Psalm 51

An illustration I did for my church in response to our ash wednesday psalm hymn (which you can listen to here).  Click on it for a larger view.

Why I Love Religion

So this guy posted a spoken work piece on the topic of ‘hating religion but loving Jesus’ that has been fairly popular on the interwebs. Here is a link to it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY.


It is a symbol of everything that I find weak and shallow in American evangelical movement. In fact the amazing atheist points out its many shortcomings in his follow up video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBo7Z_abiLE&feature=related (a warning for his explicit language).


But the purpose of this post is to highlight another video response by a Catholic priest who offers up his own spoken word version of why religion, though broken as it is, has value for the followers of Christ. Plus how often do you get to hear a priest kindof sortof rap. Enjoy.

Cardboard Manger

Merry Christmas!  A few images of the nativity set I built.  It is just a few pieces of cardboard slotted together with a plex star.

The Need for a Good Church Architecture Book

I'll write this one of these days:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/10/04/church-architecture-book/

Also:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/10/04/church-architecture-book/

Ways Different Christian Denominations See One Another

So I made this chart after seeing the incredibly clever and funny one on people in higher education (link here).  No disrespect or dissention intended – merely using humor to offer another viewpoint on our differences. 

Doubt and Peace

Laura and I officially joined our church, St. Thomas the Doubter, this past Sunday and I realized that I hadn’t mentioned it yet on my blog.  The name of the church in and of itself seems to entice a variety of conversations – as well it should as it is a good synecdoche of who we are.  We have already been slightly ridiculed for the name – saying that it is like naming your church ‘David the Adulterer’.  The sentiment expressed: ‘why would you want to highlight the shortcomings of your namesake?’ 

First, I don’t see doubt as Thomas’ shortcoming.  Skepticism can take the form of full blown rebellion but it can also express the natural internal conflict that comes when presented with two opposing but real worldviews.  Christianity is full of claims that do not immediately and readily square up with what we observe about reality.  Trusting these claims without asking for a bigger context is at best naïve and at worst deliberate ignorance. 

The biggest context that Christ offers is that He is in the process of bringing peace to the world through His resurrection.  This peace goes squarely against the history and tendency of violence that can seem so prevalent.  This violence is not an illusion and doubt in its purest form is recognition of this competing reality with Christ’s ultimate restoration.  As such the mission I am charged with is to recognize and promote the peace of Christ amidst the violence of the world.

Second, we are particularly interested as a church in those in our community who doubt.  Doubting might have been Thomas’s weakness but it is a weakness shared by a great many in our society.  It is also a weakness that Jesus dealt compassionately with.    

Here is a link to the list of doubts and Christ’s responses to the doubts put together by our pastor:

The Doubts

The Responses

Some pics of one of our services (we meet at the Plano Children's Theater - got to love their purple curtain):

IF - Proverb

Proverbs 1

²⁰ Wisdom cries aloud in the street,
   in the markets she raises her voice;²¹at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
   at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:²²"How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
   and fools hate knowledge?²³If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
   I will make my words known to you.²⁴ Because I have called and you refused to listen,
   have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,²⁵because you have ignored all my counsel
   and would have none of my reproof,²⁶I also will laugh at your calamity;
   I will mock when terror strikes you,²⁷when terror strikes you like a storm
   and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
   when distress and anguish come upon you.²⁸ Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
   they will seek me diligently but will not find me.²⁹Because they hated knowledge
   and did not choose the fear of the LORD,³⁰ would have none of my counsel
   and despised all my reproof,³¹therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
   and have their fill of their own devices.³²For the simple are killed by their turning away,
   and the complacency of fools destroys them;³³but whoever listens to me will dwell secure
   and will be at ease, without dread of disaster."

Highly Irreverent Mosque Being Constructed!

Just a guess - but I doubt my post will be pertaining to the particular mosque you are thinking about.

Construction is going on right now in Mecca on the Abraj Al Bait Towers.  It is not technically a mosque (that phrase sounds familiar) but will incorporate a prayer room capable of holding nearly 10000 people as well as several hotels (one which is a 7 star hotel) and a large shopping complex.  This beast of a building will be right across the street from the Kaaba, the most holy site in Islam. 

Architecturally this thing is a weird hybrid of a Las Vegas Casino, the Burj Khalifa, and Big Ben – with the emphasis on the casino.  While Islam has the potential to produce some very beautiful buildings it seem that the current leaders of the Arab world just can’t help but flaunting their bad taste with a building that dominates a world religion’s most sacred site with a literal mountain of tacky.

What really gets me is the shear commercial-ness of the whole thing.  It’s like its turning the Hajj into a trip to Disneyland.  My sense of beauty has been assaulted and I’m deeply ashamed that constructs such as this get the recourses of our world.  

