Anxiety and the Purposes of the Kingdom

I was reading some of the spiritual writings of Soren Kierkegaard the other day. Among the myriad of subjects upon which he is a prophetic authority, Kierkegaard also understands the spiritual dimensions of fear, despair, and the concept of anxiety. It's the concept of anxiety that most interests me. In his Christian Discourses, Kierkegaard writes that anxiety is a grappling hook by which the prodigious hulk of fear gets a hold of the individual to dominate it under its power. He further deems anxiety a distraction.

Jesus talks about anxiety in his famous Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:18-22; Mark 4:14-20; Luke 8:11-15). In this parable, Jesus is teaching his disciples about the different reactions people have from hearing about the good news of the Kingdom of God. Some people ignore the good news, others hear the news and, after and initial burst of enthusiasm, fall away because they never had a proper foundation for their faith. Then there are those who hear the good news, have the foundation, but do not bear the true results of their faith because they are choked by the world. Jesus used the analogy of thorns that choke a plant, preventing it from bearing fruit. This immediately reminds me of one of the results of the Fall of Man where authentic work of tending to the earth is now frustrated by the growth of thorns (Genesis 3:17-19). In the same way, the world is constantly producing frustrations and distractions that inauthenticate our lives prevent us from living out our faith fully.

Jesus lists a few of these distractions in generalities: wealth, abundance of possessions, food, and pleasures of the world. It's important to note that these things are not necessarily bad in of themselves. They become bad when they distract you from growing in your faith and doing God's work.

But Jesus also mentions one other distraction and frustration that can prevent full growth in the faith: the cares of this world. Now the word used in the New Testament in these parables is merimna and is best translated as "anxiety". This is the anxiety and fear that strangles and cripples the individual and distracts him from accomplishing the personal growth and service necessary to achieve the goals of the Kingdom of God.

There are endless examples of such anxiety and fear. A few that pop to mind are concern for finances, fear of people's perceptions of one's self, fear of achieving or maintaining status and possessions, concern for health, and fear of the unknown. These anxieties hinder you from making the right decisions, silence you from speaking truth, and focus your attention on the peripheral fluff while avoiding central issues.

Merimna is used a few more times in the New Testament. It is used in Luke 21:34 when Jesus warned the people not to be distracted from the coming destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. Paul uses the term in 2 Corinthians 11:28 when describing the troubles and burdens he faced as an apostle. Along with the beatings, shipwrecks, pains, hunger, thirst, and other sufferings he experienced that sought to prevent him from preaching the gospel, Paul adds the anxiety that comes upon him ministering to the churches. Like his other sufferings, this anxiety sought to distract and prevent his Kingdom work.

Finally, Peter uses merimna in his first letter when talking about suffering and submission (5:7). He quotes Psalm 55:22, saying, "Give all your anxiety to [God] for he looks after you." Essentially, this is the same teaching of Jesus when he tells his disciples to avoid fear but have faith in God who looks after you (Matthew 10:28-31).

Throughout this letter, Peter is delving into some of the more scandalous aspects of Christian ethics with regards to defeating evil through submission and suffering. Much of this is counter-intuitive to the way in which we generally understand the world to work. However, there are ways in which we can go about giving our anxieties to God. My personal experience has shown me that some individuals - because of personality or life experience - have a more difficulty not worrying than others.

So how do we do so? How do we give our anxieties to God?

1) Tell God your troubles, sufferings, and concerns. This is an engagement with God, opening our hearts and minds to receive the message and instruction we need at this particular time.

2) Trust that God is who he says he is and that he will do what he says he will do. This means that whatever God tells us through Scripture or authentic, subjective experiences is what he will do. A significant part of this is to realize and immerse yourself in the Gospel message that God is defeating evil and has the final victory. The more we inculcate ourselves in this reality, the fewer anxieties we will have.

3) Do exactly what God says. Neither of these previous two points means doing nothing. Of course, telling the Creator of the Universe your problems and believing that he'll act in accordance is definitely something we do. But even after that, giving God your anxieties is then about proceeding in accordance with God's instructions and not going beyond that. The innate human tendency is act out upon our own devices. We sometimes want to do more than God wants us to do or to take actions that are counter-productive to the best solution.

4) Limit the distractions in your life. Cut back on possessions, activities, and the peripheral aspects of life towards a more simplistic , less chaotic existence. Our modern, consumeristic society has the potential of choking us and distracting us from the our proper purposes. If we can simplify our lives, we lessen the potential for the anxieties that come from such things.

In the end, anxiety is a force seeking to inauthenticate our lives by separating us from our purpose in God. It is a force to be overcome, and we can do so by fully embracing God and his purposes.

Job and the Crisis of Theology

My pastor gave a good sermon on the book of Job this weekend - one of my favorite books. The Book of Job is set during the time of the Patriarchs but was written after the time of the exile.

In a sense, the book (like Ecclesiastes) is a response to the theology taught in the books of Deuteronomy and Proverbs. These latter two books offer a fairly clean cut approach to life in that it plainly states the general cause and effect truth that good begets good and evil begets evil. If we lead moral, righteous lives, we will be blessed by God and his ordained will. If we act immorally and lead unrighteous lives, we will reap bad consequences. This theology is generally true and real life experience bears it out. However, this theological framework does not tell the whole truth. There are times when  evil flourishes and the good unjustly suffers. Real life experience bears this out.

The book of Job's purpose is to deal with the theological particular of the righteous person suffering. Job is a righteous individual with strong faith in God. When he suffers blamelessly, his whole theology is shook to the ground. He wonders why God would allow such evil to befall him. His three friends are disturbed by the questions he is raising about how God relates to man and begin to argue with Job, trying to defend God and attempting to correct Job's theology. Much of what Job's three friends espouse is the theology of Proverbs and Deuteronomy. The most interesting part of this book is that Job listens to the theologizing of his three friends and agrees with them. His response is that he agrees with all their theology - it's his theology! - but it just does not fit his circumstance. Throughout his ordeal, Job never loses his faith/trust in God, but wrestles with the theology. From this perspective, the book of Job is about a crisis of theology, rather than specifically a crisis of faith.

