On Race, Riots, and Response

It is with heavy heart that I hear the news of what has happened in Baltimore. My heart breaks for the family of the deceased, but my heart breaks even more for the travesty that has emerged following his funeral.

I speak as a white man and a foreigner. I do not claim the right to diagnose and prescribe the correct path of action which needs to be taken to bring about change. I will leave that to men such as Dr Carson, or Marcus Roberts, both of whom have spoken out against the rioting.

Instead, I'm going to offer my perspective and thoughts.

If you're going to react to the killing of your race by another, particularly by someone of another race employed in law enforcement, then rioting is not the answer. Were I in that situation, I would want to change the perception of my race. Peaceful protest, respectfully seeking talks and reconciliation. Encouragement of forgiveness.

Not rioting.

Rioting tells the law enforcement that I am violent. It tells them that I will not consider others in my demands. It tells them that greater force is needed to contain such as myself.

Were I in this position, this image is one I would be loathe to present, especially if I wanted fair and equal treatment. It sounds counter-intuitive, but that's exactly the means encouraged and employed by men such as Dr King. Violence may salve our immediate hurt and thirst for vengeance, but peace and forgiveness will set the bones.

Put Another Spin on It

After God, my family, and science, music is one of my greatest passions, particularly music played by real instruments. I absolutely love classical music, rock, and jazz, usually in that order. I've noticed, however, that jazz and many of its offshoots tend to be overcast by rock and its unfortunate byblow, pop.

Imagine my surprise and delight when I find a band that decided to take popular songs and put them in another style. Introducing Postmodern Jukebox.

In my glee, allow me to share a couple good ones:

(A favourite song of mine done absolutely brilliantly. Were slash born in the French Quarter, this is what the song would sound like)

(A song that, frankly, is often overplayed, but is still nice. With this arrangement, it really is allowed to shine)

So, yeah, let's get jazz (and soul, and funk, and classic R&B) back into the limelight.

When Crap Happens

Many people often wonder why bad things happen to good people. As a Christian, that's a bit of a funny question, as really, none of us are good, but I digress.

Crap happens. I know. Right now, my car engine has konked out. I'm walking to work. (no complaints there - I've actually found I enjoy it and have turned down ride offers) Most frustrating, though, is the running of it all. At least I'm not in med school yet, but this really is chipping into wedding savings.

So, then, as a Christian, how should I react when crap happens?

The bible often talks about overcoming obstacles and drawing closer to God. Two such passages that come to mind are in Hebrews and James.

Now, yes, those passages are talking more about faith challenges, but I cannot help but tie them in to everyday struggles, too. After all, every struggle is an opportunity for us to lean on God and for God to display himself.

So, I don't know what will come of walking to work, but I look forward to the outcome and I pray for its resolution.

Sanctify This

If you were to ask a theologian whether or not he or she were saved they would probably answer, "Yes." If you happened across a cheeky one however, said theologian might answer, "Yes, partially, and no." Why the difference? Well, as it turns out, what we would simply think of as "salvation" is not actually that simple. You see, salvation comprises three parts:

1. Justification
2. Sanctification
3. Glorification

The first is the atonement of sin and imputation of righteousness through faith in Jesus and acceptance of his sacrifice on our behalf.

The second is the process by which a Christian grows in Christlikeness.

The third is the final removal of sin in its entirety and the presentation of our new bodies at the end of time.

Now, I was talking recently to a friend who's a bit of a legalist. Now, before you start getting up in arms about legalism and pharisees, this person wasn't a legalist in the historical sense, that is, one who seeks salvation through works and the law instead of through Christ's sacrifice, but rather, this friend was a legalist in sanctification. Mind blown, I began to ask, following a statement about comparing the present self to one's self in the past (in light of recession), about what it looks like, as a legalist, to look forward and compare oneself to Christ, as we are recommended to do by the author of Hebrews.

What I found to be interesting was that this friend didn't see sanctification, as I'd expected, to be a to-do list of ever-increasing magnitude and holy-seeming-ness, but a rather humble position. See, my friend saw sanctification as doing more as Jesus did, taught, and endorsed, through the power of the Holy Spirit. [my paraphrase]. 

This made me think about my own position, as I'm not a legalist, so I did a bit of thinking and came up with this: I view sanctification as, through the work and intervention of the Holy Spirit, being more as Jesus is, or to put it in another manner of phrase, increasingly taking on the essence of Christ, a view I decided to call Essentialism before later discovering that that was already a concept, with Theological Essentialism being very similar indeed. (I'm not claiming to be a TE-ist, just that I happen to thin like one in this instance. I don't know enough about the view to claim to be part of it)

Both of these views, I would say, have their benefits and deficits. One is more able to distinguish growth while the other is less prone to condemnation and doubt, but I wouldn't say either is completely unbiblical, either. That being said, I'm no theologian, nor am I completely unbiased.

Version Culture

A couple weeks ago, I heard something that gave me pause. I have a deep appreciation for good music and so, when I hear a piece that is good, I remember it and remember it well. I remember the lyrics, the intonation, the cadence and timbre of the singer's voice, the arrangement; all of it, really. Every single detail. So, on this instance, I paused, because I heard one such song. It was a song of notably poetic verse whose accompaniment accentuates the flow and shape of the song itself. 

Well, that's what I was expecting, anyway.

Instead, what I heard was an attempt to "Christianify" the song. The words had been changed to illustrate a particularly wonderful event in the Christian faith, but I couldn't help but feel that something had been lost, that we were all the cheaper for the mimicry.

Why do I say this? Well, answer me this question: instead of taking an existing song and rewriting it, losing the tone and essence of the original, can we not simply create something new and original with a life of its own?

