Friday, October 5, 2012

Jingle


Here, for your enjoyment, is a story created by David Hammitt and written by me. Read and think.

Jingle


Jingle.

The bells over the door of this coffeehouse used to jungle, but lately they had gone “clunk”, a sound which fell like a brick to the worn hardwood floor rather than dancing around the ceiling like crystal butterflies. They used to make people’s eyes leap to the door smiling, now they seemed to force their gaze to the ground. The door, too. The door used to whisk across the floor, but it had developed a scrape of late which gouged the ears almost more than the rut in the rough planking. He pushed the door back closed to keep out the hot, humid July air. It used to shut itself, but the piston was worn, and of course it was scraping on the floor.

“Be with you in a minute, Cal.”

Sarah, the waitress, sighed the words more than spoke them. Cal glanced at her as he slumped into his usual seat by the window, which creaked as it usually did. She must’ve woken up late. Her hair had a few more strays, her makeup was colored outside the lines a little bit. Maybe it was too humid. Maybe someone had left the door open too long.

“You want a chai, Cal? We’ve been having a heck of a time with the steamer, so you can’t get your cappuccino.”

“Can I get just a shot of espresso? I’m sort of in a rush.”

“Sure thing. Noticed you were in here late.”

“Thanks.”

Cal set his elbows on the table and picked at the notch in the edge. He stopped. This table is pretty beat up, maybe I oughtn’t make it any worse.

“Here’s your… thing-sorry, I’ve been  having a rough day.”

“No problem, thanks.”

Cal drained his espresso, wincing at the bitter bite. I wonder where these beans come from. He’d seen in the paper about a drought in Colombia.

Creak, clunk.

A couple entered the door, leaving it open a crack, and tracking a few grains of street dirt over the entry mat. Sort of inconsiderate, I guess, but that’s not too bad. Cal drained the last dregs of the cup, shivered, then bounced up from his squeaking chair. It wobbled more than before, but maybe I’m just a bit jittery. He set his cup on the counter, taking care to wipe the coffee off the bottom before he set it on the ringed counter. He reached into his right pocket, grabbing a few coins and a buck for Sarah, who really deserved her tip today. The old peanut butter jar, labeled in tattered construction paper “Tipping is not a city in China” only had a few quarters in it, probably just to weight it down. He found another quarter, and dropped them in on the way towards the door. Jingle.

But no jingle. Cal turned over his shoulder and glanced at the tip jar where his coins should have landed. The furrow in his brow deepened as he turned back toward the counter, then deeper still as he looked into the jar, threatening to unify his eyebrows. He stared at the coins and the bill, still suspended an inch into the jar, the bill in mid-expansion from wadded in his pocket to merely crumpled in the jar. But not expanding. The coins had…stopped.  Cals eyes darted about around the jar, then slowly rose to see Sarah in mid step, her flats just beginning to catch in the deepened groove cut by the door. She hadn’t yet spilled the drink in her hand, but she would. If she hadn’t stopped. Everything had stopped. The steam from the broken frother was a frozen cloud. The fork dropped by the old man in booth 3 had come to rest 3 inches above the floor, the man who dropped it just coming to the end of a rather violent (and now visible) sneeze. 

Everything.

Cal’s eyes widened, and his heart jumped. Frantic, he looked around and leaned on the counter to steady himself. It creaked, and he whirled to face it like it was a charging bull. He gasped, and stepped back. At least the floor was still there. That was slightly reassuring. He stared for a few seconds at nothing, or maybe at the tiny fly, wings mid-beat, which before had been happily droning around the grease-spattered trash can in the back of the café. Slowly, he closed his eyes, and inhaled…exhaled. He was here, they had stopped.

Clunk. Scrape. That made him jump, but the old man now trudging decisively through the door was quite calm. Slowly the man shuffled on tattered pant hems across the door groove, past the stumbling waitress and to the tip jar. Oblivious to Cal’s gape, he reached his veined hand gingerly into the jar, making sure the broken buttons on his worn brown jacket didn’t brush the jar accidentally. He slowly pushed one nickel slightly towards himself, then twisted the other ever so slightly, and withdrew his hand. He surveyed the jar, then with one hand reached around the back and twisted a frayed edge of the jar’s label against the jar.

The floor creeked as Cal adjusted his stance, and gasped at how loud he seemed all of a sudden. Taking great care, the man turned, and pulled his jacket down to adjust it. He squared himself to Cal, and looked up through scratched and crooked spectacles, his blue eyes peering through years of wrinkling. “Oh yes, Cal. Just a minute, I’ve a few more things to do.”

 Cal took a sharp breath. “Wh…hat?”

“I must take care of my other business before I forget.” The old man walked towards Cal, turning and bending down to investigate the shoulder of the shirt on a red-haired man who had come in and left the door open. “Just as I thought, starting to fray. Hmmm…” He fished a pair of tweezers from his front jacket pocket, and delicately plucked at a minute fray near the shoulder seam. “Who…” Cal had intended to say more, but he wasn’t sure what.

“All in good time.” He continued to deftly twist the fibers of the man’s shirt into one another. “Please step back. I do need a bit of elbow room.”

Cal stepped back, his face having approached precariously close to the man’s hands, drawn by magnetic curiosity.

“Finished.  Now, I am at liberty to answer your questions. I assume you have some?”

