Gerald Ford died yesterday. He was a well-beloved president and one can hear approving remarks about him from people on all points of political spectrum. He brought a moral stability to the presidency after the horror and betrayal of watergate. He and his cabinet used succesful economic strategies to confront the most pressing problems of that day, such as inflation, overtaxation, and a depressed economy. Before his four-year term was finished and he passed the mantle to President Carter, he served the most prestigious role of leadership in his country with dignity and integrity.

Every leadership role a temporary one. A man may be president for four or eight years, but not more, and he must pass the presidency on. He will pass it to a completely new person, with unpredictable priorities and motivations. The new president may work to counteract all that the first has done. And the next president may work to counteract all that of the second and first. (more…)

I bought the Sufjan Steven’s Come On and Feel the Illinoise indie rock CD on his recommendation, which was well worth it. I’m spinning it on iTunes as we speak, soaking up its art, beauty, and humor. Joe Carter, of Evangelical Outpost and FRC fame, mentioned that he had gotten into Steven’s based on this article by Jonathan.
When you’re at Jonathan Taylor’s website, don’t forget to check out his articles and other writings, as well as his moving photography. He is one of those guys whose talent is bewildering. But it isn’t for his gifts I’ll always be proud to say was one of my friends, it’s for his heart.

In writing, “The real question is: How do you effectively take [your] ideas and convert them to saleable manuscripts?” (xiii)

Kathi Macias, journalist, essayist, editor, poet, and author, delivers a simple and practical how-to book all about transforming ideas into manuscripts that effectively communicate an author’s message to his or her readers.

Building upon a straightforward metaphor, Macias takes the reader on an exciting journey in her “The Train-of-Thought Writing Method: Practical, User-Friendly Help for Beginning Writers” that provides a reasonable and memorable strategy for quite literally putting pen to paper. She begins with an emphasis on “laying the track”—having a clear purpose and vision for writing—and then moves from the cow-catcher to the locomotive, boxcars, and observation car before waving a final good-bye from the caboose. Every chapter is focused on a particular component of a train and a corresponding aspect of writing. From beginning to end the information in each chapter assists the reader through the process of writing a manuscript. Macias is particularly effective in illustrating and amplifying her techniques through the use of clear examples from both her own works and those of more universally recognized authors. Space is provided for the reader to jot down notes and ideas in response to the writing exercises suggested by Macias.

Macias’ book is broad enough that, with only a little creativity on the part of the reader, it can be applied to just about any writing genre—from the novel to newsletter article. Fiction and non-fiction writers alike will find helpful suggestions that will move them past the blank screen or page and into the details of their particular pieces. Taken as a whole, “Train-of-Thought” is a simple primer in writing and will be most helpful to a true beginner—regardless of his or her specific area of writing interest. The more seasoned writer may benefit from Macias’ examples and concise advice, which serve to break the inevitable writers’ blocks into manageable bits and pieces.

The strength of the book is its simplicity and its nearly universal applicability. I would recommend it to any beginning writer and to those who find themselves teaching a course on writing—from the homeschool family to the aspiring free-lance writer or blogger. Four stars for a practical book simply written.

Matthew had a good post on his experience of the Icons of Sinai exhibit. I, too, enjoyed this exhibition. The second time I went, I took the Exhibition Tour, which begins at 3 p.m. daily. That gave me some context in the composition of the icons, though the meaning of the images themselves is accessible only with knowledge of the Bible and hagiography, the latter of which I don’t have much background in.

One icon I particularly found interesting and which was more palatable to my evangelical tastes was one of Moses near the sanctuary doors. The curators of the exhibition created a space that mimics the space of the actual church from which the icons came in Egypt. Just inside the “doors” of the church, a quite young Moses is depicted both receiving the Law from the hand of God and removing his sandals in front of the burning bush. Sadly, I couldn’t find an image on the exhibition’s excellent website, but one might still wonder why the artist would put these two anachronistic events in one painting.

