2 months…

The Harlequin has been busy:

• petted a sea anemone
• saw Mark Driscoll in a suit and tie
• got the reins to a black War Steed
• read a book on changing one’s brain
• studied for the AP chemistry test
• ordered a knife
• received 10 postcards in the mail
• learned what an interocitor is
• got invited to 4 weddings (no funerals, thankfully)
• played ping-pong
• got sick
• started writing a long theological blog post that’ll be up tomorrow probably
• grew a beard
• saw the Gates of Paradise (http://www.seattleartmuseum.org/)
• had ice cream from Collins
• finished watching Cowboy Bebop
• cooked a delicious salmon alfredo
• thought up names for a future secret police organization
• purchased a succulent
• kept it real, yo.

A Parable

Three young men stood on the beach in Cape Cod, looking out over the ocean. One of them lifted up his voice and spoke:

“Just think, my brothers. Across the sea to the east lies the ancient land of England. I have always wanted to go there.”

The others murmured their assent. They too had often longed to see the British isles.

The first one turned again and said, “See, it is east of here, and a little north. Therefore let us head to the northeast.”

The second said, “No, brother, for the way is long and the ocean deep. Let us rather head south and west to New York City, there to board an airplane to London.”

The third said, “If to go south and west is the best way to reach the British isles, then why stop part-way, O my brother? Let us keep going to the south-west!”

After much debate each man held fast to his own way. So the three parted, each to his chosen course.

An hour later, the first brother swam wearily back to the Cape Cod shore, wet and shivering. “It is a shame that I shall never see England, for I lack strength to swim so far.”

The next day, the second brother landed at Heathrow and stepped off the plane. “So much to see and do here! Ah, I hope my brothers shall be able to join me shortly.”

A week later, the third brother stood in the terminal at Los Angeles International Airport, holding a ticket for Sydney, Australia. For a moment he paused, looking thoughtfully at his ticket. But the call sounded, and he boarded the plane. “The road I have taken thus far has not got me any closer to England,” he reasoned, “but it must surely lead there sooner or later.”

- The Herald

Sanctity of Life Sunday + MLK Jr.

This is a sermon by John Piper I heard last summer. I thought of it again this morning, when I realized last week was both sanctity of life Sunday and Martin Luther King Jr. Day. That’s probably where the inspiration for the sermon came from originally, but no matter. 

Couple that with this editorial from the Wall Street Journal a month and a half ago.

Given the dismal situation in cities like Detroit, what are we to do, if anything?

Edited 1/28/08: In the interest of being more direct and perhaps fostering some discussion on specific points, here are a few more specific questions. Given the undesirable conditions that aborted children might have to live in if they were to be carried to term (see some statistics in the “Murder City” article above), is it reasonable to merely say that abortion is wrong? Abortion is often viewed as a liberating institution for women; is that an unreasonable assertion if only one in nine boys has a father around? Parenting is a big enough job when both parents are present and involved. Can abortion legitimately be called racist because a disproportionate amount of abortions are had by African American women?

Eet Smakelijk,

–Apothecary

A New Year

Here’s the Harlequin
back again

So, it’s 2008. After tossing aside all my obsolete calendars, and spending the first few days of the new year preoccupied with travel and work, I now have a relatively clear space in which to contemplate another year gone, and another year just beginning.

It’s pretty cool.

God brought us through 2007, and it’s nifty to think that He has already brought us through 2008. He was very faithful to me in 2007, and it’s good to remember that we can count on Him to be faithful to us in 2008, just as always. As usual, I’m caught up in the profundity of very simple statements, but it’s true, I think, that part of coming to Jesus like a little child involves just taking God at face value, and taking His provision and care and love for us as the constant, matter-of-fact, and amazing things they are. Whatever the new year brings.

In 2008, may God bless you, and may you find yourself growing more and more dependent on His mercy, grace, and love.

Slide!

