effigy

that is NOT a chew toy

So last night while some people were out watching "The Passion of the Christ" and some drinking birch beer and some making lint sculptures, I was spending quality time with teenagers, and we watched "The Grinch." ...

Hard to believe what lies under that green fur. What a talented actor. Sometimes I think I would pay to see into the off-camera lives of Jim Carrey and Robin Williams and Ed Harris and Sean Connery, all of whom happened to come up in various conversations throughout the day.

I don't mean a "Truman Show"esque fishbowl view of their private routines and family matters. I mean, I wonder what lies under the skin that's under the green fur. I wonder what makes them tick. I wonder what they have that I don't have. And I wonder what I might have that they don't.

Human beings are so complex. Even in our most authentic moments, we are walking contradictions. Have you ever used your hand to measure something and then marked out larger measurements to the scale of that by placing your hands next to one another and "walking" them in rotation? Disparity is a fascinating thing. Ever look at a dog and thank heaven you weren't made with that dog's limitations of mind and body and purpose? Graduate up the scale -- there's such a gap between a dog's capabilities and my own, no matter how limited I might feel by the bounds of my personality or ability. It makes me wonder at the possibilities -- the exponentially greater capacities that exist above the human level.

Kind of like how we look back at folks five decades ago with their black and white film and black and white television. Did they ever dream of color TV? DVD? Digital cameras and videophones? So what is it today that we aren't even capable of dreaming yet? Black and white, color, and then...exceedingly above and beyond all that we could ask or think.

Life is no act. It is no game. It is not even a performance.

I wonder -- what is the disparity between my real self and my postured conception of self?

I wonder -- what is the disparity between the now-me and what I could or might one day be?

I wonder -- if we shed one skin, will there be myriad more layers underneath to be clawed into and removed at any cost?

Passion: from the station platform

Everytime I preach, the things I saw will be on my heart and mind.
~ Billy Graham

In terms that words alone cannot articulate, "The Passion" homes in on the full value of the ransom Christ paid for all of us in the greatest demonstration and act of love ever exhibited.
~ David Limbaugh

The goal of the movie is to shake modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing 'the sacrifice of the cross’ with ‘the sacrifice of the altar’ -- which is the same thing.
~ Mel Gibson

__________________________________________
[save/print this essay in MS Word format]

The following comments (along with their author) are a work in progress. I write stream-of-consciousness, so be duly warned of rabbit trails and "then again" trains of thought if you should choose to read the whole thing. There are some resource links at the end that might be of more beneficial use.

Jim Caviezel in makeup is no depiction of deity. I won't say it's not an attempted depiction of deity (because I do not speak for Gibson), but I would not walk into a movie theater with the expectation to see God's likeness. A speculative likeness of the human form of Jesus? Perhaps. But depicting the spiritual portion of anyone is impossible. Jesus is indeed wholly divine and wholly human, but no artist pretends to attain unto a perfect-in-every-point likeness. Why is it that we begin to understand this concept in the realm of literature (with allegories and analogies) but refuse to carry it over to music and art and drama? When we encounter a descriptive metaphor, we don't expect it to match up with its antecedent identically, with absolute similarity in every point. Rather, a metaphor is intended to highlight certain aspects of the subject, making a characteristic that already exists stand out in high relief so that we may exalt that which, or he/she who owns the characteristic in reality.

Oh, but expressing our affections in artistic endeavors, and pointing out certain admirable attributes to be emulated and praised -- that’s worship! Or is it? Lewis and Piper would call outward expressions of praise the culmination of enjoyment, but are they to be equated necessarily with worship? Theologically, is there so much a difference between magnifying and worshipping? I think there is. Perhaps one is a subset of the other, and perhaps both are magnificently interlinked, but I don’t think they ought to be used interchangeably. Maybe we need to qualify “worship” as “corporate worship” or “formal worship” when we use it in sense of not wanting to grievously err by creating additives to God or His gospel.

I say there is a difference between general magnifying/glorifying God and conscious worship of God because whatever we do, whether it’s eating or drinking, or putting 2 or 2000 coins into an offering plate, or painting or sleeping or baking or jump-roping or going to movies, we ought to be doing it to the glory of God. Everything about a believer is to point to Jesus. Like creation itself, this kind of glory is not meant to be comprehensive, salvific revelation of God. It’s just general revelation, a testimony to His works and His all-pervasive reign (since He is sovereign Lord over not just religion but every aspect of our lives, including the fine arts that so reflect and set the pace of our culture). We are come to declare the beauty of the Lord.

IS VISUAL IMAGERY AN APPROPRIATE MEANS FOR CONVEYING THE GOSPEL?

