially drummer Carter Beauford, the issue of violin/fiddle player Boyd Tinsley has always been somewhat of a stumbling block for me.

On the one hand, to the best of my knowledge, the list of massively popular bands that feature a fiddler is short. Few other pop/rock tunes feature this instrument, so adds a certain uniqueness to DMB, though I'd hardly call them pioneers. They just happen to be wildly popular, and if you've ever attended a DMB concert (I've been to six), Boyd is a crowd favorite.

On the other hand, I don't think Boyd is much of a fiddler. This first occurred to me when I started paying more attention to his solos. Rhythmically, there is scant variety, he seems to just saw back and forth; effectively just playing 16th's up and down. This didn't bother me that much, since my previous exposure to fiddle was largely confined to Charlie Daniel's "The Devil Went Down to Georgia." It started to bug me some more when I heard Jake Armerding play with Christopher Williams for the first time. If I may mix country and hip-hop lingo, homeboy can fiddle. Fid-izzle, fo' shizzle even.

Now, Boyd bothers me some more, which, after such unecessary background information, brings me to my point: why do people (myself included) get angry over certain music and musicians? You mention certain musicians or bands to people and it truly evokes visceral anger from them, "Oh, man, I can't stand Lisa Loeb," "I hate Vanilla Ice," "The Rolling Stones stink; they're so overrated," etc.

I therefore ask my titular question, whence arises this anger? Why does it bother us so much for a musician who does not appeal to our particular tastes to enjoy popular acclaim? We could even broaden the notion to include any celebrity at all. Anybody here annoyed by Paris Hilton? Perhaps that sets the bar too low, but aren't there actors or other celebrities that you hate, or more mildly, can't stand? People upon whom you are quick to heap insults?

This presents an interesting conflict for me as a Christian. For sure, I oughtn't hate any man or women (doubly-so if my doing so is a mere matter of my own artistic tastes) because we are each one created in God's image. James 3:9 comes to mind. Perhaps, then, I simply hate what they represent. So did I hate Guns 'N Roses because I didn't care for their music, or because I disliked the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll lifestyle they lived and therefore glorified? Well, therein lies the rub, because in actuality, I like Guns 'N Roses. I'm diametrically opposed to the message they send and lifestyle they live(d), but when the guitar solo for "Sweet Child 'O Mine" is on the radio, it's all air-guitar.

So, animosity towards an artist because I dislike their work is not justifiable (nay, sinful), and I live a double-standard if I claim said dislike is strictly due to their behavior. But this doesn't exhaust my reasons for hating artists.

When Stone Temple Pilots first came on the scene, they were wildly hated by many of my peers because they were perceived as a Pearl Jam knock-off. Well, if being unoriginal is criminal, we'd have very few bands out there at all. So what about lack of talent? Cry-baby personality (paging Axl Rose...)?

The answer is probably a mixed bag. If something rubs us the wrong way, and it's also enjoying massive popularity, it annoys us. Fair enough. I don't much care for chewing noises, and if there were chewing noises on the radio all the time, I'd be irked, or in fibrulation, or both. And, for sure, to some degree the lifestyle or message of a certain artist can be just cause for dislike. No matter how catchy I find Marilyn Manson's "Beautiful People," it's *really* hard for me to run out and buy the album, let alone say that I "like" Marilyn Manson (forgive the trite example.)

For myself, I think there are two things involved that run a bit deeper and darker: jealousy and identity. Of jealousy, I might simply confess that part of the reason Paris Hilton annoys me is because she has millions of dollars for which she did nothing honorable. Me, I have to work hard for my money (Donna Summer, anyone?), and I'd love to not have to do that, and enjoy the immense creature comfort that Paris does. Do I not also feel a pang when I see all the attention and admiration certain celebrities get? Touche. Herein lies the "lack of talent" problem. A classically trained guitarist dry-heaves at the thought of Eddie VanHalen. Is this not because (at least, in part) because Eddie VanHalen can print his own money while the (arguably) more gifted and devoted musician has to use non-quilted toilet paper?