So a word of advice to the owners of the "Mosque at Ground Zero" - if you survive your public relations disater, please hire a good architect.    

Climate Change and Evolution, Stewardship and Responsibility

Materialist’s Foundational Position

Biology is meant to Adapt or Perish. While an individual organism or ecosystem can be fragile, life as a whole thrives on change. Climate has shifted radically in the past; with the extinction of species, the continuation of life as a whole, and the opportunity for new species. While this latest climate shift is manmade, man is not above the natural world (nothing is) so it becomes a natural consequence, just like every other climate shift in history.

.

Materialist’s Actual Position

Man is responsible for the current change in climate. Since a radical change in climate will cause the destruction of species and some ecosystems, and because we cannot predict all the consequences of such a change; it is ultimately a bad thing. And because it is the result of our actions we are responsible for trying to stop it and mitigate its effects. (I don’t see this position to be entirely inconsistent, but rather it is consistent in a weaker way than the “foundational” position since it focuses on the fragility of life rather than the adaptability/resilience of life)

.

Christian’s Foundational Position

God created man to steward life on the Earth. Man therefore has been given power and responsibility over the created biological order. Man is theoretically responsible for the current change in climate. Since a radical change in climate will cause the destruction of species and some ecosystems, and because we cannot predict all the consequences of such a change; it is ultimately a bad thing. And because life has been entrusted to us (and the climate shift might be the result of our actions) we are responsible for trying to stop it and mitigate its effects.

.

Christian’s Actual Position

Since the Materialists are pushing an agenda of climate change, our position will obviously be opposed to it. Whether there is evidence out there or not, we will not look at it. Climate change is made up and not supported on scientific grounds (look it’s snowing). Oh and we forgot to mention that the measures that we need to take in order to reduce climate change are bad for business.

To be fair, none of these are realistic of the complexity of any individual’s actual views on the subject; I just thought that when reduced it was a nice example of how reactionary positions can lead to a denial of one’s original belief system foundations because the position of the opposition is not always entirely holistic itself. Put simply, reactionary positions tend to turn around and bite you in your philosophical ass.

Evangelical Church Architecture in the 21st century

Introduction

I have run across quite a few blog articles recently dealing with church architecture. I found that I had many the opinion but that my thoughts on the subject weren’t as focused as they should be (being that theology and architecture are both pretty important to me). So I sat down and organized them. I admit up front that a good majority of this is rant material but it provided me with a good framework in which to build my thoughts.

Cost

I can’t say for certain (but have a pretty good hunch) that building a building has always come to down how much it costs. In any case built edifices today do. In the secular architectural sphere, architects everywhere are trying to cram the most beauty (quality and sense of space) into their (seemingly) ever restricting project budget. The same fight is present within religious architecture though with slightly different nomenclature. Instead of the corporate “what is the cheapest I can build this building and still retain employees” it is “what is the cheapest I can build this building so we can give the extra to missionaries”.

The whole “if we save money on this building we can give it away” mindset is a subtractive attitude that has wreaked massive destruction on modern church architecture. As a design process it flows like this: An architect designs a church on an inflated idea of function and aesthetics. The church client then starts ripping off all the unnecessary pieces until it is within the then decided budgetary constraints. The resulting building is usually a poorly designed, poorly functioning, shambling mess.

Many churches fall too far the other way: spending far too much. This inflated cost is either the result of a far too extravagant aesthetic or superfluous functionality. (see Aesthetics and Function)

The guiding principle when it comes to the budget of a church building should be one of Stewardship:

-What are my limits financially and what is the most sound way of seeing this project through?

-Will the aesthetics and function be provided for in the best possible manner within the limits decided on above?

-Will the church be producing in a good quality building that will make a sound investment through sound and sustainable construction methods?

Aesthetics

My response to the adage “You can’t judge a book by its cover” is that you should be able to. The design of a book cover, if it is done well, should construe the heart of the book before you even open it. While Theology is explicitly expressed through a creedal statement or sermon, it is also construed through architecture (sometimes more so). There are many different design solutions for church architecture, and they are ultimately judged on how well they impart the beliefs of the church. Particularly how the particular church perceives God, how they perceive their community around it, how they perceive their material possessions, and how they perceive their selves. The beauty in the design will be how well the building relays these perceptions and how well these perceptions line up with truth.

Christianity has this inherent tension between the sacred and the mundane, a battle often fought in the realm of architecture. Through the grace of Christ and the ever-present presence of the Spirit, we can meet anywhere at any time and offer worship to God. But we also recognize that there is a sacred hierarchy to the world and certain spaces will tap into the beauty and rhythm of the created order better than others. Worship can be better directed and the Truth of the Lord can be more clearly seen in these places. Most buildings exist somewhere between these extremes; between the cathedral and the house church, to which there are appropriate situations and solutions for both.