Yet, Job remains unshakeable in both his belief in God and in the belief of his innocence.

A Fuller Expression of the Gospel

I was reading today a few articles on N.T. Wright and his view of narrative theology. I came across one article that took him to task for a less than clear conception of penal substitutionary atonement theology. I sympathize with the articles frustration over the ambiguity of Wright's position, though it is obvious that we come down on separate sides when it comes to the validity of the doctrine. Nevertheless, what really struck me about the article was the author's dissatisfaction with Wright's book "Simply Christian" in that it did not explain the basic Gospel -- "Christ died for our sins."

This is a bit of a bugaboo for me. One of my criticisms of most conception of the Gospel message, particularly the more popular understandings, is that they are extremely narrow formulations, completely devoid of the narrative thrust of the Bible. In effect, to say the basic Gospel is "Christ died for our sins" is like saying that WWII was about liberating Poland from Nazi Germany. The saying captures the part but not the whole.

Granted, a full expression of the Gospel (like the one I humbly suggest below) does not fit on a bumper sticker or key ring. If one was to simply reduce the Gospel to its purest essence it would be the following: "The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God" (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14). This was the Gospel that Jesus proclaimed and would have been readily understood by his Jewish contemporaries.  

However, outside of first century Palestine, we, like the gentiles of the era, depend upon the apostles to flesh out the meaning of this good news and explain it as it related to the story of Israel.

Therefore, the following should be understood: "The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14), that God has broken definitively into history and the world (Luke 4:18) with power (1Th 1:5) and grace (Acts 20:24; Eph 1:13) in the person and work of Jesus the Christ (1Th 3:2; 2Th 1:8; Gal 1:7; 1Cor 9:12; 2Cor 2:12; Rom 1:9; Phl 1:27), who is the first fruits of the resurrection (1Cor 15:20, 23), bringing Justice (Rom 2:16), Peace (Eph 6:15), and Healing (Matt 4:23; 9:35) to the World and the offer of Salvation (Rom 1:16) for Repentance and Faith (Mark 1:14; Acts 15:7) to all peoples, fulfilling the God’s promise to Abraham (Rom 4:13; Acts 7:17; Gal 3:29) and inaugurating New Creation (Gal 6:15) and the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10)."

I think this definition offers a far fuller and more accurate expression of the Gospel and how it was encapsulated by Jesus' original audience.

Meta-Narratives and the Christian Worldview

Meta-narratives are generally defined as a comprehensive explanation of historical meaning, experience or knowledge, which offers a society, culture, or movement legitimization through the anticipated completion of a (as yet unrealized) master idea.

One of the chief characteristics of post-modernity is a incredulity towards meta-narratives based upon the belief that they are created and reinforced by power structures seeking self-validation and are therefore untrustworthy.

I am not necessarily adverse to this critique of meta-narratives insofar as it rightly addresses the issue of grand stories told by a group of people in order to legitimize a particular worldview or privilege.

However, I do believe that meta-narratives are fundamentally useful and should not be dismissed offhand but rather critiqued on the basis of how close they correspond to known reality.

Nevertheless, meta-narratives are too often used for social and epistemic validation and are the driving force buttressing a particularly cherished worldview.

Christianity, of course, has its own meta-narrative told through the stories of the Bible, the person of Jesus, and the Gospel message. However, the main difference between the Christian narrative and most others is that instead of a meta-narrative propping up a worldview, Christianity is a narrative in search of a worldview. It's a complete reverse. Christianity already has a definitive, over-arching story to be told and understood; it is not telling new stories in order to validate a pre-existing social order or conception. At most, Christians are continually re-examining the established story in hopes of creating a worldview and social order that corresponds with the narrative.

This is why telling the grand narrative of God's redeeming work to our children is so central to establishing  a proper worldview for Kingdom work. Without a proper foundation in a proper, grand narrative, children will develop worldviews (usually unauthentic, self-serving worldviews) and then seek the stories, the narratives, and the "truths" that seems to best validate that worldview. The worldview is now buttressing the ego.

Ultimately, all false narratives crack and eventually crumble when unavoidably confronted with reality, casting doubt upon the worldview and threatening the individual's self-validating conception.

It is at this critical juncture that the individual has a choice: either 1) to pursue the truth in the submission of the self towards a relationship with God in Christ and adopting the proper meta-narrative or 2) to try continuing with a false, deteriorating narrative with spurious thinking, self-justification, cognitive dissonance, and a reprobate mind.

Difficulty with the Translation אֶרֶץ ('erets)

One of the more confusing aspect of the Bible is the translation of the two words: אֶרֶץ ('erets) and γῆ (gē). Both words have a few different translations but are generally translated as either "earth" or "land". Here is where the confusion comes in with translations:

Some of the prophecies of the Old Testament predict that God will wipe a people from the 'erets. If a Bible version translates the word as "earth" then the prophecy is often interpreted as not having occurred (i.e., God has not wiped these particular people from the earth). However, if the word is translated as "land" then it can be showed that these people were expelled  and can be proven that the prophecy was fulfilled.

So because of this little translational detail, there are many Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible and are waiting for particular events that occurred thousands of years ago.

"Candle in the Wind", by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

I finished reading Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's play "Candle in the Wind", which I found in a nice little bookshop in Newport.

The story is basically about the professional and personal lives of scientists and mathematicians working at a biocybernetics institute and how they differ in their reactions to the amorality of their work. But essentially, the meaning of the work is to examine movements of materialism divorced from the spiritual, particularly the purposes and uses of science by the state, and how such socialistic statism suppresses the human soul.