It is very true that Passion plays and films and Sunday School flannelgraphs and (even empty) crucifixes are incapable of the stand-alone conveyance of God’s person and work as it has been divinely-revealed in the living/written/spoken Word. As mere tokens and enactments, they therefore must limit the perception of God. This is definitely a concern. In his book The Ten Commandments, G. Campbell Morgan would agree:

In the instant that man sets up a representation of any description to help him to realize God, he denies that which is essential in God. Suppose that it is an image, a picture, or some system of worship, concerning which he says, ‘this is intended as an aid to my worship of the one God.’ See what he has done! The image, the picture, or the system of worship is limited. The essential fact of God is that He is limitless, that He is eternal, that He is self-existent, there being no end to His being, and no limit to His power. Limitlessness lies at the heart and center of the thought of God, and the moment a man makes an image, he denies the essence of God. For that reason God forbade that there should be the making of any images; for, not only is the image false, it is misleading (Morgan, 28).

I spent nearly five years in the Free Presbyterian denomination of the Church and gained with them a much clearer and sobered understanding of the timeless truths of what the Ten Commandments reveal about our high and holy, unchanging God and about our unchanging responsibilities to do justly and love mercy and walk humbly before Him. I have known what it is to be confronted with the accrued wisdom of the Westminster Divines and the heritage of scores of godly Puritans and Reformers whose interpretations of the second commandment are often scoffed at today. I have known what it is to be bound by my conscience to turn my eyes from depictions of Christ, to become physically sick over the implied insistence that aids to worship are hunky-dory-a-ok and the pragmatic acceptance of the icons that I felt robbed glory from my Lord.

Pragmatism still makes me physically ill. In seeking to make God’s absolute Truth my absolute reference point, I keep returning to Scripture. The second commandment (Exodus 20:4-6) addresses both the object and manner of worship –- since it condemns the manufacture of images with intent to worship. Moses’ brother Aaron sinned and aided the Israelites in sinning, not against the first commandment, but against the second: they made a graven image in order to worship the true Jehovah God (crafting a tangible pool of their own resources to worship along the same lines that the pagans worshipped their idols). Aaron did not craft the calf and say, “here, worship this fertility god of the pagans.” He said, “here is tailor-made-Jehovah-just-the-way-you-like-Him and now you can have a seen god like all the other nations get to have.” Sin, in manner and object (your-way worship rather than God’s way).

On the one hand, under normal circumstances, a novel-reader or a movie-watcher is able to suspend his disbelief for the duration of the movie. For instance, if I see Bruce Willis play in “Tears of the Sun” and turn around and watch him play in “Unbreakable,” I can shift mental gears and place him in that role. I understand that he is stepping out of Bruce Willis skin and the skin of all his prior roles and depicting the character at hand. This understanding that the actor is not the real person, this ability to believe that a very familiar face is portraying someone new -- this is the same capacity we take into all fiction, whether it’s a divinely-inspired parable that might or might not be based on a true historical event, or whether it’s a made-from-scratch story that could never take place in reality as we know it. It’s the nature of things.

We are imaginative creatures, and we know the code. We understand that fiction is not a lie. We understand that an actor goes home at night to some huge mansion in Hollywood, not to a rock bed in the caves of the Dark Crystal or the deserts and forests of Star Wars. We know what to do with hypothetical scenarios. It’s a given. And if Jim Caviezel were a better-known actor, it would prove my point. For instance, if Tom Cruise or Keanu Reeves had been chosen for the role of Jesus, most viewers would not think twice about accepting the image for the duration of the movie and later discard that image as a mere copy of a spiritual reality.

On the other hand, note that Gibson did not cast a familiar face for the role of Jesus, and I would like to suggest that was a deliberate choice. Unfortunately, most viewers (although they’ve heard the name of Christ) are also very unfamiliar with the extent of Jesus’ physical sacrifice. And there are other things we assume about movies. For instance, if it’s a historically-based movie, we assume that we are getting the exact portrayal of events the way they happened. Gibson has indeed stuck pretty close, if selectively, to the biblical accounts. If this were a movie about World War II, he should probably earn an award just for devoted adherence to the actuality of events. But the nature of these particular events were far more than physical only.

In spite of the Pope’s statement that the depiction “was as it was,” there is no way that Gibson could have depicted the true spiritual extent of Christ’s suffering. How many thieves were crucified over the years at that place, with relatively the same gore and abuse and sensational drama? Jesus’ cross-work was not the full extent of His sacrifice. His sinless life, the spiritual and emotional agony, the supernatural aspects of His vicarious death -- not to mention the resurrection! -- none of these could possibly be adequately depicted, and the end result must be a reduction.

The nature of audiovisual media is that of immediate recognition and vivid imagery. Often we come away from a movie thinking that our introduction to a previously-unfamiliar subject has been comprehensive and accurate, or at least adequate. How many of you watched “Shadowlands,” for instance, and were then satisfied with your understanding of the life and work of C.S. Lewis? Whose portrayal of Lewis did you prefer, if you watched both versions of the movie? Would you rather recall an image of Joss Ackland or Anthony Hopkins? Do you feel confident describing Lewis’ theology based on the exposure you got in the movie(s)?