“Who are you?”

“Ah, you tried to ask that one before. I suppose you’d call me a maintenance man, perhaps a janitor of sorts. It’s my job to repair things.”

“Did you… stop things?”

“Who else would have?” The man reached into his pocket, extracted a large magnifying glass, and walked to the table where Cal had just finished his espresso. “How was the coffee? I heard there was a drought in Colombia.” He leaned on the table and knelt like a giraffe at a watering hole.

“How?”

“Yes. It smelled bitter to me.”

“No, how did you… do you…”

“Oh, stop time. It’s rather simple, really, but only because I’m not exactly sure. If I knew, it would take hours to explain, and probably years to understand, but for all I know it’s quite simple,  like moving your hand.” Again he extracted his tweezers, and a needle. He began to pick at the nick Cal had slowly whittled into the table by his years of consistent patronage. Not as Cal had, absent mindedly, but with very clear precision, every pick pulling the wood out an indiscernible distance, and perfectly aligning the grains.

“So you-“

“Not yet” interrupted the man tersely. Then slower, “Sorry to snap, but wood is still difficult after all these years. It took years for the tree to shape it.”

Cal waited, impatient but frozen for fear of disturbing his work.

“There. It’s finished.” Cal looked at the table, at the notch in the edge.

“It’s not fixed yet.”

“It’s shallower now. Maybe took a month’s wear out of it. I can’t take too much out, or you’d notice.” He slowly moved to stand, leaning heavily on the newly repaired table, and grunting with the exertion. “What if you were sitting at the table and suddenly the nick disappeared before your very eyes? Wouldn’t that be rather suspicious? Now help an old man out. Take this and brush some of the dust from under the booths.” He handed Cal a toothbrush, worn and already quite filthy. “Not all of it, mind you, but mostly from the part where it bolts to the floor. That always gets rather grimy.”

He walked to Sarah, her face frozen, eyelids low and cheeks puffed mid-exhale. Slowly he began to tuck a few of her stray hairs back into her hairband. Cal looked with disbelief at the brush in his hand. “Better get to dusting, Calvin. You aren’t getting any younger.” Cal glanced at his watch. The second hand ticked away just as it had since he purchased it, a hair too slow. “But didn’t time… stop?”

“Theirs did. The whole world has stopped, but us, we go on. We could go on for years like this.”

Crack! Cal’s head jolted upward into the bottom of the seat he was cleaning. “Careful! Don’t move anything very much.”

“Wait. Wait. Did you just say we’re going to be here for years?”

“We could. Who’s going to stop us? We won’t of course, for your sake. And more than a few days will cause people to notice your hair looks different. Even small changes are noticeable if perceived to be instantaneous.”

“So when will you put it back?”

“Whenever you’re ready.” Cal’s puzzled expression caught the man’s attention. “I see you still won’t believe me. It’s normal to…”

“Has this been happening for a long time? The stopping?”

“Oh yes, for longer than either of us have been around. Chances are, you’ve been stopped, as you call it, hundreds of times since you walked in the door. It’s been happening to you your entire life.”

“And I never noticed?”

“How could you? For you, nothing would seem odd. We’ve become very discrete over the years.”

“We? There’s more?”

“Oh yes. You wouldn’t expect me to fix everything all by myself would you? That would take me very long indeed.”

“How many are you?”

“Oh, I don’t know. Really, I could be the only one, but I doubt it. I only know of one other, the man who told me. But I’m sure he’s long gone by now.”

“Who was he?”

“He never told me that. Or maybe he did, I just didn’t remember. There were other things I felt I should worry about, like why time had stopped. I remember he wore a hat with a big black brim, like a rabbi’s. And his clothes were very worn. Of course, this makes sense now, looking at mine.” He held up his arm, and twisted it back and forth, looking at the threadbare elbows of his jacket, the tattered, stretched shoulder seam. It had an oddly modern cut, but had clearly been with him the majority of his numerous years. Cal, puzzled, looked at his feet, at the rut in the floor. “Oh yes. That was the other thing.” The man, pained by the entire motion, knelt on his hands and worn denim knees, and with a small screwdriver from his pocket reached under the door, and began prying at the door. A small nail popped out and bounced across the floor to Cal’s feet. 

“Wait…” Cal said, “If you’ve only ever seen one other person who does this, why do you think there’s more?”

“Might as well stay down here,” said the man, crawling over to the chair Cal had sat in only a few minutes ago, or a few seconds ago. “Pick up that nail, would you, we can’t just leave it lying around, popping out of nowhere. Now look here.” He turned the chair over gently, and gestured at a nut on the leg, which fell off when he touched it. “I just tightened this. My speculation is that, while you were sitting in it, someone came and loosened it to play a prank on you. Probably someone in this shop. I’m not sure who, there’s no way I’ll ever find out unless I ask all of them, and even then only if they’re honest. Now, that’s a bit immature, but that nail, that took thought. Preparation.” Cal stared at the brad in his palm. “So someone put this here?” “I suspect, solely to gouge that groove. It wouldn’t have been noticed, and its effect was so gradual that nobody fixed it. I certainly didn’t see it until now, and even then left it as a lesson.” “

“For whom?”

“For you. You noticed it when you came in, didn’t you? And the bells? And the chair? You’re perceptive.”