These themes of materialism and the dehumanizing effects of socialism are all common to Solzhenitsyn. Indeed, Solzhenitsyn, as the last great Russian writer of modernity, is the successor of Tolstoy in his focus on the simplicity of the individual soul seeking maturation (specifically the spiritual) amidst the forces of modernity, particularly materialism and socialism.

Naturally, being a Russian from the Soviet period, Solzhenitsyn's stories are located within Russia and explore spiritual themes in the context of a socialist society (much like Pasternak, Akhmatova, and Bulgakov). However, in "Candle in the Wind", Solzhenitsyn intentionally places his story in a nameless state devoid of identifying cultural markers in order to create a more international feel and universal quality. How effective he is with this technique is open for criticism. Personally, I think the universal quality of his theme itself would lift the story out of a Soviet context and unto a broader, international stage.

I was quite reminded of the plays of Tom Stoppard, particularly the critique of socialism, the analogies of science, mixed with wit and the personal lives of the characters. I particularly loved the first few lines:

Maurice: One of the main criteria for judging people's taste is cheese. What cheese do you prefer, Alex?

Alex: I'm no connoisseur, Uncle, they're all the same to me.

Maurice: All the same? You really are a savage, then!

"Candle in the Wind" is a minor work by a major writer. It's a quick read and a good primer for his more expansive works.

Freedom or Death, by Nikos Kazantzakis

Today I finished reading "Freedom or Death", by Nikos  Kazantzakis. I've been a huge fan of Kazantzakis for many years now and was glad that I finally got around to reading this particular work.

Ostensibly, the book is about the rebellion of the Cretans against the Ottoman Empire in the year 1889, seen through the eyes of Captain Michales.

Kazantzakis, of course, goes deeper, meditating upon the Cretan psyche in terms of its identity, nationalism, religion, and character.

I also think that there is an undercurrent of the ever-present Minoan ethos that figures so prominently in most of Kazantzakis' works (he was born in Crete). Strip away the philosophical and cultural flourishes of a Kazantzakis work and you'll find a pre-historic, earthy, almost proto-mythic quality that reduces humanity to the simplicity of a life/death dichotomy. Such a philosophical bent is not untypical of modernist writers but it seems always more heightened with Kazantzakis.

I think you also find such thinking in the Old Testament wisdom literature of Ecclesiastes and Job. The Book of Job in particular has as its base point the understanding that the individual human exists for a brief moment between two abysses and that the only positive choice is a full leap of faith into the creator God.

Kazanzakis, like many of the best modernist writers, understood the situation of man as existing between two voids, but, unfortunately, unlike writers such as Hermann Broch, he rejected the positive choice of falling into the infinity of God but instead embraced and explored a synthesis of life-death as an alternative to God.

So I don't agree with Kazantzaki's conclusions, but I greatly appreciate and am interested in his exploration of the theme of man's primal, existential situation.

All in all, I think that "Freedom or Death" is a very good book, though I don't think that it rises to the levels of other such Kazantzakis' works such as "The Greek Passion", "The Last Temptation", or "The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel". It is certainly better than the vastly over-rated "Zorba the Greek".

"Sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21

I've been doing a study on 2 Corinthians 5:21, specifically about the odd saying that "God made him who had no sin [i.e. Jesus] to be sin for us". This verse has traditionally been interpreted to mean that by some mystical transference God turned Jesus into sin during the crucifixion in order to be substitutionally punished for the sins of humanity. However, I had noticed that several of the better, scholarly translations of the New Testament add a footnote to the second occurrence of "sin" (hamartia) in verse 21, indicating that it can be translated as "sin-offering".

The reason for this is that the Old Testament uses the same word (chatta'ath) for both "sin" and "sin-offering". Only contexts determines the usage.

Therefore, we get a translation of Leviticus 4:3: "If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the Lord a young bull without defect as a 'sin offering' [chatta'ath] for the 'sin' [chatta'ath] he has committed."

Now when the Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the translators rendered chatta'ath as hamartia.

With this in mind, the  atonement context of 2 Corinthians 5:21 suggests that Paul intended the second use of hamartia to be understood as "sin-offering" instead of "sin".

It makes more sense to think of God considering the sin-less Jesus an offering for sin than actually somehow turning him into sin.

Two Approaches to Christianity

There are two different practical approaches to being a Christian in today's world. The first approach is the most common and considers the Christian faith as a means by which one gets through this life. This approach generally manifests itself in the view that life is life and the Christian faith helps one get through it with utmost help. There are varieties to this approach. Some choose to follow Christianity but believe it is not so much different than any other religion. They generally follow Christianity because they are culturally conditioned to do so. Other varieties of people truly believe that Christianity is the one true faith, ordained by the creator of the universe, and that Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. Nevertheless, these same people still perceive Christianity as a faith that helps them get through life. For them, Christianity is either a form of "self-help" psychotherapy or a means of "health and wealth" creation. The second approach is radically different. This approach considers the Christian faith as life itself and that the believer is definitively called into a life- and world-changing mission to advance the Kingdom of God and work towards New Creation. The first approach is about improving the self for the purposes of the self. The second approach is about denying the self for the purposes of the overall mission of God in Christ. The first approach is about reading a story. The second approach is about being a character in the story.

On the Translation of the Word אֶרֶץ ('erets)

One of the more confusing aspect of the Bible is the translation of the two words: אֶרֶץ ('erets) and γῆ (gē). Both words have a few different translations but are generally translated as either "earth" or "land". Here is where the confusion comes in with translations:

Some of the prophecies of the Old Testament predict that God will wipe a people from the 'erets. If a Bible version translates the word as "earth" then the prophecy is often interpreted as not having occurred (i.e., God has not wiped these particular people from the earth). However, if the word is translated as "land" then it can be showed that these people were expelled  and can be proven that the prophecy was fulfilled.

So because of this little translational detail, there are many Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible and are waiting for particular events that occurred thousands of years ago.