ARE THE PROTESTANT / ROMAN CATHOLIC DISTINCTIONS A CONCERN?

I do understand the thin ice on which Mel Gibson walks. This is not just some movie with a storyline that presupposes the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and providential watch-care over His people. It’s not just a movie that could be construed as an allegory about the divide between physical and spiritual realities. This is not a movie that implies a Christian worldview. It’s a movie ABOUT actual historical and theological truths. Yes, Gibson is engaging in society’s current dialogue about what is true, using what he knows in a cultural vehicle to carry a counter-culture message. I applaud him for imaginatively and doggedly going out on a limb to confront his audience with what he believes. Gibson has taken a lot of flak. It makes me sad that he and I are so diametrically opposed about the sufficiency of the Christ we both claim to worship and about the efficacy of His mediation and one-time sacrifice to reconcile God with men.

ARE AUDIO/VISUAL DEPICTIONS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
LEGITIMATE FOR INSTRUCTION AND EXPRESSION?
...OR ARE THEY INHERENTLY SINFUL?

I think my hesitations about interpreting and applying the second commandment to depictions of Jesus come from my limited mind’s inability to combine certain apparent facts. Like how God created us as visual, imaginative creatures and our God-given creative minds long to express and publish what we love in order to create within others a longing for the same. Regardless of how the arts may be abused and perverted by unbelievers (and they are), Christian artists ought not be using their skills to acquire glory for themselves, for their books, for their paintings, for their music, for their dramatic productions. Rather, Christians should seek to contrive ways to magnify Jesus with everything at their disposal (including their talents and gifts and imaginations) and point people to the gospel (not the same thing as a substitute for gospel/evangelistic tool inherently).

I always wondered at the assumptive broadbrushing of the early artists' motivations -- were they all in it for propagation of false doctrine, for graven images to worship, for money, for self-adulation? I have a hard time believing that. We write what we love. Little children love to try to draw Jesus pictures. It's natural to picture people/things we love. That doesn't mean we're worshipping the picture itself or leaning on the picture as a crutch to help us worship.

To suggest, however, that Billy Graham’s preaching from now on will be somehow enhanced because of those images in his mind -- that is disturbing. To buy into the proposition (implicit or explicit) that the Word is a less-effective conduit and that a sightless faith is inferior to a religion which sports visible accoutrements -- that brinks on blasphemy. To think you could use an emotional jolt to serve as an impetus to more meaningful reflection -- is to say that you are reliant upon something substantial to boost your spiritual relationship with Christ.

IS ICONOLATRY A VALID CONCERN?

Mel Gibson’s company name, Icon Productions, is not merely word-play. This movie is an intentional icon. It is being lauded as the next most effective gospel tool since Jesus’ actual death. It is being heralded as a landmark in sacramental art. Iconolatry (the veneration of icons, as Dr. Alan Cairns defines it) manipulates God's WAY of being worshipped -- 1. it evidences the pagan mentality the Israelites started to bank on, insisting that they needed a tangible "version of" Jehovah -- 2. it encourages worship of a graven image at all instead of the spiritual reality.

Are depictions of Christ inherently wicked? I saw the movie "Gospel of John" twice in the last three weeks. I was struck with it from a Bible-as-(supernatural)-literature standpoint. The movie script was comprised entirely of Scripture, including all the "difficult for you to understand" things in John's account. And it was three hours long. Now, when I pray, I don't think of Henry Ian Cusick's face. In fact, one thought that crossed my mind was that the real Jesus could've looked like any one of the twelve disciple-actors, or as different from them as they were from each other. How many thousands of depictions of Jesus have crossed my eyes since grade school? Myriad images of Caucasian men, African-American men, Latino men, emaciated men, effeminate men, muscular men, and so on. In all honesty I would need to confess that, at least before I started thinking about the second commandment, I do remember calling up a particular image of Christ (not the effeminate ones -- just the ones I thought were “just” representations) in order to conjure up a meaningful emotion or worshipful thought about Jesus. I can see now the wrong-doing in that. It’s perfectly understandable to want a photograph of your mother; but when your mother is actually present in the room, it would be very rude to start talking to the photograph in place of the person.

Not once, however, do I remember being led to believe this must really be what Jesus actually looked like. Am I so strange in that? We understand that the essence of any picture is that it is a likeness. That means it is not the same in every point of similarity. We understand that, like the limits of a mirror, the limits of any image causes it to fall short of reality. An image is a metaphor that points out / glorifies certain characteristics in order to cause us to meditate on the reality they represent.