“So’re you. But why does that matter?” Cal now felt suddenly watched, as though his whole life had been under observation.

“Because only those who notice can repair. And we’re running short.”

“On what?”

“Time. People, I assume. Things seem to be getting worse quicker.”

“So, it’s like a fight. Against the people who play pranks? Against time?”

“Oh, it’s deeper than that. We’re really fighting time itself. Entropy and all that. But it’s more like mopping up their spills most of the time.”

“So do you know why?

“I know only what the man before me said, and what I can deduce. But he told me this ability used to be reserved for a few, who would fix small things from time to time, so they would go according to the plan.”

“The plan?”

“How else would we know what to fix?”

“Do you have a copy on you? Can I see it?”

“Like I said, you notice things. That means you already know it. You know the difference between a broken thing and a right one, even though the broken one works just as well. Like your table.”

“Can’t everybody?”
“No, not at all. Most people only see their own purposes, and all that is irrelevant to them. That, I think, was the problem, or so the man said. Every fixer was responsible to the plan, only telling another about their ability when it came time to step away. One of them was careless, and told the strayed one, at least that’s what I call him. He realized the potential this ability had for him, of course, we all do. But he actually used it. He started changing things, little things, to go according to his plan, then just to prove that he could, then he told a few others. Then, I suppose, it exploded.”

“Surely there can’t be too many, the world would fall apart!”

“Precisely so. And so it does. Cal, that’s why I’ve come to you. I am getting old, I can’t be effective anymore. I have fallen prey to the decay I worked to prevent, and need to be replaced. Cal, I know you see the plan. I know you wish you could fix all this stuff. I’m here telling you you can, begging you.”

“I don’t know how! Time is still, man, I can’t do that!”

“You can, Cal, but your disbelief prevented you. It doesn’t anymore.”

“But… You said it’s just every now and then?”

The man’s face fell, and he rolled onto his side, leaning painfully on the chair, so exhausted that he might turn to dust at any moment.” That’s how it was, Cal, not how it is. I have to be honest with you, the plan says so. “

Cal nodded, and sat on a booth, leaning down to hear the man’s now faint voice.”
When you walked in the door, I had no knowledge of this. I saw you, noticed your right shoe had a wear spot which affected your gait, and that your part was crooked, like you’d gotten up late. I saw how gingerly you opened the door, slowing down when you heard the scrape, and glancing up disappointed at the bell. Then I met the man, and believed him.”

“Five minutes ato? Why’d he pick someone so… old? Why didn’t he just get me?”

“Calvin.” The man was lying exhausted on the floor, his grey thinned head lolling almost lifelessly on he wood, tears just starting to glisten in the creases around his eyes. 
”Calvin, you don’t realize what I’m asking you, and I’m starting to doubt myself. I’m old, Calvin, I don’t know if I can go much longer. The decay is too great. Every day more are neglecting their gift, selfishly destroying the very fabric of existence for their own pleasure or pride.” 

He closed his eyes and his body convused, racked by silent sobs. How often, with all the world stopped, had he been overcome with sorrow for unseen losses, neglect and decay?

”Cal, when I saw you enter this shop, I was more similar to you than you realize. I was twenty-five years old.”

Cal inhaled deeply, and his eyes shut tight.” I can’t live, can I? There’s too many who abuse, and too few who repair. I’ll stop things, and spend years repairing, and the next moment it’ll all be undone, and more beside? Your entire life has been crumpled up to fit seventy lonely years into five minutes, while the world continued oblivious. How many stop the world and live whole lives alone, only to die ineffectual and life goes on? Countless, countless, with no hope of a recognition?”

“Then you do understand.” The man rolled to the chair, and his knees knocked under the weight of age and knowledge as he grimaced to his feet.” Calvin, the choice is up to you. If you feel the pull of the plan, you will follow my way. But if you chose to, you will resume your life, with only the thought of what if time stopped every instant and we never notice, which you will instantly brush away with the rush of your day filling your mind. Chose wisely, Cal, even if you could forget it all, would you?

Ten, nine, eight,” The man turned his back to Cal, and started to walk out the door.

“Seven, six, five…’ Cal, silent, turned to face the tip jar, then hurriedly remembered that his hand ought to hover above it as it had. The man left the door, and gingerly closed it, leaving it open just a crack, as it had been. Cal could hear him count as he walked out of sight behind the grimy glass,

“Four, three, two one.”

Jingle.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

On Shame and the Gender of Souls

The Fishhook

This may seem to be a bit of a heavy topic, but I assume writing is like fishing: the line doesn't go very deep until you put weights on it. It may also seem controversial, but, as in fishing, the pointy part is right down there with the weights, and it does no good to drop a line if there's no chance of it sinking into something and sticking there. 

I could probably hyperextend the analogy to include how the topic is sort of slimy and dirty, how you have to wash your hands after you deal with it, and maybe how you can buy it in styrofoam bowls from overgrown convenience stores, but suffice to say, this bit has been the bait, the worm if you will. I don't know what fish see as appetizing in worms, but I hear it's just the movement that attracts them.

Wiggle, wiggle.

Big Question: Do Souls have Gender?

My Problem

There is a question with which I have struggled for years (the question, not the actual content, to be clear), a question for which I have never heard a satisfactory answer until a few stars recently aligned: What is a Christian response to the intersex person? How does the existence of hermaphroditic person fit into a Biblical worldview? And what should we make of people who claim to be "women in men's bodies" and vice versa?