Reasons for the Crucifixion of Jesus

For those unfamiliar with Christianity or those only culturally tied to it as a religion, there can be some confusion and uncertainty about the meaning and purpose of Jesus' crucifixion as it pertains to the Christian Faith. I'd like to offer four primary reasons for the death of Jesus, in brief:

Reason 1: Servant - In this, Jesus obeyed God and followed the divine will perfectly throughout his life even to the point of death.  Jesus was the perfect human being as God always intended, representative of both God and Man, selflessly denying himself for the love of his fellow man and God, giving himself in obedience to God, even into death, for the purposes of God's saving work. Here, the grace of God is shown in that for whoever trusts God and follows Jesus, God recognizes in them the same selfless obedience that God sees in Jesus.

Reason 2: Moral-Theological Example - Jesus' obedience and selflessness is the ultimate expectation that God has for humanity, both as individuals and as a community. If Jesus is the ultimate human and a sign-post pointing forwards to God's consummation of creation, disciples of Jesus are called to follow his example in their daily lives, even to the point of self-sacrificial death.

Reason 3: Defeat of Evil - The resurrection that followed Jesus death from crucifixion ultimately shows that evil and all the dark forces that the world can muster can never have the final victory over Jesus and his followers. If killing is the ultimate act that one can do to another, if death is the worse destruction that evil can do, then the fact that Jesus overcame death by crucifixion and was resurrected into a glorified body means that evil can do its worse and not have victory over good. Jesus defeated both evil and death and all those who follow Christ participate in that victory. This is also the reason why there cannot be any justice in the world without a resurrection of the body from death.

Reason 4: Enacted Parable - This is a difficult one. In order to grasp it, we must peal back centuries of established theology (both correct and incorrect) in order to look at the immediate role and self-understanding that Jesus had of himself as a prophet in first century Palestine, warning his contemporaries about the threat of Rome and God's imminent judgment upon the nation of Israel. Jesus was deeply steeped in the Jewish prophetic traditions, both in terms of metaphor and method, particularly in how Old Testament prophets acted out God's message and even upcoming judgment (see Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.). In this way, Jesus, in his crucifixion, was acting out the destruction of Israel by Rome. He was demonstrating through a prophetic act that if the people continued their way of being Israel and did not turn to God's way (the way of Jesus), then Rome would attack and destroy Israel. Rome would treat the people of Israel as enemies of the state and crucify them, which is exactly what happened in AD 70.

The Occupation of Jesus

Traditionally, it has been believed that Jesus was a carpenter by trade. This is due to the passage in the Gospel of Mark that states of Jesus, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?" (Mark 6:3)

The Greek word used for "carpenter" here is tektōn (τέκτων) which can be translated as "craftsman", but it can be applied to both wood-work and stone-work. So, technically, Jesus could have been either a carpenter or stone-worker.

Now when we look at the words of Jesus as they are recorded in the Gospels we see an abundance of references to stone-working:

Building foundations (Matt 7:24-27; Luke 6:48-49), faith as a foundation rock (Matt 16:18), building towers (Matt 21:33; Mark 12:1; Luke 14:28), falling towers (Luke 13:4), cornerstones (Matt 21:42-44; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17-18), temple stones (Matt 24:2; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:6), millstones (Matt 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2), nicknaming Peter, rock or stone (Matt 16:18; John 1:42), and other general references to rocks and stones (Matt 4:6; Matt 7:9; Luke 4:11; Luke 11:11).

Contrast these to the lack of references to wood and wood-building in the Gospels. When Jesus mentions trees, the references are exclusively agricultural (fruit trees, etc.).

Based solely upon the ambiguity of the word tektōn and the more frequent use of stone analogies in his words and teachings, I submit that Jesus was more likely a stone-worker than a carpenter.

ELOI ELOI LAMA SABACHTHANI

One of the more significant misunderstandings people have when reading the Gospels is the belief that God the Father rejected or turned his back on Jesus during the crucifixion.

This confusion is largely derived from Jesus' crying out on the cross “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?” (Mark 15:34).

At first look the idea that Jesus is p...roclaiming that God has forsaken or rejected him seems fairly straightforward. Certainly, everyone at the time believed that Jesus was in this situation because God was not with him (Mark 15:29-32).

However, Jesus' cry of "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI" is actually an Aramaic translation of Psalm 22:1. If you read the entirety of Psalm 22 a far different picture emerges of what is going on in Jesus' situation.

The Psalm tells of a figure who is crying out to God in desperation. He is in the worst of circumstances. It looks like his enemies have conquered him. They laugh at his affliction. Everyone believes the figure has been deserted by God.

BUT ... in verse 24 we read the following:

"For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard."

The whole purpose of Psalm 22 is to show that even though it seems like God has turned his back on the figure, in fact, God has been with that person the entire time. He has not rejected.

So when Mark includes Jesus crying out the first line of Psalm 22, he is pointing to the entire Psalm and its meaning, arguing that, just like in the Psalm, even though it seems like God has rejected Jesus, the exact opposite is true: God is with Jesus the entire time him.

The people who gathered at the cross to watch Jesus be executed with the brigands were oblivious to this. In fact, Mark highlights their confusion by saying that when they heard Jesus say, " ELOI, ELOI", they thought he was saying "Elijah, Elijah" (Mark 15:35).

Interestingly, so many of us get this wrong, too. The original readers of Mark would have gotten the literary allusion and understood the meaning: God did not reject or turn his back on Jesus during the crucifixion.

Beck's Morning Phase: A Review

It's always a well-anticipated celebration when a new Beck album is released. In terms of comparison, I think many of us feel the same way about a new Beck album as we do about a new Radiohead album. We are certain that we are in for a treat, and we know that we will be exploring shining new areas of musical exploration. And, once again, Beck doesn't disappoint.

It has been six years since Beck released his last album, Modern Guilt (2008). In the interval, the so-called original 90s slacker musician explored a number of other musical projects.