Jesus really was embodied and seen of men (yes, that's profane/making him common -- and that's the wonder of the incarnation at all) and His followers did have mental images of him in their heads when they remembered Him at the Lord's supper, when they prayed, when they walked around. But did they worship those mental images? Not if they were worshipping in spirit and truth. Did they rely on those memories to help them “get in the mood” for worship? (or don’t we like to use the phrase “to prepare our hearts?”) That is a harder question to answer. I don’t think they did this to any more of an extent than the rest of us are/were commanded to do when we were commanded to remember Jesus’ body and blood, His person and work, and to walk accordingly.

I'm against iconolatry because I'm against the veneration of representations and images and relics as though they contained any intrinsic value. I'm certainly against idolatry because I'm against the worship of other gods and the wrong manner of worshipping the one true God.

I’m not in support of “The Passion” movie as an entity in and of itself. While I would love to see the acting and cinematography because I’ve heard fantastic things, and while I can understand Gibson's sincere (albeit misled and potentially dangerous) desire to express certain aspects of the gospel, I recognize that the written and spoken Word is the ordained medium for the gospel's conveyance. The movie may indeed contain truth, and it may or may not deviate from Scripture, but that does not make it a substitute for the gospel. It can be only a limited perspective, and because of the other factors combined with that, I cannot in good conscience support it. I'm afraid that understanding (that the movie accurately portrays the whole truth as a stand-alone entity) is an inevitable effect of this production, regardless of what Gibson intends or what people insist when they go there. Just listening to the quotes from the previews indicates that the movie is an experience that will change my perspective of Jesus Christ -- a concept which seems very desirable, but which borders on sacrilege.

Since all truth is God’s truth, is there not a possibility that viewers will glean general, if not special, revelation? Maybe they won’t pick up on the resurrection, but they might get an inkling of a clue about sacrificial substitution. But I can't guarantee that the liberty/responsibility with which I come to a movie depicting Jesus and a portion of the gospel will be shared by any significant percentage of the 75% of Americans who say they are going to go view the movie.

Even those who are longtime Christians and who have been mightily used of God are mistaking the movie itself for the evangelistic tool rather than the window of opportunity surrounding the interest in the movie. Again, G. Campbell Morgan reminds us of the sometimes-subtle distinctions: “In all these things, men tell us that they worship God; but they are trying to worship Him through some supposed expression of Him which they have made for themselves” (Morgan, 29-30). I agree that we should take advantage of this time and the piqued interest. But the movie itself cannot be viewed as a substitute for the gospel. I know that Gibson said it was not intended as such, but I don't think he can guarantee that people will walk out of that theater and NOT equate their recent acquaintance with one director's version of the events with the biblical and historical and supernatural reality of what took place at Calvary.

Film critic Roger Ebert, who was raised Catholic, insists that this was the most violent movie he has ever seen. He adds, “What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.”

So, I’m leaving it. Does that mean that I think we should throw all the babies out with the bathwater? No. I can’t call the movie itself a window of opportunity. But I can call the talk and interest surrounding it a window of opportunity.

Several years ago I was a counselor at a Christian camp. One week a certain evangelist was the designated speaker, and we had a number of problems with the results of his methodology. Night after night, we found the same campers were coming for counseling, still not sure about the state of their souls before God. Finally, we humbly went to the man with our concerns about the confusion that his words and methods were creating, but we were kind of dismissed. He said that his approach has worked all over the world and X number of “results” had come of it. (Unfortunately, he was not of the generation who has to live out the long-term results of those kind of methods; we were.) But one of our leaders told us something very wise, I think. He told us it didn’t matter whether we agreed exactly with what brought them "down the aisle" -- if they were there and confused and seeking counsel, it was indicative of some kind of problem. And we knew how to deal with problems -- take them to the Word. Something they didn’t have to guess about or look to their own works and prayers and understanding. An absolute reference point. Something God-centered, not man-derived. Something solid rather than sensational. That was our responsibility -- to take the opportunity to deal with the truth-seeker according to the Truth.

The train is coming to town regardless. People are going to watch the movie regardless. We don't have to get on board, but we can clear the tracks or change the rails' direction or shout and hold signs up for the benefit of people on the platform. I would love to see/hear some real gospel preaching follow-up this movie. Some real copies of the gospel accounts passed out in the parking lots, etc. While I don't think we're legitimate in calling the movie an evangelistic tool in and of itself (i.e., I’m not sure about buying out a theater and showing the movie in place of the gospel and throwing our lots in with Gibson's blessed-by-Mass-every-day-of-production version), I think we ought to take advantage of the season of increased interest.

I'm still thinking. But I have a ton to think about. In summary:

As I mentioned on Portland Studios' blog, I think there are three main issues at hand for Bible-allegiant Christians, particularly Bible-allegiant Christians who want to use the faith and affinities and imaginations and skills God's given us to be salt and light in our world for His glory and man's best good.

1. Q: Are depictions of the Christ of the Godhead legitimate or wicked? (and is there a difference between doing it ourselves or viewing that which is done)
A. I don’t think I would ever want to assume the responsibility of portraying Christ in visual form. I’m not sure I’m ready to condemn those who would not interpret/apply the second commandment on this point. I think whether we view it or not depends on the individual and his conscience before God as a result of personal study in the Word. Various background experiences and propensities could affect how a particular person can or cannot handle visual depictions of Christ.

