Top 5 Most Mis-Interpreted Bible Verses

Brian Orme wrote a nice piece on what he considers the most abused/misinterpreted/misunderstood verses in the entire Bible. A few of them I found compelling, the others not so much. But the piece is well worth your reading.

Orme:

The Bible is a sharp, double-edged sword — able to piece the heart. However, when portions of the Bible are used in the wrong context, it’s like trying to fight with the butt of the weapon instead of the blade. It’s just not effective.

Over my years in ministry and as an ongoing student of the Bible, I’ve come across many biblical misquotes, misunderstandings and flat-out misuses.

However, if I’m honest, many of these have come from my own lips. I confess: I’ve been guilty of abusing passages, ignoring context and, even at times, stretching the meaning for my own teaching needs, but I’m seeking to reform my loose ways in favor of something much more beneficial — the original interpretation.

His verses are Phil 4:13; Jer 29:11; Matt 18:20; Rom 8:28; and Prov 29:18.

My verses are likely similar, and I list them below. If you are curious as to why I suggest these, just ask.

Matthew 25:46. Genesis 1:1 (well, both creation accounts, but okay). 1 Timothy 2:12. Proverbs 26:4. Colossians 1:20.

--Nick

Pulse: Homosexuality (A Guest Post by Andrew Oxenham)

Author’s bias: I am a 24-year-old, straight male who grew up with Christian (non-denominational) parents, attended Biola University, and majored in Humanities with an emphasis in Philosophy. I left college more curious & confused than anything else. I’m conservative in my politics, and in constant flux with my theology although I lean towards being conservative there as well. It’s hard to put myself in a category, and in some ways this piece is me working out what exactly I think about this particular topic.


1. What important topic do you think our Christian generation (20s) has to deal with the most? Why must we deal with this issue? 
 
Homosexuality. I can barely type the word without glancing around the coffee shop I’m writing in to make sure no one gives me a dirty look. It’s a crucial topic for Christians, and I hate to say it but Christianity has done a terrible job addressing it. Somewhere along the way, we failed to understand  (or stopped caring) that discussions concerning homosexuality (especially discussions had with people who consider themselves homosexual) concerned actual people, human beings made in the image and likeness of God. That’s the tricky part about discussing homosexuality is it’s not an abstract concept like the eschaton. It’s a prominent topic that directly pertains to who a person is (at their core). Part of the problem is that various people associated with the Christian faith have said mean-spirited, cruel comments, comments completely devoid of compassion or grace. Some resorted to violent actions. I’m not trying to be hysterical, I’m well aware that there are thousands of Christians engaging in thoughtful, careful debate about homosexuality. Headlines don’t report thoughtful conversations, they report histrionics. The difficulty is that in the court of public opinion, perception is reality and Christians are perceived very negatively when it comes to this topic.

2. In what (positive or negative) ways has our generation already engaged with this issue? 

This topic matters because there are an estimated 9 million Americans who identify themselves as LGBT; that’s roughly the size of New Jersey. But more important than the numbers, homosexuality is the twenty-something’s civil rights debate. It’s an issue that has infused itself into every aspect of the culture. TV shows, movies, music, all aspects of the media constantly have this topic on the tip of their tongues.

To ignore it would be to feign ignorance. On the religious front, the Bible is littered with calls to be informed. On the citizenship front, it is our duty to be informed of the issues which permeate society (Aristotle would back me up on that one).

3. What can we do to improve our relationship with addressing this issue? Or can things be improved? 

To recap: this issue is important and Christianity hasn’t done an adequate job addressing it. So how can we improve? (note: this list is in no way exhaustive)

Trust/Rapport: One cannot approach a conversation which gets at the deepest parts of a person’s being without rapport. This is the same reason why doing door-to-door evangelizing is one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard of. Let me illustrate my point. Here are things I want to talk to strangers about:

• the weather.
• weekend plans.
• nothing.

What all three of those things have in common is that they are shallow conversation topics which have little-to-no emotion invested in them. I would, however, be willing to talk to my best friend about topics that are deep, important and have feelings/emotions invested in them. The difference between my best friend and a stranger? Trust, rapport, credibility. Christians need to understand this.

Definition of Terms: What one person means by a term isn’t always the same as what another person means by that term. In a discussion as complex as homosexuality it’s imperative that both sides define their terms. As we define terms, we must not jump from one area of the debate to another for the same terms may not be applicable. You can’t jump from “Gay marriage isn’t biblically supported” to “it’s not the state’s job to grant marriage licenses anyways!” That move lacks a concrete definition of terms, and it’s sloppy debating. Don’t go for sloppy, keep it tight (your debating, that is).