Here is my rough interpretation: the artist wants the church-goer to reflect on how his experience imitates that of the life of Moses. The fact of being in the church, looking at the nave, into which only the priest can go because of its holiness, reminds the believer that he is in the presence of God, just like Moses before the burning bush. During the liturgy the believer also experiences the Law of God from the reading of the Scriptures that take place during the Orthodoxy liturgy. Since I’m not Orthodox, perhaps I err in my understanding of the attitude of the churchgoer, but I suspect that the experience is analogous in any liturgical church.

Matthew wrote that he is suspicious of the use of icons in prayer. I share his suspicion, but I also think that Protestants will find the icons useful for remembering great saints of the past and their devotion to God. We should look to those images as a useful way of getting the goodness, truth, and beauty of those stories into our souls.

Some time ago I wrote enthusiastically of Hugh Hewitt’s advice to “find the good and praise it.” Well, it is difficult to find much good in the much-panned film, Eragon, that hit theatres this past Friday. Nevertheless, I shall point out two benefits of an otherwise regrettable film.

First, the fact that the film is clearly an imitation of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings actually highlights some of the good things about these two cinematic epics. For instance, one of the low points of Eragon is that the main character, a youth who finds himself with great powers (see: Luke Skywalker), steps effortlessly from farm youth to superhero. He undergoes almost no training and apparently learns nothing along the way. The Obi Wan figure, played by Jeremy Irons, tries to get Eragon to use sense as well as courage by irritably describing Eragon’s actions as “one part brave, three parts fool.” At the end of the film, Eragon stupidly but proudly describes his heroic actions in the same way. Sigh.

Of course, this kind of thing does not happen in Star Wars in Luke Skywalker’s development. Skywalker actually has to learn how to use his powers of the force and suffers reverses and defeats until he becomes the kind of person who can defeat the Empire. From the poor contrast of Eragon, I have newfound respect for George Lucas’s attention to character development in his epic.

Eragon also increased my respect for Lord of the Rings. The effort expended by its creator, JRR Tolkien, to make the world of Middle Earth coherent and beautiful (and even true in a deep sense of the word) pays enormous dividends in the believability of the films. Even if Peter Jackson’s attempt to get the whole of the story into the films did not quite succeed, the filmgoer recognizes that something would account for any gaps. In Eragon, by contrast, the yawning holes in the plot clearly have little or no explanation behind them. The world into which we are transported is flat and conventional. The next time I watch LOTR I will be sure to notice my raw enjoyment of the rich world created for me.

The second, more positive, benefit of Eragon is that it represents a young person attempting to be creative. The fellow who made the film holds a raw passion in his heart for story in general and LOTR and Star Wars in particular. This passion translated into a successful series of books and a film that will do decently at the box office and on video, judging by the full theatre I sat in Sunday. The fact is that plenty of bad art must be produced before we get to the excellent. This fact is especially true in our dispassionate and imitative society. The fact that Christopher Paolini had the heart to put the pen to the paper and develop an epic story, however mediocre in the scope of world literature, is deeply admirable. The stereotypical “passionate young man” of yesteryear is now an exception to the dissipated, limp-wristed, and “cool” teenager or twenty-something of today. Hooray for Paolini’s courage! (He was homeschooled, by the way. You can learn more about him on his website here.)

Though I didn’t enjoy Eragon I freely concede respect and honor to Christopher Paolini who bravely engaged the artistic world. Let us hope that more such efforts will be put forth. Let culture thrive. Let the young man be passionate!

The Getty here in LA is currently featuring icons from the the St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai in Egypt.  The exhibit is well laid out–one room actually arranges the icons as they are in the main sanctuary of St. Catherine’s.  The collection is rarely allowed outside of the monastery, so having the opportunity to see them is special.

The exhibit is particularly demanding for the audience, though.  For one, I am not exactly sure what to do with icons–I am naturally disposed to be suspicious of their use during prayer, while still acknowledging their instructional uses.  But my troubles at the exhibit extended further than that:  with the icons removed from their proper contexts and use, I struggled to understand exactly what I was supposed to be seeing.  They may as well have been modern art–understanding the saints pictured, the techniques used to make them, or what makes icons good or bad all seemed necessary to seeing them well, but I was lacking in each of those areas.  Unlike other art, I had no pre-existing tools or fram of reference to understand the exhibit. 