2. Q: Is a film production involving unbelievers an appropriate medium for conveying the gospel message? (and is that really what Gibson has intended)
A. I don’t think film is the be-all/end-all evangelistic flying carpet, and especially not this one. I think Gibson’s stated intentions are that he is not trying to replace the gospel but is trying to retain accuracy.

3. Q: To what extent should Bible-believing Christians consider the craze over the movie an opportunity to evangelize true seekers? (i.e. Is this a point at which we can engage in the cultural dialogue, and, if so, must we compromise ecumenically to do so)
A. The exposure and press attention and apparent willingness of many are factors that make for an apparent opportunity to help people seeking truth to find truth, but the “craze” over the movie ought to be distinguished from the movie itself as the opportunity.

As for my individual decision, I'll admit I'm not willing to find out how weak I am when it comes to retaining lasting impressions that may affect how I view Christ hereafter. Paul Harvey and Billy Graham and Roger Ebert don't seem to be able to shake off the imagery and take away only the spiritual truths. I had already determined (based on the emotional reviews I was reading) that I would go alone if I went, because I knew I might lose it emotionally. Which is self-revealing because I realized that I was expecting it to be a spiritual energy fix. My thought was that an emotional experience might do me good. But that temptation undermines the beauty of union with the unseen Christ. When I honestly evaluate my primary reasons for wanting to go, they are small in comparison to the importance of an authentic, pure walk with the Reality.

__________________________________________
[save/print this essay in MS Word format]

________________________________

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, G. Campbell Morgan ("The Second Commandment," pp. 25-35).

DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS, Alan Cairns ("Iconolatry," p. 183).

Westminster Confession of the Faith, Longer Catechism, question 109.

BELIEVERS’ OPINIONS:
Five Reasons Not to Go See “The Passion of the Christ” ~Andrew J. Webb
My Protest Against the Evangelical Ecstasy Over Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” ~ Bob Bixby
SermonAudio.com article
"The Passion" Revisited ~ David Limbaugh
Two Concerns about “The Passion” ~ Phil Johnson (Executive Director of GRACE TO YOU ministries)
PCAnews.com articles --
The Second Commandment and the Passion of Christ
The Passion of Christ

MEDIA LINKS
A.O. Scott of The New York Times
CNN re: Gibson’s Passion
ABC’s 4-page article following the Sawyer/Gibson interview
Roger Ebert’s review of “The Passion” in The Chicago Sun-Times
FOX re: Gibson’s Passion
WorldNetDaily.com
Miscellaneous articles

Pastor Bixby's protest against the evangelical ecstasy over the Passion movie

"It's the best evangelization opportunity we've had since the actual death of Jesus," Lisa Wheeler, associate editor of Catholic Exchange, a Web portal dedicated to Internet evangelism, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

THE PASSION premieres tomorrow, and I haven't gotten involved in the bloggery about it up to this point. I'm still studying and determining what I believe is the right response to this kind of a production. In the meanwhile, I want to post my pastor's perspective. It may seem like a foreign language now, but it is SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

Again, I'm still thinking/praying/studying over these questions and would welcome feedback. I think there are a lot of ramifications to drawing biblical conclusions, especially for artists, authors, actors who approach their work with a thoroughly gospel-saturated worldview.

"What in the cockadoodle is CILANTRO?"

Life is funny, women are fickle, etc. I don't have many favorites in the monumental, oft-mentioned categories. You know? No favorite restaurant. No favorite car. No favorite country. No favorite planet, etcetera.

But I do have a new favorite herb: CILANTRO

Apparently, people either love it or hate it.

read it and weep

I've a hard time connecting MTV's Superbowl half-time lyrics and audiovisual aids with anything on this blog. And I did swear off blogging politics, but this is an exception well worth the read.

It's about time someone (in this case a Democrat senator from Georgia) said something, in no uncertain terms, about the DEFICIT OF DECENCY in America.

"So, as the sand empties through my hourglass at warp speed - and with my
time running out in this Senate and on this earth, I feel compelled to
speak out. For I truly believe that at times like this, silence is not
golden. It is yellow."

You can also download the video version.

Read on, if you can't access the links above. ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Miller Delivers Floor Speech on 'Deficit of Decency' in America

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today delivered the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate addressing several social issues facing the country:

"The Old Testament prophet Amos was a sheep herder who lived back in the
Judean hills, away from the larger cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem.
Compared to the intellectual urbanites like Isaiah and Jeremiah, he was
just an unsophisticated country hick.

"But Amos had a unique grasp of political and social issues and his poetic
literary skill was among the best of all the prophets. That familiar
quote of Martin Luther King, Jr. about 'Justice will rush down like
waters and righteousness like a mighty stream' are Amos's words.