This fact, for me, seemed to contradict the creation account of humans in Genesis 1:27:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Where is transgender in that list of two? "and"? It doesn't seem to be included. Should we deny the issue (impossible) or deny the accuracy of scripture (possibly more impossible)? We seem to be borne down by the horns of a furious dilemma, and it is intent on causing is great injury.


First, let's look at why God created them male and female. In the detailed creation account in Genesis 2:19:
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
In the big picture, we realize that marriage, while good for us, was given majorly to teach us about God, or in a less human-centric manner of speaking, to display himself in his creation. Elsewhere in scripture we see the union of a man with a woman as intended to stand for Christ's relationship with His Church, (Eph 5), and even in the creation story, God says "let us make man in our image." God is, within himself, a relationship. (this is the trinity, and I talked about that already.) Marriage was given for us to recognize and feel the intimacy with which God knows himself. The paradox is made abundantly evident in Gen. 2 when God tells them that "they shall become one flesh."

Soul Sex

This raises the question, then: how is a person male or female? One would think the answer lies within (or without, depending on the gender and the temperature of the room), but this is obviously not the case when we include intersex people. The question then is, what is a person really? In most people's worldviews (those with whom it seems profitable to reason at all), a person is not their body, but something other, something more mysterious and etherial, a soul or spirit. To say, then, that a person is a man or woman (even more directly stated when a person claims to be a "man in a woman's body"), is to say that the soul has a gender. But is this so? 


To address the problem scripturally, let's go to Jesus for the inside scoop. In Matthew 22:30, Jesus was in the middle of another sticky dilemma posed by some wily Pharisees, concerning to whom a woman would be married if she had seven husbands in succession and a "series of unfortunate accidents" happened to occur. (I frankly think that in this situation, the third through seventh husbands should have thought a bit harder about jumping on that train in the first place, but this is tangential.) Jesus makes the statement:
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Interesting, considering the fact that (a) God said, "it is not good for man to be alone", (b) male and female were created by God for companionship and to illustrate His image, and He called them good in Gen. 1. What could this mean? 


The paradox is alleviated when we recognize that souls do not need (or, I believe, have) genders. In heaven, the intimacy of sex is not required, for we can fully realize the intimacy of God in spirit and in truth. The image of God portrayed by marriage is unnecessary, being only a dim image of the true God who will be as present and ubiquitous as light in heaven. And rationally, souls don't need to reproduce (they're eternal), so why in light of all these reasons, would a soul need to have a gender or a sexual orientation at all?


This leaves us with saying that the core of a person doesn't actually have a gender, but that their gender is defined by their physical body. Not just transgendered people, but you, me and my girlfriend. We don't have genders, but our bodies do.

Shame and Self

By now, we should be realizing that the problem is less fundamental than we thought (or possibly more). That is, less physical (soulal?), and more a problem of morals, or sensations. It's not the case that a "female soul" is born into a "male body", because no such female soul exists. The question is, why does it feel that way? For a Christian, the answer to this should be obvious: according to Biblical Christian doctrine (and from self-examination), a person can feel this way because the body is flawed. 

We know that chemicals in the body can alter sensations. This is nothing more than the physical inducing sensations to the conscious part of us (the soul), same as when you drop a brick on your foot. And nobody said that this body itself was right. In fact, it's very clear in scripture that it is not, it is very flawed. Our sinful self-worship brings about new evil into the world every day, and through Adam's sin, death came to every man and a curse over the whole world.

So does this mean that some are flawed more than others? Nope. If a person is flawed in any way, they are flawed. There is no talk of "more flawed." If the human race were a building, there would be beams broken halfway through, and some with tiny cracks. Some may look better, but they'll both fail when the building is loaded. 

Whether your struggle against the physical is being stranded between genders (physically or emotionally), being attracted to the same sex, to children, having misplaced attraction to the opposite sex, having a penchant to lie, being a kleptomaniac, being unable to focus, rage, anything, these are all flaws, and they all have the same effect. No one person is more flawed than another. We're all broken, and we need to look to God for healing.

Who are we, really?

I believe the one most crucial thing we learn from this investigation is that we are not defined by our inherent sinful tendencies, nor by our physical forms, but by our spirits. Our culture tells us that we, if attracted to the same sex, are homosexual or bisexual. That we, if gender-confused, are intersex. It also tells us that if we have a compulsion to steal we are kleptomaniacs, that if we lie habitually we are compulsive liars. Compulsive eaters, pedophiles, psychopaths, perverts. It claims these things are part of "us". This is a lie. "We" have none of these traits, but the body we inhabit is twisted towards these things. 

The sin is not in feeling these things, but in defining ourselves by them. If I feel attracted to men, it's no different from if I feel attracted to lying to save face: if I recognize it as wrong and turn from it, seeking God's hand to pull me out of it, nothing comes of it. But when I say, "Well, I must be a liar, and I can't deny myself. I suppose God made me to lie," when we accept it as who we are and justify our actions through that, this is when it begins to be sin. 