The exhibit is worth seeing, and I commend it to you.  If you are in the LA area until March, take the opportunity to see icons you may never see anywhere else.  But do a little homework first, as it will be much more valuable to you. 

First, start off strong with a little Beethoven. Or a lot of Beethoven, depending on how you quantify it. His 2nd and 4th piano concerti (concertos?) will put you in the mood for the impending drive. It’s important to get the trip started on the right foot, so what better place to turn than the majestic, stirring and passionate works of the master?

Be warned: Beethoven can be a little draining. After all, it takes work to listen to and enjoy. You’ll need to relax for a while. May I suggest the timeless (for reasons other than Beethoven’s) Going Public by that legendary Aussie group Newsboys? It’s mindless. It’s trite. And it’s terrible. It’s perfect for our purpose of having fun while getting away from LA. You’ll laugh at the wanna-be techno beats, and the awful lyrics. It’s aged about as well as an open bottle of Two-Buck Chuck. Is there a CD that’s aged worse? Not that you’ll listen to on this trip–you can only take so much.

But the trip down memory lane has been fun, so why not continue it? Has Pearl Jam aged as badly as Newsboys? You hope not–you’re scared to find out. And then you put in Yield, starting at the bottom of their discography. It didn’t sell as well as the others, but it still sounds good. “Given to Fly,” “Wishlist,” and
“All those Yesterdays” will put you in a happy melancholy stupor that is only fitting for grunge and driving. While the screaming persists in some songs–I never enjoy Vedder when he is unintelligible–much of it is melodic, smooth and downright interesting. Now that you’re finally beyond the bulk of the traffic, you can relax a little bit.

You’re hope is up now–will the other Pearl Jam cd’s be just as good? You turn to Vitalogy, continuing to skip over the screaming. “Better Man” sounds better than ever. “Courderoy” is classic. But you’re really surprised by the richness of “Nothingman.” The 6/8 times grooves, and Vedder’s vocals are perfect for the depressing, yet enchanting tune. You listen to it twice–it’s just that good.

Now simultaneously enthused by returning to the old wine of Pearl Jam, and depressed by their lyrics, you turn to No Code. You probably haven’t listened to this one much–it has very fewer radio songs than some of their others. But there is some good stuff here–”Who You Are” is perfectly enjoyable. “Around the Bend” is a fitting ballad ending to a mildly more optimistic and hopeful album. But by this point, you’re borderline overdosed on Pearl Jam and about to move on. It’s all starting to sound the same.

But then you put in Ten–their first album–and it reminds you why Pearl Jam was the best of the grunge bands. Lyrically, they are far more mature than Nirvana. Musically, they were far more talented. It begins to emerge that for early Pearl Jam, Mike McCready’s guitars held a more prominent position than during their later albums. “Even Flow” ends on a Hendrix-like guitar solo, which occurs several times on the album and is noticeably lacking in later albums. If Going Public was an Edsel, Ten is a Rolls Royce. Of the albums you’ve heard in your car, only Yield approximates Ten’s staying power.

You’re almost to Phoenix–not much time left. It’s been an interesting journey through Pearl Jam–you’re a more mature, more astute listener then you were 10 years ago, and at the end of the trip you are delighted to discover that much in Pearl Jam holds up to careful scrutiny. But you’re also out of good music, and realize that you need to buy some more. Good thing Christmas is coming.

I recently began to read Andrew Murray’s spiritual classic, With Christ in the School of Prayer. The missionary to Africa bids his fellow disciples in Christ to beg with the 12, “Lord, teach us to pray.”

Murray’s philosophy of the education of prayer is thoroughly classical. His desire for the student is two-fold. First, the one who would come to Christ to learn how to pray must admit his ignorance of how to pray. Second, he must whole-heartedly trust in the efficacy of the teaching of Christ, the true Teacher. In the classically-informed program in which I teach, my goal is to help my students see their own ignorance, but also indicate to them that the truth is there for them to grasp, if they seek it.