"Amos was the first to propose the concept of a universal God and not just
some tribal deity. He also wrote that God demanded moral purity, not
rituals and sacrifices. This blunt speaking moral conscience of his time
warns in Chapter 8, verse 11 of The Book of Amos, as if he were speaking
to us today:

That 'the days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine
in the land. Not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of
hearing the word of the Lord. 'And they shall wander from sea to sea,
and from the north even to the east. They shall run to and fro to seek
the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.'

'A famine in the land'. Has anyone more accurately described the situation
we face in America today? 'A famine of hearing the words of the Lord.'

"But some will say, Amos was just an Old Testament prophet - a minor one
at that - who lived 700 years before Christ. That is true, so how about
one of the most influential historians of modern times?

"Arnold Toynbee who wrote the acclaimed 12 volume A Study of History, once
declared, 'Of the 22 civilizations that have appeared in history, 19 of
them collapsed when they reached the moral state America is in today.'

"Toynbee died in 1975, before seeing the worst that was yet to come. Yes,
Arnold Toynbee saw the famine. The 'famine of hearing the words of the
Lord.' Whether it is removing a display of the Ten Commandments from a
Courthouse or the Nativity Scene from a city square. Whether it is
eliminating prayer in schools or eliminating 'under God' in the Pledge of
Allegiance. Whether it is making a mockery of the sacred institution of
marriage between a man and woman or, yes, telecasting around the world
made-in-the-USA filth masquerading as entertainment.

"The Culture of Far Left America was displayed in a startling way during
the Super Bowl's now infamous half-time show. A show brought to us
courtesy of Value-Les Moonves and the pagan temple of Viacom-Babylon.

"I asked the question yesterday, how many of you have ever run over a
skunk with your car? I have many times and I can tell you, the stink
stays around for a long time. You can take the car through a car wash and
it's still there. So the scent of this event will long linger in the nostrils of
America.

"I'm not talking just about an exposed mammary gland with a pull-tab
attached to it. Really no one should have been too surprised at that.
Wouldn't one expect a bumping, humping, trashy routine entitled 'I'm
going to get you naked' to end that way.

"Does any responsible adult ever listen to the words of this rap-crap?
I'd quote you some of it, but the Sergeant of Arms would throw me out of
here, as well he should. And then there was that prancing, dancing,
strutting, rutting guy evidently suffering from jock itch because he kept
yelling and grabbing his crotch. But then, maybe there's a crotch-
grabbing culture I'm unaware of.

"But as bad as all this was, the thing that yanked my chain the hardest
was seeing that ignoramus with his pointed head stuck up through a hole
he had cut in the flag of the United States of America, screaming about
having 'a bottle of scotch and watching lots of crotch.' Think about
that.

"This is the same flag that we pledge allegiance to. This is the flag that
is draped over coffins of dead young uniformed warriors killed while
protecting Kid Crock's bony butt. He should be tarred and feathered, and
ridden out of this country on a rail. Talk about a good reality show,
there's one for you.

"The desire and will of this Congress to meaningfully do anything about
any of these so-called social issues is non existent and embarrassingly
disgraceful. The American people are waiting and growing impatient with
us. They want something done.

"I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of S.J. Res. 26 along with Senator Allard
and others, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States relating to marriage. And S.1558, the Liberties Restoration Act,
which declares religious liberty rights in several ways, including the
Pledge of Allegiance and the display of the Ten Commandments.
And today I join Senator Shelby and others with the Constitution
Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts
in certain ways.

"In doing so, I stand shoulder to shoulder not only with my Senate
co-sponsors and Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama but, more importantly,
with our Founding Fathers in the conception of religious liberty and the
terribly wrong direction our modern judiciary has taken us in.

"Everyone today seems to think that the U.S. Constitution expressly
provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten people if that's
not so. And I'll bet you most of them will say 'Well, sure.' And some
will point out, 'it's in the First Amendment.'

"Wrong! Read it! It says, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Where
is the word 'separate'? Where are the words 'church' or 'state.'

"They are not there. Never have been. Never intended to be. Read the
Congressional Records during that four-month period in 1789 when the
amendment was being framed in Congress. Clearly their intent was to
prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it was
Anglican or Catholic or some other.

"I highly recommend a great book entitled Original Intent by David Barton.
It really gets into how the actual members of Congress, who drafted the
First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and values to be
present throughout public life and society, not separate from it.

"It was Alexander Hamilton who pointed out that 'judges should be bound
down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out
their duty' Bound down! That is exactly what is needed to be done. There
was not a single precedent cited when school prayer was struck down in
1962.

"These judges who legislate instead of adjudicate, do it without being
responsible to one single solitary voter for their actions. Among the
signers of the Declaration of Independence was a brilliant young
physician from Pennsylvania named Benjamin Rush.