Of identity, I must confess that a certain part of who I am is wrapped up in my artistic tastes. Think "Fight Club": I am my sofa. I am my musical taste. Asking somebody what kind of music they like is probably one of the most loaded questions we have, which partially explains why so many people answer, "I like everything," or "All kinds of stuff." Who wants to pigeonhole themselves into just one genre? We dare not mention simply one band, because, like our identity, our artistic tastes are complex. We are complex, so follows our likes and dislikes.

For my money (sorry to say that again), I think our identities are a little too closely wrapped up in our tastes. Take any band that has risen from obscurity to mass-popularity. DMB is a good example, or even The Mighty Mighty Bosstones. Their first fans, the local ones, the ones who thought they were awesome before 10 million other people did, often feel a pang when they become popular. Now they've "sold out." Or, "I just like their older stuff." Liking a popular band steals a bit our your uniqueness, see? So it's on to more obscure stuff, stuff that's new and insteresting and different, because you want to be new and interesting and different. Fan of DMB? Yawn. That's so 10-years and 10 million albums ago. Fan of Brian Funck? Never heard of him; who's he? Interesting...

Okay, I've hit my rambling quota for the day. I guess in the end, music brings to mind a common series of struggles I have as a Christian: (1) Love all people equally because God loves them and created them in His image, (2) Flee from jealousy and comparison, (3) Remember that I've been given unmerited favor and blessing, too, not just Paris Hilton, (4) Root my identity in Christ, as a child of the Living God, not in my tastes. The apostle John comes to mind here. He is not John, he is "the one whom Jesus loved." How wonderful if that was the starting place for my identity!

Hmm. Nothing new there. Yawn. That is so 10 sermons ago...

2006-08-23T15:53:00.000-04:00

Over the past few weeks I have reaquainted myself with Mystery Science Theater 3000, a show which, like Seinfeld, broke my heart at its close.

I was watching an episode called "Space Mutiny," which mocks the eponymous Sci-Fi B-film wherein a buffed, high-school-football-star-looking "hero" (see below) runs around a large boiler room (ostensibly the bowels of a large space ship) and shoots people.

Mike and the 'bots proceed to assign him phony action hero names throughout the movie, all of which absolutely kill me. I was able to put together a list of all the names they call him during the film (with a little Google help...I don't have that much time on my hands). N.B., names are best enjoyed when spoken out loud in your best movie trailer voice-over voice: "This summer, Tom Cruise is [insert name here]." I guarantee a few chuckles at best, 10 minutes of wasted time at worst. Enjoy!

Slab Bulkhead
Fridge Largemeat
Punt Speedchunk
Butch Deadlift
Bold Bigflank
Splint Chesthair
Flint Ironstag
Bolt VanderHuge
Thick McRunfast
Blast Hardcheese
Buff Drinklots
Trunk Slamchest
Fist Rockbone
Stump Beefgnaw
Smash Lampjaw
Punch Rockgroin
Buck Plankchest
Stump Chunkman
Dirk Hardpeck
Rip Steakface
Crud Bonemeal
Brick Hardmeat
Rip Sidecheek
Lump Beefbroth
Punch Sideiron
Gistle McThornbody
Slate Fistcrunch
Buff Hardback
(Bob Johnson)
Blast Thickneck
Crunch Buttsteak
Slab Squatthrust
Lump Beefbroth
Touch Rustrod
Reef Blastbody
Big McLargehuge
Smoke ManMuscle
Beat PunchBeef
Pack Blowfist
Roll Fizzlebeef

Willkommen

2006-08-22T15:31:00.000-04:00

...and so Brian posts his first blog ever, and with each keystroke, a little piece of him dies.

Are my thoughts, opinions and rantings worthy of rearranging tiny bits of rust on an aluminum platter tucked away in some server somewhere? Time will tell, though I predict that the answer is a hearty "no," perhaps amended with "loser," or some variant thereof.

Thus ends my first blog ever. Stay tuned...