Christ has promised to save us from such sin. In my own life, I struggle a hard struggle against lust for women to whom I am not married, a perversion of the attraction which I am to feel towards my wife, to be intimate with her and know her in every possible way. But by the grace of God, He is encouraging and empowering my soul and renewing my mind to resist this temptation, and become more aware of the "way of escape" referred to in 1 Corinthians 10:13. He has promised salvation, not only from guilt of the crimes we have committed, but freedom from the slavery to the ones we feel are inevitable. Praise God!

Transgendered, gay, liar, thief, murderer, adulterer, all are equal in the sight of God: condemned if they haven't accepted Christ, but fully justified and washed clean from sin if they have. Romans 8:1-2 says
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
You are not a sinner. You have been set free. Go be free! 


Thanks for reading this far. I almost didn't expect it.


-Seth

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

How To Find Things Interesting

Everybody has a camera these days.

My girlfriend's mom has a Canon Rebel which never leaves her side (or, rather, stomach). It mostly documents the important moments in her daughter's lives, and contains more pictures of said moments than there were actually moments. (She applies burst mode liberally.)

My brother has a big fancy Nikon with all the lenses, filters, buttons, bells and whistles you could ask for. (But apparently not all HE could ask for.) He carries it around in a forty pound bag, and uses it to document anything but people. Buffalo, trees, interesting sunsets, anything he sees.

I have a camera now, too. It just came from Ebay, and will document all kinds of things once it has a memory card. Interesting things, I hope.

I used to think photography was a silly passtime, attracting people through the sole virtue that an 18-45 mm lens is the thickest rim you can fit around your glasses. It was the purview of introverted art students, the refuge of people that didn't do things worth photographing.

But now I have a camera.

Why do I have a camera? To document interesting things.


This is a girl named Hannah F. She's an art student.
I thought she was interesting, so I documented her. 
I asked first.

Big Question: What Single Activity Defines "Art"?

Pizarro and Picasso

Pizarro was a conquistador, which means he went places and conquered them vigorously. His job was to sail to uncivilized parts of the world and civilize them the Spanish way before those dratted Portuguese got there. He was to find land and gold for Spain and kill any interfering indigenous. He went places no man had gone and brought back things no man had seen: sculptures, monkeys, Incas, all sorts of interesting fare.

Picasso was a cubist, which means he saw things and painted them wrong. His job was to paint portraits with scrambled faces and illustrate atrocities through the monochromatic deformed people and agonized horse triangles. He was to find shapes and colors and was authorized to disregard trivialities like proper proportion and realism. He painted things no man had painted before, and showed people what they hadn't seen.

This is Guernica, by Picasso, courtesy of www.pablopicasso.org. 


If asked for one single activity with which to define "art", there would be as many answers as answerers. Expressing emotion, teaching truth, displaying pleasing images, all these are valid, and there is certainly some art which does all these.

But what works do which? I saw a video in the Art Institute of Chicago in which the artist (whose name escapes me) filmed himself in bust painting himself black. At the Indianapolis Museum of Art, there's currently an installation consisting of a string nailed to the floor and taped to a window. No explanation, no reason is given. 

What emotion does this video express? You could argue that it makes a racial statement, that it expresses a desire of the artist to reflect his soul on his skin, that it inverts common images, where the dark color of the subject causes him to lose clarity as he applies more and more paint. The string could be an expression of hope and rising, or entrapment and falling down.

I believe that the purpose is simply this: That if the artist hadn't done this, nobody else would have.

Because Art is exploration.
Art can be finding new perspectives. 
For example, this is how my friend Michael Abshier sees the world.

Art is...

In the Art Institute of Chicago, there's several pieces where an artist paints models. Most of them actually look like the models. But one particularly stuck out to me because the artist literally painted the models, then rolled them on the canvas. I wondered, "why would he do this?" This gives him a reason.

Painting women and rolling them around was his New World: A place nobody had been, and in fact he probably discovered by accident. Being an artist, he realized his job: To explore this world and bring back the prize gems he found there. 

Picasso explored a world where people were angular and their eye were on their chins.

Spielberg explored a world where aliens healed by touching and loved Reeses Pieces. 

Pollock rode a hedgehog through a world made entirely of paint-filled balloons.

Lots of modern art seems to be focused on exploring, not the natural world as artists classically have, but worlds designed by the process by which the art is made: rolling people, throwing paint, hammering nails, even now including everyday touchscreen tasks and retweeting patterns. (For more cool stuff, check this out. Kinda mind blowing.)

I'd like to end by complaining. I don't think that people are judicious in their choices in what to bring back. Modern art has become the equivalent of a National Geographic photographer returning from Nepal with the a hard drive full of pictures of the airport. Everybody can paint, everybody can take photographs, but not everybody is an artist.

But I'm pretty sure everyone can be. 

Mirror Me

I've been writing a lot of songs lately. Half-writing, really. I'm going through a lot of notecards and little tiny notebook pages, and basically wearing the letters off my keyboard. I've been working really hard to push as many lyrics as possible out of my head, inspired by a talk by Amena Brown in which she suggested that we do this.

I've gotten a few finished, like Sixteen Dollar Dress, which was inspired by my friend Logan's story of his junior prom date, who had beautiful green eyes, long brown curly hair and looked better in her sixteen dollar dress than the other girls did in their two hundred dollar gowns. I'm working on one about snowflakes inspired by a line from my friend Allan, "If I'm a snowflake, baby, tonight's the night that I will fall for you."