There are objective measures for architecture just as there is a particular solution for any given design. The church should recognize that these governing design principles are not grounded in style but rather a particular style will flow out of these principles. A good church design is not immediately judged by whether it is of the lofty Gothic vein or the open Modern vein, but by its connection with the greater song of creation surrounding it. The building should be in rhythm with its location upon this earth and set this rhythm for the culture that surrounds it.

The church has a rich architectural history on which to continue conversation with; which it should be very grateful for and always take advantage of. Not all buildings types can enjoy this privilege (I’m looking at you airports). However, the church must be careful not to dismiss current technologies and philosophies when it comes to architecture, as there has been much to learn from this past century. The church should be the forerunner of culture precisely because it can provide the history to give meaning and perspective to progress.

The guiding principle when it comes to the aesthetic of a church building should be one of Beauty:

-What building response provides the most beautiful solution given the limits of cost and function?

-How is the theology of the church displayed through the building?

-How well does the church respond to its particular place in this world?

Function

Most of my issues with modern church architecture stem from the function of the building which in turn stems from how Evangelicals think about and do church. There needs to be strong inherent reasons behind the activities we fill a church building with in order for the program to produce strong architecture.

The Sanctuary

A place for weekly communal worship, the practice of sacraments, and for special occasions relating to the church body (ie. Marriage, funerals, etc). Functionally it should accommodate all these activities but it should not be a slave to any of them. There needs to be a conscious effort to infuse some aspect of sacredness to this space (see aesthetics). It is disturbing to see a space that was once designed to impart the beauty of the Creator being slowly turned into a music venue. Just because you worship with guitars and drums does not mean you need to shut off all natural light and ignore the past 1500 years of church architecture. On the other hand the symmetrical center aisle, though convenient for weddings and having strong historic roots, is not always the best design solution.

The Support spaces

Lobbies, restrooms, mechanical/electrical rooms, and stairs are necessary and needed. Not much to say except they cost money and shouldn’t detract from the overall design.

The rest of the Functional Church building

Offices, educational spaces, fellowship spaces, libraries, and storage rooms make up the bulk of most modern Evangelical churches. Most of these in most cases are either superfluous or irrelevant. The church should look to its community for most of these. Most churches today are in the process of replacing Sunday school with small groups (a great allocation of existing interior space that the church body owns-the individual members’ houses). The church might use existing communal spaces in the community (civic centers or parks) for large fellowship activities and rent or buy small office space. By utilizing community resources the church strengthens it bond to its community, increases its profile within the community, and monetarily supports the community’s local economy.

If the community is found to be deficient in any of these areas, then by all means the church should build them but making sure that they are offered to and accessed by the community. The church building and the church’s activities should directly respond to the needs of the immediate surrounding community.

The guiding principle when it comes to the function of a church building should be one of Purpose:

-Are the activities that are driving the design of the building inherent to strengthening the body and glorifying to God?

-Are any functions redundant with the functions of the community?

-What is the best way in which the functions of the building and the activities of the church best redeem, strengthen, and sustain the community around it?

Come Out

"I am the resurrection and the life.”

When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go."

-John 11

God’s Will via Multiple Choice

I have been in several discussions as of late in which people have been planning for their future. There seems to be confusion in this area as to how exactly a Christian is to approach their future, which is understandable considering that we serve a God who both knows/determines the outcome of the future and a God who cares what we do with/how we live our life.

So some questions for my gentle readers, answer which ever ones you want to or come up with your own. There is no “right” answer that I am looking for; I am just asking for peoples honest experiences in life. I added “answers” just to make it easier, but please do not feel confined by my limited creativity with these.


When you pray to God about your decisions about your future, what do you ask Him for?
a) For some sign or epiphany as to what path to choose.
b) For good judgment with my decision.
c) For a peek into the future so we are confident in the result of our decisions.
d) other

What have you actually received from Him in this area?
a) Silence
b) Peace of mind
c) A voice telling me what decision to make
d) other

Do you see a difference in “a calling” and a regular “putting food on the table” job?
a) A calling is any vocation that carries a specific spiritual measure. A minister or missionary has a calling from God.
b) A calling is any vocation in which you are specifically designed for and you would not be comfortable pursing anything else. A regular job on the other hand is still important but could be traded for any other job with no objection.
c) There is no difference. A man working as a fast food worker is as called to that profession as a pastor or artist is to theirs.
d) other

What exactly do we mean when we say we are seeking God’s Will for our lives?
a) We are seeking the way He would prefer us live our life, because if we don’t choose His Will we will be living by our will which at best will be harder and at worst will result in complete disaster.
b) We are seeking knowledge as to how His Will will shape our life. We know He has our life planned out and would just like insight into how it will happen.
c) We don’t seek God’s Will because He has already told us what He prefers from our lives with Scripture and knowledge of His ultimate Will for the universe (and our life) is inconsequential for us to live in proper submission.
d) other

Killing Death

He will swallow up death forever-Isaiah 25:8

“Good” Friday

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21

Rose

So this isn’t an animation but I thought that since I was on a video kick and I ran across a good video of my pastor online and it is Good Friday, I thought I would post it. On a side note, it seems like it should feel surreal that I can find my pastor on youtube but it was strangely normal.