Answer: we can.

See, in the book of Genesis, There's an interesting little verse that might shed some light on the issue.

"So, God created mankind in His image. In the image of God He created them. Male and female He created them" - Genesis 1:27

Wait. Hold that thought.

1. We were created in the image of God. 
2. God creates; He is the creator. 

Ergo, we were created with the ability to create. Don't believe me? Read these excerpts from various hymns.

Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.
 - Frederick Lehman

Jesus, Keep me near the cross;
There a precious fountain.
Free to all, a healing stream,
Flows from Calvary's mountain
In the cross, in the cross,
Be my glory ever,
Till my raptured soul shall find,
Rest beyond the river.
 - Fanny Crosby 

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows, like sea billows, roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul
 - Horatio Spafford 

Church, do you not see the beauty in this language? Do you not see the creativity that was poured into poetry and song?

We keep sitting back, recycling songs, Christianifying songs, modernizing songs. Isn't it about time we made something new?

Now, I'll take the current four-chord shuffle that's popular in music today. Blase as it may be, it's at least a start, but the current trend in modern worship music of rewriting the music of an older hymn to make it modern and relevant or, and I cringe at this, adding a tag into the hymn to make it one's own is not.

"But we're creating," you might exclaim.

Perhaps, but, you see, God did not just create; He created well. Genesis goes on to say that He surveyed all of his creation and, at the end, found it very good.

Church, we're falling behind. Our movies are stifling. Our art consists of poppy, feel-good slogans and mimicries. Our music is homogenously bland. (Let's face it, I don't really listen to the Christian station anymore. Once you've heard one CCM song, you've heard them all, musically and lyrically.) Our fiction is staid and stereotyped.

So, Church, I offer to you a challenge. Ironically, it's not one of my own, but rather an excerpt from Neil Gaiman's keynote address to the 2012 graduating class of The University of the Arts, which I find particularly noteworthy and applicable:

"Make good art."

Nothing to Fear

So, I was doing some thinking and a particularly juicy question popped into mind: "What can Hollywood show us about our fears as a society?" After some thinking, I narrowed it down (for those more versed in older movies, please help me out if I miss some).

In many older movies, the Great Enemy was either aliens or the Nazis/Russians (pick your era). Today, the antagonist varies between science (ranging from climate change to robots, to genetic modification), terrorists, a captor, and society gone mad/anarchic.

For the most part, it's fairly easy to break down what we fear: we fear weakness, and helplessness. We fear being subject to another individual or group with more or better power than we have. We also fearthe unknown - different ideologies, abilities, worldviews. As far as science goes, the trend seen is the destruction caused by our own foolishness or as the tool of a mad person.

What I find most interesting, however, isn't the similarities arcing through the decades, but rather one significant difference. You see, the locus of the fear, the identityof the antagonist has shifted. In the past, the enemy was an alien or foreign power. Today, that role is filled by single individuals. Those individuals could be the everyday man, an intellectual, a leader, it a small group or cell.

The fears, now, haven't changed. So, what about society has changed to provoke such a locus shift?

Well, some of it is political. We no longer fear the Nazis or Soviets and instead fear terrorists, because they are the dominant political threat. What I would argue, though, is that a great deal of this shift is due to a change in society's ideology.

In the last century, America has shifted from an axiomatic, society-first ideology to a more anarchic, self-first society. In D&D terms, we've gone from lawful good/lawful neutral to chaotic neutral. What this means is that, subconsciously, we have realised that we cannot trust our peers. After all, if everyone determines what is right by their own opinion, there is nothing preventing them from doing whatever is necessary to further their goals. In light of this, we have no time to bother with fearing an alien power; we're too busy fearing that the familiar might not actually be so.

What does this mean, then?

Well, I think society craves order. Now, I'm not calling for top-down, governmental order. Citizens will chafe at that and ultimately seek its downfall. Instead, what needs to change is the ideology of the masses. Until there is a sense of order coming from the ground up, society will never feel completely at peace.

Smalltown U.S.A.

So, Google Maps is a wonderful thing. You put in your destination and it tells you how to get there. It even tells you the shortest way to get there.

Unfortunately, the shortest route is often on winding, 1-lane back roads, which is bloody irritating after dark, when you've been driving for 7 hours already. Add to that the fact that many drivers don't have the bloody courtesy to dim their brights when they see cars oncoming. (I may have acquired a newfound hatred for the blue-white halogen lights found in many luxury cars).

In hindsight, though, I rather like that Google takes you along the back roads. I mean, think of it, who wants to drive along four lanes of concrete-lined traffic, with nary a sight aside from grassy earthworks, a small scree of trees, and billboard signs. Instead, you can drive along windy paths of forest, see some farmland, and, perhaps, pass through the occasional small town.

Now, since it was already darkening, I didn't really get to see much of the landscapes aside from shadows of trees, but what was cool, was driving through a couple of small towns. Like, you know that stereotypical 50s small town, with its shop-lined main street (complete with street-be-lighted traffic median), or that town with the main square (complete with statue/memorial and green space, town hall, and some shops)? Well, I happened to drive through two of those - Madison, GA, and Monticello, GA (main street and main square, respectively) - just as it was getting dark and It was enjoyable. Props to you, small towns of America for being just plain charming, with your peaceful atmosphere and picturesque Christmas lighting on display (especially Madison. Very well done). It was precisely the calming I needed (seriously. I was about ready to say some things to some of those drivers...).

So, the take aways:
Take a drive through the back roads and enjoy the scenery.
Please, please dim your brights for oncoming traffic.