Point being, I've been looking for inspiration in every place possible: I've been walking in the woods hacking back the matted mass of weak analogies in search of the undiscovered El Dorado in a manner of speaking. I've been taking pictures of everything I can see, and haphazardly placing words one right after another to see if they sound good together.



And I may have been wrong to do so.

Don't get me wrong: disciplined writing is a beneficial enterprise. It hardens the hammers of the wordsmith's forge and stretching rhymes leaves them limber. But I hadn't been simply running drills, but attempting to play entire seasons before practicing at all.

My writing has not been driven by a desire to practice the art, but to produce a shiny finished product. As such, I have felt strained to produce, unqualified to share and unsuccessful in the entire endeavor. I had been attempting to chisel magnificent Davids out of my writer's block, and ended up with gravel. (Had I been attempting to make a driveway, I would have succeeded, but this was not my intent, and so is not comforting.)


It took a divine bait-and-switch to teach me the error in my ways. During our time of reflection, I felt like I ought to wander about in Cool Creek Park, a relatively unspoiled nature preserve by the Walmart (which sentence certainly has contained in it the seeds of a thousand novels I am also undereducated to write.)

During my wanderings, I was taking pictures of the sun. Sun led to light, light led to reflections, and before I could say "ouch, I shouldn't be looking at the sun", I was thinking about how we were created to reflect God's image, and how I was trying to reflect on this, and that they're the same word, and how novel that is, and how I ought to write a song about that. (I think in run-on sentences, deal with it.)

I felt like God was saying, "Mirror me." This, I felt, was the kernel of a great worship song, or just a regular song, or a poem or something creative and verbose, so I started trying to nourish it into accelerated growth. But it wouldn't grow. I wrote a line that rhymed. Then one that was just sort of poetically worded. Then one that wasn't. Before long, I felt that I had written what God was trying to say to me. And it wasn't a poem. Quite the opposite.

God was telling me, "You don't have to write a poem or a song about every tiny thought you think." I had, I realized, been taking my value from how many tracks/followers I had on Soundcloud, or how large the "Writings" folder in My Documents had grown, or how many unfinished projects I have in Ableton.

My value comes from the Lord inside me. No amount of creative productivity, no number of notes or intricate rhymes can give me any more worth than the simple fact that I reflect the Lord by being a thinking, loving, communicating, personal being.

God had given me a tiny thought, and had prevented me from writing about it. Which is in itself a very creative lesson plan. Which inspired me to write what I find to be a fairly coherent article. The Lord has a delicious sense of irony. Touche, Lord.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Megazord

I've half written lots of long posts. I'm tired of half-writing things, so this'll be more within my attention span.


Big Question: What does it mean to be a member of the body of Christ? No seriously, what does it mean?

Romans 12:5
"so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." (ESV)"so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others."
We've all heard that to be a Christian is to be a member of the Body of Christ. (If you haven't heard this, check out Romans 12, it'll elucidate wonderfully.)

I've heard us called hands and feet.

I've heard cells.

Nerves.

Livers.

Romans tells us that we all have different gifts (prophecy, teaching, giving, hospitality...) which Christ intends for us to use to His glory. But we don't all have everything, so we have to work together to get anything worthwhile done. 

Until today, I've took this to mean that I was the Blue Ranger's triceratops, and that when Christ (obviously the Red Ranger) wanted to kick some hypertrophic putty villainry, he would hit the button on his divine Morpher and I would twist my body around and plug into his t-rex at the hip and become the feet of Christ.

Which made me feel pretty cool. Until I realized that if this was true, the body of Christ would be a centipede, because there's lots of people who can be legs, and we can't just keep assigning everybody who got here late the job of being platelets just so they'll have something to do. We tried this in the American church, and all we got was a giant clot. 

In reality, (a reality which I realized this morning during time spent reflecting on Romans 12 and togetherness), the body of Christ is much, much different from this.

We're all supposed to be Christlike, yes? This is a statement well-founded in scripture and common sense. (Christ was a good guy, and good guys are good to be like.)

We're supposed to be a bunch of little Christs running around doing Christ things.

Except not all of us can walk.

This is where the verse at the top of the page comes into play. Romans 5 says (at least in the ESV), we are members of the body of Christ, and "individually members one of another." This, upon closer inspection, is a mind-bending statement. It seems to say that we are modular people.

I am not the foot of a Megazord (MegaLord?). I am your foot. But you are my hand. And he is my eye.

I am not just the foot of the body of Christ. I am your foot, and your body belongs to Christ.

Seen this way, the body of Christ is not one huge, ecclesiastic lump of stagnant flesh and unnecessary organs. It is a million mini-Christs, buzzing about God's work on borrowed wings like Dr. Frankensteins own hive. And a million hands (or antennae, or mandibles, I don't really make lots of bee analogies) make light work.

So don't spend time worrying about how you, a puny half-crippled foot, are going to move the entirety of the abstract, ineffable, lazy single body of Christ. Find one of the little bodies of Christ that needs to take a step (or receive a well-placed kick), then find another one, then another one, and THEN we'll have started doing something.

I'm tired. I'm out.

I love you, Seth

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Look at me! Look at me Look at me!

"I question anyone who doesn't ask questions of themselves." ~ Me.


"I question anyone who quotes themselves."~ What I should have said


"I question myself."~ What the above two statement implies


Big Question: Why is God a Trinity? Must He be?