"When Rush was elected to that First Continental Congress, his close
friend Benjamin Franklin told him 'We need you. . . we have a great task
before us, assigned to us by Providence.' Today, 228 years later there is
still a great task before us assigned to us by Providence. Our Founding
Fathers did not shirk their duty and we can do no less.

"By the way, Benjamin Rush was once asked a question that has long
interested this Senator from Georgia in particular. Dr. Rush was asked,
are you a democrat or an aristocrat? And the good doctor answered, 'I am
neither'. 'I am a Christocrat. I believe He, alone, who created and
redeemed man is qualified to govern him.' That reply of Benjamin Rush is
just as true today in the year of our Lord 2004 as it was in the year of
our Lord 1776.

"So, if I am asked why - with all the pressing problems this nation faces
today - why am I pushing these social issues and taking the Senate's
valuable time? I will answer: Because, it is of the highest importance.
Yes, there's a deficit to be concerned about in this country, a deficit
of decency.

"So, as the sand empties through my hourglass at warp speed - and with my
time running out in this Senate and on this earth, I feel compelled to
speak out. For I truly believe that at times like this, silence is not
golden. It is yellow."

-----------------------------------------------

Senator Zell Miller
257 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510

Phone: (202) 224-3643
Fax: (202) 228-2090

travel

I left my heart in San Francisco;
High on a hill, it calls to me
To be where little cable cars
Climb halfway to the stars;
The morning fog may chill the air,
I don't care.*

* words by Douglas Cross

canopies of grace

more of those
wishy-washy
frothy-fluffy lyrics
that can't hold any meat...

THE ONE THING*

drive away the cold from this winter soul
and renew your spirit in me
let the rain fall sweet from your mercy seat
and remind me that you never will forget
to wash away the bitter in the end...

cause we all reach for something
don't we--don't we?
we do
live and breathe this one thing
don't we--don't we?
we do

and I know you're there just beyond this prayer
and I believe you silent as you are
and this emptiness is not purposeless
it's only thirst compelling us to drink
only questions find the answers that we seek

every atom in me waits -- every breath anticipates
still, if this is what it takes I'll sit right here with you...

___________________________

THE RAINY DAYS**

looks like rain
fell off the horse again
and I curse the selfish pride that came before
feels like rain
this melancholy mood I'm in
as I watch the empty glass that's landing on the floor

sweet Jesus, hold us when we're hurting
and lost, let us find your way

cause we all feel the pain
we're all waiting for the day
while the here and now keeps dragging on
and we all hide away
under canopies of grace
to keep us on the rainy days
they will keep us on the rainy days

looks like rain
can't find my faith again
and I'm sure I had it not an hour ago
feels like rain
I'm falling sideways with the wind
all the while believing I am not alone

sweet Jesus, hold us when we're hurting
and lost, let us find your way...

________________________
* Brad O'Donnell / Paul Alan
** Paul Alan

early learner?

Is it just me, or is a 17-year-old too young to be quite this bitter yet?

photo friday: "abstract"

___________________________
:: for more about Photo Friday ::

extract

just the last two stanzas...for st. valentine's sake.
(17 August 2003)

We march to the same music,
and all my life's resolving to this chord;
but I'm still waiting to be introduced.
He's out there somewhere, flying solo
above the grass and underneath the stars;
but he's still got his rib inside of him.

So send your joy and goodness
and love that would trade places with the swine;
but patience might be best to give me first.
Come down and be my portion
in barren valleys and in empty rooms;
and make this Eve more holy and more whole.

theme thursday: "fences"

___________________________________
:: for more about Theme Thursday ::

photo friday: "glamour"

___________________________
:: for more about Photo Friday ::

where suns and spiders waltz

It's time -- for me at least -- to be reminded of this yet again...

29 June 2003
WHERE SUNS AND SPIDERS WALTZ

You know I hate spiders.
So why are you letting this one
just waltz across my windowsill?
I stare at it, stupefied,
till I realize that this bit of broccoli
crucified on my fork tines
looks far too like a spider
to eat now.
Well?
You know I hate spiders.
They're just real creepy.
So why can't you make a forcefield or something?
Right around my apartment.
A dome. With a sign.
SPIDERS STAY OUT
I know. I shouldn't flip out over a spider.
You made him, after all,
and he isn't really touching me at the moment anyway?
and if he ever does, I will set this broccoli down and
corral that spider into the racquetball jar
where he will drink a fatal dose of nail polish remover.

You know what you are doing.
The things you do, you do them in fine detail.
Always hitting too close to home to be a fluke.
And you know I love rainbows.
Like the medley all about
what's somewhere over one
and what a wonderful world.