Murray’s words also cut straight to the heart. How do we learn ignorance? His answer is simply that our prayer lives are probably weak, displaying a distinct lack of faith and strength in God our Father.

The words of the tutor who points us to the Teacher are wanted now to encourage us to pray as we ought:

‘Lord, teach us to pray.’  Yes, we feel the need now of being taught to pray.  At first there is no work appears so simple; later on, none that is more difficult; and the confession is forced from us:  We know not how to pray as we ought.  It is true we have God’s Word, with its clear and sure promises; but sin has so darkened our mind, that we know not always how to apply the word.  In spiritual things we do not always seek the most needful things, or fail in praying according to the law of the sanctuary.  In temporal things we are still less able to avail ourselves of the wonderful liberty our Father has given us to ask what we need.  And even when we know what to ask, how much there is still needed to make prayer acceptable.  It must be to the glory of God, in full surrender to His will, in full assurance of faith, in the name of Jesus, and with a perseverance that, if need be, refuses to be denied.  All this must be learned.  It can only be learned in the school of much prayer, for practice makes perfect.  Amid the painful consciousness of ignorance and unworthiness, in the struggle between believing and doubting, the heavenly art of effectual prayer is learnt.

One of the most attractive things about Christianity is that God wants to hear our prayers and gives us “wonderful liberty” to tell Him about what we need. As with all good things, however, a certain degree of understanding and effort must be applied to the task. If “it can only be learned in the school of much prayer” and “practice makes perfect” then I had better get started!

This last week I had the privilege of joining a blogger’s conference call with Ramesh Ponnoru, a smart guy who writes over at The Corner and has written The Party of Death. The call was hosted by the Family Research Council’s very own Joe Carter, who came up with the idea of connecting Washington insiders with (ostensibly) normal outsiders such as me. The call was not only tons of fun, but informative and engaging as well. Thanks to Ramesh, FRC and Joe for their kindness and work in making it happen.

Ponnoru began with a quick survey of the issues surrounding abortion, etc. in the last century or so. He identified 1972 with the Mcgovern nomination as a key moment in the debate about abortion (this is all in his book). It changed the dynamics of both parties, as socially conservative, working class Democrats started to leave for the Republican party. As a result, the Democratic party shrank while the Republicans grew. Democrats with national ambitions began to switch their positions on the issue of abortion in order to appeal to their socially liberal base, as there were fewer social conservatives in the party.

It’s become more clear that this strategy has been a loser for the Democrats. They’ve lost more people than they gained. This was manifest in this year’s elections as pro-lifers only lost about 20 seats in the house while Republicans lost 31. This happened because many Democrats are starting to see that being pro-abortion has been bad politically for them.

Then Ponnoru began prognosticating. In the next few years, Democrats will probably try to get federal funding for organizations that provide abortions overseas, abortion on military bases. Of course, they’ll do this with Hilary Clinton’s strategy, which is to claim you want “common ground” while voting a straight pro-choice ticket. He thinks this a hopeful moment to be a pro-lifer, we just have to stay a few steps ahead

Then the questions began. I didn’t catch everyone’s names, or their questions. When a blogger (Patrick?) asked Ponnoru where he thought things would go in the future, Ponnoru replied, “Immortality is going to go well. That’s the snake oil that the party of death is going to sell people.” It’s a fitting analogy.

Ponnoru sees internal debate among Democrats on how to handle stem cell issues, patenting human embryoes, etc. In 2008, Democrats won’t lead with the ethical issues becuase of the conservative Democrats in their midst, but they probably won’t be able to keep the liberal wing of the party bottled up. In the last election, there wasn’t a lot for the values voters to vote on–there wasn’t a whole lot of gloom, so they voted on other issues. But that might not obtain in 2008, especially if Democrats try to push through their issues. The next two years may help conservatives rally the base.