In 2009, he began Record Club, a project to cover an entire classic album by another artist in one day (The Velvet Underground, Leonard Cohen, INXS, Yanni), using an informal and fluid collective of peer musicians. The covered performances were video recorded and then posted on Beck's website.

In 2012, he released Song Reader, a work of 20 original songs presented only as sheet music, in the hopes that enterprising musicians will record their own versions. If you go on Youtube you can find various performances of each of these songs by various musicians.

He also wrote a few songs for soundtracks, collaborated with other musicians, and produced a few albums for others, most notably the Charlotte Gainsbourg's IRM (2009). Here is an album for which Beck produced, wrote every song (except one cover), played on every song, and sang on a few of them. Apart from Charlotte Gainsbourg's vocals and name and picture on the cover, what keeps this record from being considered a regular Beck album?

So what comes after a much too long gap in between records is Beck's glorious Morning Phase.

According to press releases and other promos, Morning Phase is to be considered a "companion piece" to his 2002 album Sea Change. The comparison is accurate and everyone who listens to the new work will see the affinities. As is generally known, half of Beck's oeuvre is dedicated to more acoustic-based albums (see One Foot In the Grave [1994], Mutations [1998], Sea Change [2002]) on which he often overlays lush orchestrations, dense layers, and his own distinctive sounds. Such albums are often more melodic and uniform than his alternative-hip-hop-focused work with the Dust Brothers as producers (Odelay [1996], Midnite Vultures [1999], Guero [2005]). Both Mutations and Sea Change were produced by famed Radiohead producer, Nigel Godrich.

Morning Phase falls within this acoustic-based category and includes much of the harmonies, immersive orchestrations, and the melancholic and introspective tones that were so distinctive on Sea Change.

Sea Change is a more distinctive album and is usually the album most liked by people who either do not like Beck or are suspicious of his talent. This album was a worthy successor to the surprisingly good Mutations but came jarringly after the tongue-in-cheek Midnite Vultures.

Sea Change came across as more of a concept album delving into the break-up of a relationship. The ironic lyrics of his previous albums were replaced by more sincere, simpler lyrical content. Again, a far deeper and sad Beck than we had seen before. A very sub-surface melancholy that drew inspiration from Nick Drake, Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks, and Serge Gainsbourg (listen  to the strong affinities between "Paper Tiger" and Histoire de Melody Nelson).

While I do not think that the songs on Morning Phase are as strong as some of the ones on Sea Change ("The Golden Age", "Paper Tiger", "Already Dead"), the overall work is far more satisfying. There is an even stronger uniformity and thematic wholeness. This is a concept album, but one returning to semi-familiar territory.

In an article for Rolling Stone, David Fricke wrote the following about his interview with Beck:

"But Beck is loathe to use the word "sequel" to characterize Morning Phase. 'It was going back to the same place,' he says, 'and seeing where we're all at, like those Seven Up! movies, where they go back and see those people every seven years.'"

In Morning Phase, Beck is returning to the broken relationship of Sea Change to see what remains and to see if the small light still glowing has any chance of growing. He seems to want to take us on a personal, deep journey of inspecting the shipwreck of a relationship to see if anything can be salvaged, invoking strong images of water, light and turning. I'm reminded of similar tonal explorations with The Moody Blues (Days of Future Passed) and, to a lesser extent, The Who (Quadrophenia). Again, comparisons with Nick Drake, Serge Gainsbourg and 70s Bob Dylan emerge.

Not surprisingly, given this thematic material, there is far more uncertainty here than there was in Sea Change.

Here are my thoughts and analysis of the songs:

"Cycle", "Morning"

The short intro, "Cycle", followed by "Morning," open the work and immediately set the tone. "Cycle" gives us inundating waves of orchestration. It is just a short string piece, symbolic of the swell of the morning, the rise of the sun, yet again, the cycle of day and night. It soon flows into the daybreak of "Morning", a song that expresses the hope and possibility that a once shattered relationship can be revived.  The tone is that of daybreak and the first rays of light. The song itself recalls "The Golden Age", the first track of Sea Change. If that song is about realizing you need to start over (but being unable to even try), "Morning" more or less covers the same idea, but instead of looking forward at an unknown road, wondering how to get there, it looks backwards and realizes, I may have just survived (and am all the wiser for it). Those distant lights he could not locate in "The Golden Age" seem to have been found in the first lines of "Morning."

The lyrics read:

"Woke up this morning, found a love light in the storm
Looked up this morning, saw the roses full of thorns
Guns are falling, they don't have nowhere to go
Oceans of diamonds always shine, smooth out below"

These are images of morning, light, and water - images that will pervade the entire work.

"Heart is a Drum"

"Heart is a Drum" reminds me both of solo Tom Petty (Full Moon Fever, Wildflowers) and some of the more poetic moments of Adore-era Smashing Pumpkins.

The water imagery continues with lyrics such as "Everyone, if they drown from the undertow" and "'Til all my days are drowning out".

"Say Goodbye"

In his review, Will Hermes of Rolling Stone Magazine noted that "Country Down" was reminiscent of Harvest-era Neil Young. I can just barely see that, but I think the similarities are more evident here on "Say Goodbye".

"Blue Moon"

"Blue Moon" is the first single released for the album. It's a good song with more water imagery ("Songbird calling across the water") and a "turning" reference ("See the turncoat on his knees
A vagabond that no one sees"). For some reason or other, Beck has likes to use the word "vagabond" in his lyrics (also "convalescence").

There is, of course, a very famous song called "Blue Moon," one of Elvis' biggest and earliest hits. It includes the lines "Blue moon / you saw me standing alone" and clearly uses the rare event of a blue moon to symbolize the rare event of finding love. Beck uses a line or two as a jumping point for his own song ("I'm so tired of being alone").