And when the shower came like Noah-time,
and I saw the sun blaze up;
I knew sure there'd be a rainbow out back,
but blocked from view by that brake of trees.
I was satisfied to watch the sheets of rain
over the windowsill
and avoid a spider's gaze.
And I don't know how you did it,
because I got a D in Physics,
but you brought that rainbow
really close to home.
It came in my own back yard,
with the perfect trees as backdrop
and us as its ten-legged audience.
So I know where this rainbow ended,
even though I was so excited I forgot
to look down at the very blade of grass.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You know I hate to be wrong.
I hate to be caught.
I hate when people think they can read my mind.
I hate when no one tries.
I hate my pride
like a nest of spiders
that fills more than my back yard.
SPIDERS STAY OUT
Why do you let me wear it out?
Why do you let me go like this?
On and on like it's all about me.
Me and my piece-of-junk modem.
Me and my ink-empty cartridge.
Me and my so-low solo bank account.
Me and my piece-of-junk bumper.
Me and my still-empty passport.
On and on like it's all about me.
Like a spider that never dies
though it supposedly chose its poison
some ten summers ago.

Wash me out, like Noah-time.
I don't even know yet how much I hate boils.
How much I hate barrenness,
or poverty, or chemo, or losing more than face.
I don't even know yet how much you hate
how much I love my own agenda above yours.
Rain out my conniptions.
Put cracks in all my cisterns,
all my forcefield domes and dams.
Melt through my handheld walls.
I have no arm like yours and never will.
I cannot mandate with your thunder voice
where suns and spiders waltz.
My windowsills are not so sacred
as I may sometimes imagine,
and I might lose my appetite
for things I had in mind.
Cross my plans
more often with your weaving,
your webs of brights and darks.
You know I hate to be wrong.
I know you love to be right.
You know the perfect spot for
every unretreating dancing spider,
every thundered fluke or medley,
every moving rainbow's
end.

extra blankets

RANDOM THOUGHTS
(or MORE JUNKMAIL -- in case the ghetto monk was getting chilly)

at home in bed
I hate trash day. Hate it.
Get up, Trinity. Get up!

at home in general
Why are all these half-full water glasses standing around my house? I feel like I'm on the set for "Signs."
My eyes are camel today. Seriously. I wonder what they would say to me at the DMV if I wanted CAM for the eye color designation on my license. I knew a girl in college with camel-colored eyes. Actually, they were tawny. I called her "Lady of the Lion Eyes." My own used to be chocolate brown and started changing over several years ago. Now they're hazel (HAZ), but I wonder on some days if they're they're not going completely green. I guess we'll see. (No pun intended.)

in the glass elevator by the parking garage
OK, I have my Haley Joel Osment looking down from the cathedral balcony face on now.
That lady should market her perfume. I mean re-market it. Like as some kind of solvent.
If you've got to be Superman, then change clothes in an empty elevator -- not a phone booth. For crying out loud. Why do we make life hard for ourselves?

at my desk at work
"We were soldiers once...and young" would be a great seven-syllable line for haiku or tanka -- if you had some reason to allude to Vietnam via Japanese poetry.
I have a tea diffuser that is supposed to look like an acorn. It is weird to stick tea leaves in an acorn.
Microwave "kettle corn" is not what it's popped up to be. It's nothing in comparison, for instance, to kettle-cooked salt and vinegar chips.
"Lady of the lion eyes" is another great seven-syllable line for haiku or tanka -- if anyone happens to care.
The thing about tea is -- well, there's two. 1) It's gross with gum. 2) It gets cold so fast.

walking between places
So what IS the difference between cement and concrete?
Walking is a miracle. Really. The odds of all these variables coming together with perfect balance and adequate velocity and sufficient support -- it's an amazing thing to be able to walk straight, and I'm thankful I can.
It's ok that these things mill around in my cerebral cortex; in fact, it's very entertaining sometimes. Makes me wonder, though, what I might be thinking up if my imagination didn't always default to the things within my little sphere of seen/felt existence. Right. Like what if there's a Pulitzer on the horizon just waiting for me to get my mind off of concrete and kettle corn?

theme thursday: "connected"

fruit snacks with connections

___________________________________
:: for more about Theme Thursday ::

for another joy

AS THE RUIN FALLS

All this is flashy rhetoric about loving you.
I never had a selfless thought since I was born.
I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through:
I want God, you, all friends, merely to serve my turn.

Peace, re-assurance, pleasure, are the goals I seek,
I cannot crawl one inch outside my proper skin:
I talk of love -- a scholar's parrot may talk Greek --
But, self-imprisoned, always end where I begin.

Only that now you have taught me (but how late) my lack.
I see the chasm. And everything you are was making
My heart into a bridge by which I might get back
From exile, and grow man. And now the bridge is breaking.

For this I bless you as the ruin falls. The pains
You give me are more precious than all other gains.

~ C.S. Lewis

winter: not a cake-walk

but at least you can find some icing...

I have sort of a love-hate relationship with winter. Actually it's more like an endure-hate relationship. So I'm keeping my eyes open for the odd and the memorable...it's good practice for me to find beauty in less-than-desirable circumstances.

prodigies