Art as Incarnation

So after several revisions, I think my thoughts on art are clear enough to present to the public.

My initial assumption: Everything that is created has a Spirit behind it, every aspect of physical reality is incarnate. My definition of Spirit is incredibly broad in this context; it can refer to anything from individual’s will to physical laws.

Before I get into the definition of art, I will need to define Beauty (and prepare yourself for a roundabout definition). I find the ruggedness and dryness of the desert beautiful. This is personal taste and is subjective (there are plenty others who would disagree with me). But if I were the Sovereign Omnipotent Creator of the Universe my “personal taste” becomes objective in nature, it becomes Truth. Beauty is the taste of the one who is judging and it becomes an ethical standard (which can be subjective or objective).

Art and non-art are the two categories that all created things fall into. Beauty is the standard that separates them. The big problem with this system is that it ends up not being precise, exact, and mathematical because we have no way of accurately measuring and weighting the beauty contained within a created object. But just because it lacks preciseness doesn’t mean that automatically falls into the dreaded chasm of the subjective. The subjective/objective distinction is carried by what judge is used, and objective beauty ultimately comes from God as both the Creator and the Judge.

This understanding of art is helpful is several repects:
First, it establishes a context in which to view the existence of Beauty as a proof of the existence of God.

Second, it sheds light on the importance of the Incarnation.

Third, thought it is simple it can account for the myriad of objects that are labeled art by containing flexibility according to the taste of whatever is the judge while still maintaining an objective standard if using the right judge.

Fourth, it sheds light on man as a created, creative being (which allows for cool diagrams).

One thing I question is the relationship between the Spirit and the Form. From the top of the created order (God who has no creator) the Spirit must be the mover of the Form. But from somewhere in the middle of the created order it would seem that it is very possible for the Form to influence its Spirit. (Though there remains a normative hierarchy between the Spirit and Form because of the initial hierarchy from God.)

Good News

I hope everybody received their Christmas card alright. I understand that it isn’t as straightforward as most cards people give and as such I would like to hear everyone’s interpretation whether they are funny, critical, or simply simple. I have already got a couple of really hilarious readings of it so far and will post them soon. (if you haven't got it yet, it should be coming shortly, I think I sent it to everyone I know who reads my blog)

Praying for Augustine’s Conversion

If Augustine was right in suggesting that God created and is thus outside of time; can I pray for his conversion to Christianity in the same light as I pray for the conversion of Richard Dawkins? Meaning can I intercede for “past” events?



I asked this question to the group eating brunch at our house after church on Sunday. From that discussion (of which there were a variety of opinions) I came up with a range of consistent options that differ in how they view prayer* but keep the original proposition that the past and future the same:

A-If we view prayer as having no influence on God’s Will then we shouldn’t pray to change things in either the future or the past, but rather to see and be apart of God’s will no matter what happens or has happened.

B-If we view prayer as voicing our desires to God (the way in which we would like things to be, knowing that they might not correspond to God’s will due to our limited perspective); then we could voice desires for both the past and the future (no matter what the actual outcome of the past actually is).

C-If we view prayer as having the ability to change the outcome of things; then we pray for both past and future outcomes, but when praying for the past we pray for the way things actually happened (believing that we shaped the past just as we shaped the future).

I actually find a well rounded view of prayer through a combination of the above. “A” keeps us in perspective with God’s will, “B” deepens our relationship with God by strengthening our honesty with Him, and “C” lets us embrace our limited perspective and lets us pray with power and conviction concerning events (accordingly I think past prayers for C don’t work as well unless you slip into 4th dimensional thinking often).

Any thoughts or Scripture references that would support or correct the above train of thought?


*Note that I am just talking about the supplication part of prayer. Thanksgiving, adoration, and repentance are other important aspects of prayer not discussed here.

Christian Rights

Demand vs. Petition

I get uneasy anytime the church (individually or corporately) demands her rights, as if she had authority to demand anything for herself. However, I don’t see any problem in asking for them, pursuing them through appropriate channels, or being very grateful when they are given.

Art and Theology

Over at Theology forum they are having a week long discussion on the artist Edward Knippers. I personally am really digging both his art and his theology of art.


More of Kippers art here: http://www.edknippers.com/