Interestingly, Ponnoru also made a strong appeal to social conservatives to demand pro-life representation in the White House in 08. His basic point was that we have made significant ground the last few years, so we shouldn’t give it up by putting someone who is not staunchly pro-life in office.

His final point was also provocative (and one unknown to me). In arguing that conservatives need to have a reform agenda that meets the needs that middle class Americans feel, he pointed out that the tax burden on single and childless people hasn’t changed the last thirty years, but it has increased significantly on families with children. Even though conservatives are pro-life in position, we haven’t integrated that philosophy with our position on taxes. It is a part of the pro-life cause to push for tax reform that massively expands child tax credits, thus making it easier to raise children.

This summary is, of course, tendentious. I can only type so fast. You can compare with Jimmy Akin’s two great posts on the call. It’s good food for thought for social conservatives who care about these issues–there is no “silver bullet” strategy for pro-life issues, as the taxes issue demonstrates. There is only diligence, awareness, and activity on the part of justice for all. Whether we have that or not is an open question, I fear.

Here’s the final version of the paper I sent in for my grad school application. I made a few subtle, yet important changes in my wording in order to (hopefully!) make my thesis more clear. While I am not sure I specifically address this question by the Bourgeois Burglar (though I do in the comments below his), I think that it is a stronger paper overall. And I am still very interested to hear everyone’s thoughts. It’s a tendentious thesis, I think, but an interesting one (in, I think, a positive way), if I do say so myself. See more below the fold.

(more…)

Turns out this IPO has exactly the same content as Mere Orthodoxy! We’ve received around 100 spam posts from it the last few days. You can’t see them, though, because the handy Wordpress spam filter has protected the blog from being disfigured by them. And you wonder why we make you login.

So, the following paper has consumed my attention the last week. My grad school application is now due in 72 hours, and I am finally “finished” with my paper. It was harder to write than I thought it would be–literature papers always are, for some reason. Anyway, if any of you literary types (ahem?) are interested in taking a gander, I would appreciate the feedback. At least if it comes in the next 24 hours, that is.

(more…)

Matthew L. Anderson linked to an article by Dr. Matt Jensen of the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola a few days ago, which sparked some fruitful discussion in the comments section. I emailed Dr. Jensen to see what he had to say on the interpretation of his article and he gave me permission to post the following:

“I know this discussion is a few days old (and with a blog a day is as a thousand years), but I thought I’d throw just a bit of context in about the piece I wrote. It was intended as a call to discipleship more than an assertion about the identity of Evangelicalism. I’m perfectly happy to run with David Bebbington’s distinctives (which Chris Keller calls our attention to in the introductory article on the site) as a rough-and-ready definition of Evangelicalism. What concerns me in myself and in many young(er) evangelicals I know is a too-easy tendency to jump ship. Before La Mirada, I was pastoring in a Nazarene church in Kansas City. Now, I’m not even Nazarene. I certainly won’t lose much sleep if some of those folks switch denominations. There are good theological reasons for wanting to become Anglican – or Baptist, for that matter. But it’s not enough to simply build a T-chart and list out intellectual pro’s and con’s. I think we need to see such denominational switches as – or rather, I think they need to be responses to the call of God in and on our lives. Sometimes God will do just that. And then, the only fitting move is an obedient switch and an amen. But may we (may I!) never make such a move in simple reaction or fear. Further, if we do switch, I think it’s important to learn to love and rejoice in the ways in which God met us in our (possibly at that point former) evangelical churches. A denominational move should be a move taken by a disciple from one ecclesial home to another. It should never be conversion. If it is (or if we speak of it that way), I’m afraid we risk denying the work of the Spirit.”

Again, I think these are challenging words. As Chesterton would say, to love one’s home means to see it as it is, but also to desire its betterment. It depends on which home God calls one to, but evangelicalism will never grow beautiful without those inside it who love it; Chesterton uses the example of Pimlico in his chapter in Orthodoxy, “The Flag of the World.” Growing in the ability to do this requires spiritual transformation indeed!