"Blue Moon"'s music infuses the dark themes with a bit of hope, the chirpy clavinet and gorgeous vocal harmonies bringing some uplift to its lonesome lyrics. The song is about feeling trapped, and a longing to be saved.

"Unforgiven"

Rolling Stone, having heard a preview, compared the song to Gram Parsons and David Crosby.

"Wave"

The strings from "Cycle" resurface in "Wave" reinforcing the thematic unity of the work. The song has the orchestrations that reminds one of Radiohead's Kid A (no Nigel Godrich here, though) or a Bjork album. But the lyrics and wave imagery hearken back to Sea Change.

"If I surrender and I don't fight this wave/No I won't go under/I'll only get carried away".

"Don't Let It Go"

One of the three best songs on the album.

"Blackbird Chain"

"Blackbird Chain" seems to come straight out of Mutations-era Beck and naturally finds its place within the work. The music does mix different sounds into an essentially country form, including a very soulful bassline and subtle strings.

"Phase"

Another instrumental piece that continues the orchestrations from "Cycle" and "Wave".

"Turn away"

"Turn Away" continues the theme of the light that signifies the hope of a renewed relationship. Vocally, it sounds like Beck singing with himself. Personally, I found it to be too repetitious and jarring. I think it is the weakest song on the album. The orchestration is nice. Too much Simon and Garfunkle.

Lyrically, though, it fits right in with some of the light and, of course, "turning" themes of the album.

"Hold hold the light
That fixes you in time
Keeps you under
Takes you over the wall
That love divides between waking and slumber
Turn away"

"Country Down"

"Country Down" is a Dylan-esque song full of water imagery of rivers, floods, undertows, and waves. "Turning" references abound. There is also this striking lyric combining both water and "turning" images:

"All along the floodline/Waves are turning around"

It is evident that in both Sea Change and here in Morning Phase, Beck associates water imagery with relationship. It is also evident that Beck's lyrics reach out for that desire to return that relationship to its former state.

This song, along with "Blackbird Chain" and "Waking Light", came out of Beck's Nashville recording sessions for what was originally to be a  fairly traditional country album. He never was fully satisfied with the results, and ended up shelving it, but he did keep 3-4 of the songs and brought them to the Morning Phase sessions a few years later.

"Waking Light"

The album ends with another aching morning song, "Waking Light."

Rolling Stone refers to the song's "Leslie-guitar crescendo," which reminds them of George Harrison's guitar solo on "Let It Be."

I'm sure there is more to explore in this album than I've already indicated. I suspect that Beck may have also continued the "road" theme from Sea Change on this album. More exploration needed.

The title of the album is a slight pun: "Morning Phase" and "Mourning Phase". It is a time of mourning over a failed relationship but also considerations of whether return is possible and whether anything that remains can be salvaged and rebuilt.

I enjoyed almost every song on this album ("Say Goodbye", "Don't Let Go", and "Blackbird Chain" being the highlights) and found that I could listen to the entire work in one sitting and do so repeatedly. This only enhanced my appreciation for the conceptual unity of the work. The only song that I did not care much for was "Turn Away", for reasons stated above.

I think that this is probably the best Beck album since Mutations, one of my top three favorite Beck albums and once one of my top ten favorite albums until it was pushed out by Danielson's Ships (both Mellow Gold and Odelay remain in my top ten). I also think it signals that Beck has reached a new level of artistic maturity, and I look forward to what I suspect in several years will be the third part of a Sea Change-Morning Phase-X Trilogy.

 

 

The Lever and the Tiger

Let us suppose that you are confronted with a wall. On the other side of that wall are two separate rooms. There is a door between these two rooms. In one room is a hungry, man-eating tiger. In the second room, there may or may not be a human being.

You are presented with a lever. If you pull the lever, the door between the two rooms will open and the hungry, man-eating tiger will be able to enter the other room. If there is no human in the other room, then no life will be terminated. If there is a human in the other room, then that human will be killed by the hungry, man-eating tiger.

Therefore, if you are uncertain as to whether or not there is a living person in the other room but are given the free choice on whether or not to pull the lever, do you, in uncertainty, choose to pull the lever?

"Hateful" Comments

When you see "hateful" comments on Youtube, Twitter, a news website, or other internet webpage and want to draw conclusions about the country, consider the following:

- 500 negative comments in a nation of 300 million.

- How many of these negative comments are international in origin?

- 500 negative comments in a world of 6 billion.

- How many of these negative comments are from adults and how many are from middle schoolers?

- What is the motive for such negative comments? Trying to joke ironically? Trying to get a row out of you? Trying to make you think that a certain segment of the population is "hateful". Trying to create controversy so they can use the controversy advertise the issue/product publicly?

The virtual anonymity of the internet creates the situation in which one is uncertain as to the location, age/maturity, or motivation of anyone who posts "hateful" comments in such a public forum. This ambiguity of intent creates a vacuum that people attempt to fill with their own speculation, usually based on their own biases, presumptions, pet peeves, and worldview. Therefore, it can be easy to misjudge a situation and be deceived.

At the very least, there is the strong possibility that people who post "hateful" comments in a public forum are attempting to manipulate your emotions for personal gain. Don't give people the power to influence you in this regard.

MY TOP ALBUMS OF 2013

"The Devil Put Dinosaurs Here", Alice in Chains

"Mala", Devendra Banhart

"The Next Day", David Bowie

"Be the Void", Dr. Dog

"Histoire de Melody Nelson", Serge Gainsbourg

"The 2nd Law", Muse

"King Animal", Soundgarden

"High Rise", Stone Temple Pilots

"The Whole Love", Wilco

"Fly from Here", Yes

What The Sign Language Interpreter Was Actually Trying to Do

Responding to Oppression II

I'm not very political. At all. My theology has developed over the past two decades to the point where I am completely immersed in the methods of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. I do not march, picket, boycott, protest, sue, vote, write to my congressman, or engage in any activity that I think employs the political methods of this world. Instead, I get on with the slow, steady, work of the Kingdom in full assurance of my success and the success of the Kingdom.