+The Harlequin

The Harlequin, and the 10 things Christians and Atheists must agree on

Here is an article which I found quite interesting, linked here for your reading pleasure.  To be warned, the site itself is rather noisy and obnoxious – try not to hold it against the content of the article.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html

 

I will not unilaterally sing its praises here, nor tear it a new one.  The author puts forth quite simply a list of ten main arguments, which I’ll summarize here.   Regarding Christianity and Atheism:

1.  You can do wrong things in the name of either one

2.  Both sides really do believe what they’re saying

3.  In everyday life, you’re not that different

4.  There are good people on both sides

5.  Your point of view is legitimately offensive to them

6.  We tend to exaggerate about the other guy

7.  We tend to exaggerate about ourselves, too

8.  Focusing on negative examples makes you stupid

9.  Both sides have brought good to the table

10.  You’ll never harass the other side out of existence

 

This condensed form doesn’t really do it justice, of course.  It sounds rather self-evident… or rather, it should.   If, having read the article and his explanations of each point, you find you cannot agree with one or more of the ten things, then we should talk, because you’re probably in need of some correction.   If you’re Christian, you are most likely hindering your own witness and lack a good understanding of the gospel… if you’re an atheist, you’re probably being a jerk.  

 

     What is profound about the article is not the list.   My friend Dave has called it an expression of “common grace ,” which I’d agree with, but whatever you call it, it seems like it merely calls for common courtesy.  It reminds me of the “first rule” at college: “don’t be a jerk.”

 

     The article does bring up a couple of worthwhile observations, in my opinion:

 

a)  that the conflict between atheists and Christians seems to be deteriorating, so that discussions lose any sense of exchanging and examining ideas, but rather lose any meaning and become mere slinging of catch-phrases at each other.   Neither side really understands where the other is coming from.  This needs to change.

 

b)  that the teeth have been removed from most of the stupid arguments on both sides, which to me is a great thing.   Both sides must recognize that the existence of God does not hinge on the supposed amount of evil and/or good committed by atheists and/or theists.   Similarly, the article highlights that the crux of the creationism/evolution debate is not religion vs. science (which is an utterly stupid and meaningless way of looking at the conflict anyhow, as I believe religion and science are not in conflict at all) but rather a matter of intent – the question is really, ‘is there a purpose for us being here?’

     It’s really encouraging that the author of the article does not fall into either of these snares when thinking about the overall theists vs. atheists debate, and even goes as far as pointing out their irrelevance.

 

c)  that the eyes of the world are on Christians.  “Lead by example,” the article says, and it is very much on-target.   It is not the role of the Christian to make converts – it is God who opens the eyes of the soul.  The Christian’s primary focus is enjoying God sincerely, and giving God praise for the things that he does and who he is.   The article does a great job of illustrating that no one is going to change their minds based on a t-shirt or protest-sign you wave at their face – but if you would convince people that God is real, let them see him at work in your life.   This means:  no facades.  As it is written,

     “Keep your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” – 1 Peter 2:12

Let us abandon our pride: our desire to only listen to people who agree with us, and our desire to ‘win’ conversations and converts.   How sad is it, that the world can point to supposed “Christians” who’ve forgotten even that they should love their neighbor?

On Conversation, Part I

Fair subjects:

It is manifestly clear that our Creator has endowed us with faculty for communication. And being, as we believe, his image here on Earth, we ought to so strengthen and refine our faculties that the very use of them will bring Him honor and glory. It is with this in mind that we should think critically of our faculty for communication: identify and reject that which is unworthy; identify and strive for that which is worthy.

It’s possible that some readers will scoff at the idea of exhortations regarding conversation. “Honestly”, they might say, “He might as well give us advice on how to breathe!” But if the Bible sees fit to talk about it, then it’s worth talking about:

James 3:8 – “But no human can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.”

Psalm 141:3 – “Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips!”

Psalm 45:2 – “…Grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you forever.”

This hardly begins to represent the Bible’s teaching on conversation, but the magic number for human minds seems to be three. Anyway, whenever the Bible discusses something at length, there tends to be a right and a wrong way to do it. Here’s my warning to linguistic relativists with sensitive stomachs: I’m about to get dangerously prescriptive. (I may, of course, be wrong; in that case, I’ll “Sin boldly, but believe more boldly still”, as better minds have put it.) For now, I’ll limit my advice to discussion of ideas. Now, discussion of ideas is only one of the major uses of language (rapport or command would be fun to discuss, too), but I think it’s more common than we realize, and I think it’s plenty difficult to solve.

Let’s start the substantive content with an overblown assertion: interruption is good. Many of you will think, “Gah, I hate it when I’m interrupted!”, or, if you’re smug, “I can think of one writer who could use some interruption.” But regardless of our feelings at the moment we’re interrupted, I assert that interruption performs a vital service that keeps conversations healthy. The service is complex, but I think I could summarize it as fighting stagnation.