Me, Myself and I


I have lots of quirks. They're why I like being me so much. I am not funny when I'm trying to be (including, possibly, right now.) I wiggle my nose to lift my glasses up, because they're too heavy for my face to support passively. I write and sing songs while I walk. 


Funny word, "I". It's only one letter long, which makes me think it's rather important. So many important words are small, but only the ones that are so important that we never think about them. "I", "a", incidental words that actually reflect some very significant things in our thoughts. "a" implies a singular of a type, and a certain interchangeability, which is core to the taxonomic structure of our entire thought process. "I" implies self as separate from the world, a very important topic which deserves more public discussion. (and which is about to get it, by golly!) Words get longer as they get less important: "be" is tremendously useful, "coulrophobia" less so. 


"Me", too. Funny word, almost a third person way to refer to myself. If asked, "who backed the car over the hydrangeas?" I would point at myself and say, "me." (Actually, I would point at my brother Pierce, but my scapegoating is another point entirely.) "Me" means "him" when "him" is "I". 


It's funny to think about ones self from the outside. Can you do this? Try, for a second. Find a mirror, then try to convince yourself that the person you see is not you. (I don't actually think you can, but I'm laughing at the thought of you trying.) 


But we do.


We call this process "self-awareness." 



γνῶθι σαυτόν (Know Thyself)



Self-awareness is how I realize I have quirks, how I realize my quirks are different from other quirks and uncommon. Simply put, self-awareness is the ability to observe the thoughts transpiring in ones own mind. I am self-aware because I can know what I am thinking, that I am thinking. Moreover, I can know that I'm thinking about myself thinking about myself thinking. 


(Note: Self-awareness is not Elf-awareness, which is the ability of every American college student to memorize seasonal Will Ferrell movies between October and January)


Self-awareness is interesting because in no other situation do we have the ability to observe a system so completely. If something goes on in our head, we can know it. We can know our conscious thoughts and, with some introspection and thought to our actions and reactions, can deduce our subconscious thoughts as well. Ideally, we might be able to know everything that goes on in our head (or wherever it is that thoughts are actually going on. I say my head because that's where I see everything from.)


Being aware of our self-awareness is inherent in being aware of our awareness. If we can think about what we think, surely we can think about this thought as well. If you're having trouble keeping all the thoughts and selves straight, feel free to skip ahead to the diagram later.


Why Three?



And now we set our sights on things above. Christian doctrine has a doctrine which is not quite paralleled in any other religion (meaning that the doctrines eventually collide, a rather violent occurrence between doctrines.) It is disputed by some solely upon its seeming self-inconsistency, and defended by most on the grounds that, "we aren't meant to understand." I am referring, of course, to the doctrine of the Trinity. (Why was it so obvious? I said it right at the beginning, in huge font. Maybe you should read for comprehension.) 


Some religions claim it gives us too few gods.


Some claim it gives us too many.


Some claim it makes us too rational, trying to number God.


Some claim it makes us irrational when we can't quite.


Everybody seems to take issue with it except those to whom is is of greatest concern, and those seem to be content with glossing over it as a paradox.


Notice I said paradox, not contradiction. A paradox differs from a contradiction the same way "almost" differs from "barely". "I almost got bitten by a ravenous squid" is quite different from "I barely got bitten by a ravenous squid": they both imply a significant interaction with a ravenous squid, but in one the squid gets you, and in the other it doesn't. A paradox is the one the squid just barely misses you, and in a contradiction, you end up as squid poop.


G K Chesterton, my most favoritest author, was known as the Prince of Paradox, and for good reason. Everything he wrote was chock full of paradox, for he viewed it as an incredible opportunity. As a physicist learns about the physical world by breaking it down into bits and smashing them together, so Chesterton broke his worldview apart into bits and threw them at each other until some almost collided, and from the ensuing eruption he learned more about them. Concerning knowledge, he said 
"When we know something we bring it down to the level of our intelligence."
The nature of God is probably beyond our comprehension, it is true. But some profound things can be learned by exploring the paradoxes given to us concerning His nature. Like this one.


Where we get off



Okay, so there's this paradox: Christians claim God is three people in one essence, or three natures in one mind, or something of the sort. Why?

First things first: In Genesis 1, when God says:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image"
He did actually say it like that. He also shows up as three persons in several places in scripture, including Matthew 3:16 (at Jesus' baptism) and Hebrews 2:3-4, where each of His parts are referenced as performing separate acts. 


So He's separate. How is He one? Easy: Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shemah. It refers to God as elohiym (the plural form from Genesis), and says He is "one" (echad, meaning one or only). That's the paradox in a sentence.


If you'd like more sources, (as well as some excellent thought on the subject,) Matt Perman, of Desiring God ministries, has more detailed explanations of the origin of the doctrine in this article. I'll let his words speak for me to fill in the details, but suffice to say, God is three persons in one essence, and this seems confusing.


Why is it confusing? Because we are one person in one essence, and we don't see how it could be otherwise.


Or might we?


Me, Myself and Him



So now we return to self-awareness. How? Well, we know how we are by our self-awareness, and because Scripture tells us that God made us in his(their?) image, we ought to be able to learn things about God by looking at ourselves. We know things of God's relationship with us when we are fathers and mothers, husbands and wives. We know something of what God feels when someone sins against us, or fails to trust us. In this case, I believe we can learn by introspecting upon our introspection.