Therefore, I do not delve into or am bothered by the daily machinations of the current culture war. I really couldn't care less. If a nativity scene or cross or monument to the Ten Commandments is taken down from a public place, it doesn't faze me. I don't cry out for justice when someone is told not to use Jesus' name in a public prayer or if prayer is "prevented" at all.

However, I am extremely bothered when the government begins to order private citizens to go against their personal faith.

I have been closely following a number of the legal cases around the country in which businesses own by Christians are being forced to provide abortion causing drugs to employees and in which florist and cake-decorating businesses are being forced to provide their services to same-sex marriages. I find this completely unconscionable.

I read an article this morning in which a judge ordered that a Christian baker must serve gay couples for same-sex ceremonies despite his religious beliefs or face fines. Obviously, the gay couple who sued this Christian baker could have gotten a cake elsewhere (and probably did). Their interest and objective was not to get a cake but to employ the government to force the owner of this private business to deny his religious beliefs and acquiesce to how they believe all society should behave.

According to the article, the baker and his legal team are considering their next steps.

Now what if this case goes all the way to the top of the American judicial system and the final decision is that this baker and all other Christian businesses are to be forced to provide their services to same-sex marriages, what should the Christian response be?

The decision is actually very easy though the implementation is of the upmost difficulty.

Three choices:

1) Acquiesce and submit to imposed government authority and violate Christian faith

2) Close up shop and seek a business or sphere of society in which one is not confronted with challenges to Christian conscience

3) Ignore government imposition and carry on in defiance

Let's be honest: human nature being what it is (Christian or otherwise), the vast majority of believers will choose one of the first two options (probably the latter rather than the former). More's the pity. Most people have neither the guts nor the faith to actually take their religious beliefs all the way to the logical conclusion. They will voice outrage and protest if a nativity scene or cross or monument to the Ten Commandments is taken down from a public place because it's easy to do so and one risks very little by participating.

Nevertheless, the correct choice is number 3, to completely ignore what the government says in this matter and proceed as before in full knowledge that you are doing the right thing. Again, this is actually a very easy choice to make but the implementation of it is extremely difficult and requires much self-sacrifice.

Here's how it would go:

- The government states that you as a baker must violate your Christian faith and provide their services to same-sex marriages.

- You refuse.

- The government fines your business.

- You refuse to pay the fine.

- The government orders your business to close.

- You refuse to close your business.

- The government arrests you.

- You go to jail, but, as soon as you are released, you reopen your business.

- You continue to mind your business in defiance of the law and in good conscience until either the government relents or you yourself are spent to the very core of your soul.

Of course, this is easier said than done, and I do not believe that most Christians have the faith to defy society and government to this extent. However, this is really what Christians should do and it is the only way in which freedom of religious practice and expression is to be realized.

Wager of Peace?

I've been practically gagging these past few days in my attempts to stomach the celebrations given to Nelson Mandela. It's so difficult for me to hear people from across the political spectrum and from every walk of life state that Mandela was a man of peace who waged non-violent resistance on the apartheid system.

I think the kicker was this article at the Associated Baptist Press: Nelson Mandela: Wager of Peace.

Wager of peace?

Nelson Mandela founded the terrorist organization "Umkhonto we Sizwe" (MK) in 1961 that carried out hundreds and hundreds of bombings on government installations, shopping centers and restaurants. He personally ordered these bombings. He was labeled a terrorist because of it. He went to prison for 27 years because of it. He was offered release numerous times if only he would renounce violence. He refused. And believe me, these bombings killed far more blacks than whites. And he, the MK, and the African National Congress (ANC) violently terrorized and tortured their own people to squash any collaboration and compromise with the apartheid government of South Africa. As late as 1988, Mandela refused to renounce violence as a means to end apartheid. Throughout the 1980s, the government of South African was in negotiations with the ANC to end apartheid on condition that they end the violence and break off relations with the Soviet Union, Mandela refused. The bombings of civilians in the 1980s continued. It wasn't until the break up of the Soviet Union and the end of their support that Mandela and the ANC were willing to renounce violence.

I'm sorry but no matter how noble his cause, Mandela never had a problem using excessive violence to reach his goals. There is nothing Christ-like about this. This is completely foreign to the non-violent teachings of Jesus. For people to compare Mandela to Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. and others who actually did apply the teachings of Jesus is to do a great injustice to true non-violent resistance.

Wager of peace? Unfortunately, Mandela waged violent war.

There was nothing peaceful about what he did.

 

Responding to Oppression I

Over the past three days I have been meditating upon the manner in which one responds to societal oppression. In particular I was thinking about South Africa in the 20th Century and the more recent news coming out of the Central African Republic. How do we react to oppressive regimes and violent brutality?

Appropriately enough, the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah has just concluded, which celebrates in part the violent but nevertheless successful rebellion of 2nd century BCE Jews led by Judas Maccabeus over the brutal oppression of the Seleucid Empire. Despite the success, the methods employed had a detrimental effect upon the psyche of the majority of the nation to the point that they continually adopted a brigand's means of violent revolution to Roman occupation and oppression in the 1st century CE.

One of the main thrusts of Jesus' prophetic message to 1st century Jewish people was that their current methods of responding to Rome would lead to the destruction of the nation (see the Sicarii and Simon bar Kokhba). These were the violent methods that they had adopted since the Maccabean Revolt that to them had proved obviously effective. Instead, Jesus called on the people to abandon their current way of being God's people and follow his way -  a way so notably put forth in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

I don't think anyone would suggest sitting down and allowing brutality to happen, but that does not mean that one should respond with brutality. One can engage in active non-violent resistance (see Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc.) without using the methods of the enemy. While violent resistance does lead to immediate results, the results can just as immediately be overturned by the same methods. Such methods also have a debilitating effect upon the psyche of both the wielder and the victim. Non-violent resistance is usually a far more gradual process of political change that requires both patience and maturity, but the results are far more difficult to reverse. It also has an uplifting effect upon the psyche (see Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc.).