Everybody has been in a discussion where it happens– one participant speaks his or her piece, and then just keeps going. And going. And going, as though desperately trying to surf the wave of momentum created by getting everybody else to shut up, before they founder and sink below the water, never to be seen again. Let’s call this behavior the filibluster.

And the reasons why the participant would filibluster are complex. Professors somewhere have probably tried to publish journal articles about it. But let’s say, crudely, that it could arise from a desire for more attention, or desire to make one’s point seem more impressive because it’s longer, or simply misunderstanding that people prefer not to be treated as idiots (and that explicitly detailing every logical connection is one way of treating people like idiots). Making a long speech for one of these reasons isn’t going to do any good. I will be generous: making a long speech could be useful if the speaker were to gently realize that the people he’s talking with were… outpaced. (Of course, in such a situation the speaker should really be teaching, not discussing.)

Let’s consider the other side: why would someone interrupt? There are several possible reasons. An interrupter could see the point that’s about to be made and want to steal the glory of saying it. An interrupter could consider other people’s conversation to be less worthy than his own, and simply bore of everything that other people say. Or perhaps the speaker is about to refute the interrupter’s argument with a valid point, and the interrupter doesn’t want to look stupid, so he tries to stop the comment before it’s made.

Those are possible reasons, but I actually believe them to be quite uncommon among thinking adults (which is why they’re so prevalent in television debates). In real life, people who start conversations about ideas are usually interested in what the other person thinks. And so I think that interruption normally indicates something else. It could be that the interrupter thinks he and the speaker are thinking the same thing. In my experience, the feeling that you and another person are united in your thought process is exciting; I would expect such excitement to overflow into conversation. Alternately, it could be that the interrupter thinks the speaker is getting off-topic, and isn’t willing to abandon the topic at hand.

If we define a healthy discussion of ideas as one where differing ideas are being cooperatively exchanged along a mutually sensible course of thought, then I think that interruptions made for the aforementioned reasons are good. The first indicates that the conversation is already healthy (indicating a mutually sensible course of thought); the second actively helps to make the conversation healthy (maintaining the mutually sensible course of thought).

Actually, the shared-excitement interruptions help maintain healthy conversations too: because a good conversation is a cooperative interaction, an indicator of health allows the other participants to reinforce whatever good action led to the good indicator. And it doesn’t just allow it to happen, but naturally impels it to happen, because the indicator (shared excitement) is itself a reward.

So, to those of you who want to have satisfying discussions of ideas: don’t filibluster. Experience the pleasure of communicating with people so that they understand you and are able to take an idea further than where your words left it. They may or may not go in the direction you expect; they may or may not go in the direction you would go. If they go off-topic, don’t be afraid to bring the conversation back in a way that says, “this course is good for both of us. Let’s stay on it for a while longer,” even though the first time you try it people might bristle.

And what if your conversant turns out to be uninterested in a cooperative interaction? [Complete the thought yourself. Maybe you and I are about to think the same thing.]

-The Marquis

O come, O come

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear.
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Day-spring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here;
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death’s dark shadows put to flight.
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Key of David, come,
And open wide our heavenly home;
Make safe the way that leads on high,
And close the path to misery.
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind;
Bid Thou our sad divisions cease,
And be Thyself our King of Peace.
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

—–

(Note to those who went to church with me this morning: I had written this post before the service today, so it is causally unrelated.)

This is my favorite Advent hymn by a good margin. There are many other good Christmas songs talking about angels, or the infant Jesus, or the magi, or general principles of joy and peace. But this one stands apart, because it centers on the great significance of the Advent: light shining out of darkness; and because it does it so well.

I love the way the hymn captures the desperate longing with which the people of Israel awaited the Messiah, and the way it affirms the certainty of the hope they had. It also, in a more subtle fashion, alludes to the groaning of creation even now as we await the second Advent to come.

And the music! It opens as a funereal lament, quiet and haunting. Slowly a strain of hope enters and the music rises, then it bursts forth in a ringing shout of exultation, and closes with quiet resolve. The music itself, even without lyrics, conveys the hymn’s theme of joy springing from desperation in the hope of Christ. Was ever a piece of music as well-suited to its theme as this?

The hymn – lyrics and music together – encompass the cry of the prophets and their consolation, the glorious hope of the Christ who died, who rose, and who shall come again.

Rejoice! Rejoice!

- The Herald