I will use a diagram to describe what I'm aiming at. Here it is.
First off, an action. In any action, there are three parts: the subject, the action and the object. Change any one of these things, and the action changes. For example, an apple falling is different from an orange falling. You could compare the two, but I hear it's hard. 


Second, observation happens on actions. I don't observe an apple, but an apple falling, an apple being eaten, an apple just sitting there and existing. To observe an apple would require me to remove the apple from all external things (like the light being reflected from it), which I can't do. I can only observe the apple as it interacts with other things. And so, in a way, I can observe not objects, but actions on objects.


In the diagram, the first action is an apple falling: Subject: apple. Action: falling. Object: I'm not that good at grammar. 


The first arrow represents a first observation: my observing (or being aware of) an apple falling. Subject: me. Action: being aware of. Object: the apple falling (notice that the object is not only the apple, but its falling.) 


Now it gets confusing. The second arrow represents myself observing myself observing the apple falling. Subject: me. Action: me. Object: me observing the apple falling. You see how this is one level up, but the object still involves the apple. 


But we must go deeper! The third arrow represents myself observing myself observing myself. Subject: myself. Action: observing. Object: myself observing myself observing the apple. I conjecture that one could remove "the apple" from the object, and all the associated thoughts would remain unchanged. When I think about myself thinking about myself thinking about an apple, the apple doesn't factor into the thought at all, that is, the subject, action and object are all fully contained in myself.


This means that if I went back further, say to( myself observing )^4 (sorry for the math, it was just getting too long to type), the action would be EXACTLY THE SAME. The subject, object and action would be identical, and so it would not be a new action. 


Now think about how this feels. When we think about ourselves thinking, it, in a way, feels like we are looking at ourselves objectively, no? We are somehow an outside observer in ourself. In fact, we can easily imagine a conversation within ourselves in this way:


"Man, I'm angry at that jerk for backing over my hydrangeas."
"Why are you angry at him? There was a piano falling at his car."
"I know it's irrational, but my hydrangeas, man! Don't you feel anything?"


I think we can all acknowledge that, at some time or another, we have had such thoughts, where we take both sides of an argument about ourselves, somehow step back and observe what we're doing objectively, removed from our passions to more reasonable location. Some may have even physically felt the sensation, akin to an out-of-body experience, where you can hear yourself talking, you know what you're saying but you yourself are listening as if in third person. I certainly have.


That is taking way too long. So what?



Okay, you're right. That took forever, but I suppose forays into our own mind should be expected to take a while. When you boil it down, you end up with this:

1. A self-aware being can observe itself

2. This being, when observing itself, can have two persons in one person in a paradoxical way

3. There are, at most, three persons present in a self-aware person when its self-awareness is fully exercised.

When we are self-aware, we only catch glimpses of ourselves, and it's difficult to form a full picture of us. I'm not sure why this is, but I'm safe in saying that nobody's perfect, so that probably has something to do with it. So we are multiple persons in fits and spasms, and those persons have a fleeting existence.

Now: assume God is a perfect being, and is self-aware. Obviously, God would have to be perfectly self-aware at all times, and therefore would always be three people in one person.

A trinity.

Interesting?

But is this reason completely removed from Scripture? I don't think so. Hebrews 1:3 calls Christ the "exact imprint" of the nature of God. I have heard it said by some philosopher (can't remember who... do you know?) that Jesus is the self-image of God, or how He sees himself. Since he is perfectly self-aware, this would make Christ the exact image of God in spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:11 says, " So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God," and says that the Spirit of God searches out His mind. This sounds more than vaguely similar to the previous conclusion. 


So we see that this bizarre line of logic actually does line up with Scripture. But what does it mean for us?

One thing it does is emphasize the equal divinity and personhood of the Holy Spirit. Christians often say, "I have the Holy Spirit in me" like he was some kind of prosthetic, or more of a power than a person. But He is not. He is God, coequal with the Father and the Son, and here with us as a helper, not just in the sense of a crutch to lean on but a person to support us. In my experience, the more aware of this I am, the more aware of everything I am, including my own sin and God.

The most apparent thing that it shows is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not contradictory, but paradoxical, that God must be a Trinity if He is indeed perfect. 

I am fascinated that reason and Scripture line up so well every time I see it happen. It's quite awesome, in the breathtaking sense, and it greatly magnifies God. It's incredible when we are able to look at God's creation (including our own minds) and reason something about Him.

But as Blaise Pascal said, 
"Reason’s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it."
Don't try too hard to understand God. There may be a creative analogy here, a useful philosophy there, but if you try to wrap your mind entirely around someone so large as He, you'll probably break your mind. And a good mind is hard to fix.


Sincerely,


Seth

P.S.: I recognize that someone might take issue with the statement that every step back in the chain of self-observation beyond the third is identical, since the object could be always said to be "myself observing.....myself observing an apple", which would be different if the fruit were replaced. I would ask in response, "Where in Scripture does it limit God to only three persons?" They are all that is listed, but I see no reason why only three are necessarily contained in this list. Possibly the Holy Spirit is of innumerable multiplicity. Who knows. Point being, I don't think there's a danger to the Trinity if MORE are possible, only if multiple are impossible.