The best way of responding to oppression, brutality, violence, and evil, the most human way, the way that most clearly reflects the image of God in this world, is the method of love, mercy, self-denial, forgiveness, peace, and turning the other cheek.

This is not the easiest road and it is certainly not the method of immediate self-gratification, but it is by far the most effective means of establishing permanent and positive societal change.

As we proceed through the Christmas season, let us meditate upon peaceful approaches societal problems and, most importantly, evaluate the methods of the political leadership we too often tend to idolize.

ABBEY ROAD

The Young Ones

 "Oi! Up Scumbag! Up Scumbag!"

The Moon

"The Moon's current orbital distance, about thirty times the diameter of the Earth, causes it to appear almost the same size in the sky as the Sun, allowing it to cover the Sun nearly precisely in total solar eclipses. This matching of apparent visual size is a coincidence."

Really, what were the odds?

I Think It's a Copy of the Odyssey

What Hinders Baptism?

I read this line in a Baptist Press article. I've highlighted my point of interest.

"Because the seminary is not a church and does not have the authority to baptize, SBTC President Jim Richards said the baptismal pool will provide a place for churches that do not have a baptismal and a place for students to practice the ordinance before entering formal full-time pastoral ministry."

Why doesn't the seminary have the authority to baptize? Do not all believers have the authority to baptize? Did not Christ himself give all believers the authority to baptize?

Actually, HE was given the authority and then commanded us to baptize.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

I wonder if only churches have the authority to make disciples and teach. If that is so, then the seminary will have to close down.

And we are baptized into Christ, not the Church.

Sure, we are often bapitzed IN a church building. And we often become members of a church when baptized (providing all the proper forms have been filled out and are accurate, though sometimes such red tape can be done retroactively depending upon the individual situation).

I am quite partial to the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Philip teaches the Ethiopian and then he baptizes the Ethiopian. No "church" in site (Intended joke). [For another great joke, see The Humour of Deutero-Isaiah in Isaiah 56:3-5]

In fact, when wanting to be baptized, the Ethopian asked one of my favorite questions in the Bible: "What hinders me from being baptized?" (v. 36)

Really, what does hinder baptism?

The Next Pope? An Inquiry

Did you hear? Pope Benedict XVI is resigning as Bishop of Rome. Now comes the biggest steeple chase in 600 years (unless you count Adrian Roger’s retirement from Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis). Soon Cardinals from north, south, east, and west (including St. Louis) will converge on Vatican City to see who will be chosen as the next Pope.

Let me state now publicly that I am removing my name from consideration. First, I already have a lot on my plate and second, I don’t think I would like the commute to Rome each morning. Sorry, no Pope Nicolas Beck I.

But allow me to make three recommendations for the next Pope: Hans Küng, Father Guido Sarducci, and U2’s Bono. (I think Sinead O’Connor removed herself from any consideration after that 1992 incident on SNL)

Here are the positives and negatives of each candidate:

Hans Küng is probably the leading theologian of the Roman Catholic Church and a best-selling author (see “On Being Christian”). Unfortunately, he wrote a book on the Papacy (see “Infallible? An Inquiry”). Of course, he’s in 80s and has been up for this position for a while, but, so far, long time no See.

Father Guido Sarducci is the gossip columnist and rock critic for the Vatican newspaper “L'Osservatore Romano” (or the “The Vatican Enquirer”). Unfortunately, he’s a smoker. So if we see green smoke (fumata verde) issuing from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, then we’ll know that it’s Sarducci.

Bono might be an edgy choice but I think he would dramatically improve the image of the RCC and provide a little flare to the ceremony. All papal proclamations (especially ex cathedra) could be given in a manner like that of the Zoo TV and PopMart Tours (PopeMart Tour, anyone?). Unfortunately, being Pope may not be what Bono is looking for.

Nevertheless, I’m sure that the College of Cardinals will make the correct decision. But let their work be pro bono.

“WHAT IS TRUTH?”

There is the famous passage in John 18 where Jesus is before Pilate and they are in conversation. Jesus concludes by saying, “Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” Pilate famously replies with, “What is truth?” (v.37-38) And that’s how the conversation ends.

People have always found it odd that Jesus does not appear to answer Pilate’s question. Those less inclined to the Christian Faith will often say, “Ah-ha! See? Jesus couldn’t answer that question.” Honestly, even if Jesus couldn’t answer that question or didn’t know the answer to that question, do you think that the author of a book that argues that Jesus was equivalent with the God of the universe (1:1-2; 8:58; 10:30; 14:7-11) would record a question to Jesus that didn’t have an answer?

Those more inclined to the Christian Faith will scramble for an answer, some concluding that Pilate turned away before Jesus could answer him. For a similar reason as above, this seems unlikely.

So what is the answer?

The answer is found most explicitly in 14:6. Jesus says, “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life, and no one comes to the Father, but through me.” (See also the slightly more cryptic 5:33; 8:32; 17:17). Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus is shown to be full of truth (1:14). He tells the truth (8:40, 45, 46; 16:7; 18:37). Truth comes through him (1:17; 8:32; 17:19; 18:37). The Spirit of Truth comes through him (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). The word “truth” is used over 25 times in the Gospel of John and almost exclusively in relation to Jesus.

Interestingly, Pilate’s use of the word is the last in the entire book. I believe the author is employing some irony here. After inundating the reader with the Truth, Pilate’s question is an incident of someone just not getting it (of which there are numerous examples in this book). If he had known the Truth, he would have asked, “WHO is truth?”

So Jesus, in fact, has answered Pilate’s question and had been answering it for 18 chapters. Jesus is the Truth.