Remember Your Bias/Limitations: Just because you consider yourself an open-minded and inquisitive soul doesn’t mean you don’t have biases. Being open and aware of these biases will allow you to pursue truth while being cognizant of your limitations. Be willing to say “You know, I don’t know enough about that particular line of thought.” 

Speak Cautiously: As with any debate, it’s important to speak cautiously. Better to say “this might be the case” versus “it is the case unequivocally” and be wrong. Speaking cautiously is even more important when the discussion centers around issues that are core to who a person is. Be careful, not brash.

Speak Confidently: On the flip side, speak with conviction, the conviction of someone who believes in what they’re saying. Don’t hedge your statements too much. Constantly saying “it’s possible...” or “it might be the case...” leaves you sounding flimsy. When the time comes to speak assertively, do so.

Take Offense/Be Prideful: This may be the most controversial thing I’ve said in some time. It’s important to remember that both sides can take offense. Taking offense in some instances is a way of standing up for yourself. You are a person, one with an intelligent mind. You’re entitled to your opinions and if someone downplays your right to have that opinion, stick up for yourself. Don’t be mamsy-pamsy, inform your conversation partner that you’re insulted. I’m not advocating thin skin, quite the opposite. I’m suggesting that amongst cautious yet confident discussion there is space to say “I’m not blindly asserting nonsense and I’m offended that you’d assume that I am.”

I’ll end with an example and a warning. I posted an article a while back centering around homosexuality. The article was written by a Christian. A non-Christian friend of mine called me up and, after some discussion, informed me that the piece was most likely false because it was biased towards its conclusion. Even further, my friend informed me that I was toeing the party line by agreeing with said piece. Her argument was that because I’m a Christian and the author was a Christian, I would necessarily agree with the article’s conclusion. My response to her was that I was offended she’d think that way. Her and I had been friends for years, she knew I was a person with a open mind. With emotions running high, she told me I was close-minded for believing what I believed and she ended the conversation and the friendship. I haven’t spoken to her since.

This conversation is one of the most central issue facing twenty-something Christians. It’s rife with extreme passions, and to enter into this discussion is no task for the ignorant— no matter how well-meaning they might be. If you’re going to just lob bombs, stay out of the debate. But if you can strive to adopt a Christ-like attitude, one of charity, compassion, grace and conviction, I welcome you to the discussion.

Andrew Oxenham may be found on Twitter if he isn't blogging on his wonderfully named blog. Hint. Click it to find out. 

Zombies Hate Stuff

This is wonderful.

--Nick

Pulse: Sin & Faith (Guest Post by Kyle A. Kiekintveld)

1. What important topic do you think our Christian generation (20s) has to deal with the most? Why must we deal with this issue? 

The Church always considers itself in crisis, in need to address the differences between secular society and the Scripture, in the need make sense of war, poverty and the sorrow of the world, but one of the biggest issues facing the Church is not exclusive to the Church, it is best addressed by the parishioners. It is an idea as old as civilization, but greatly exacerbated by our culture of constant consumption of media, celebrity and social networking.

It is the concept that we are simple beings. It is the idea that we can see a little of someone, through reality television (which of course is as real as the WWE), we know someone through what they say on Facebook, through the gossip, through the their attendance (or lack of) at Church. We think people have the perfect marriage, the perfect children, just because of a few quick Facebook or Instagram pictures. We have arrogantly oversimplified life and experience that we feel with little information we can understand what another person has gone through, we can pass judgement on their worth.
Of course this has no Biblical basis and we are warned heavily against judging one another, but it is part of the human condition. It is heavily ingrained not only in our culture but our psychology as well. The benefits of making decisions and judgements on people are numerous, even when we know we must fight it.

2. In what (positive or negative) ways has our generation already engaged with this issue?

The Bible addresses this issue directly, most powerfully with the story of the Woman at the Well. In the midday heat while Jesus takes a break at Jacob’s Well, a Samaritan woman went to fetch water, and in typical Jesus fashion, Jesus broke a number of taboos, he spoke to her (who was to be despised because she was not just a woman but a Samaritan woman) and he asked her to fetch him a drink, which would have rendered the drink unclean. The woman was known to have multiple husbands and be living with a man she was not wed to (thus she fetched water at the hottest part of the day to avoid the judgment of others) still Jesus broke taboos to speak to her. He did not think twice to speak to the woman despite her immorality. 

At the best of times Church can be an emotional and spiritually difficult place to attend but for those who are introverted, those who struggle with their own sins, to feel judged when they attend Church just created a barrier that can seem insurmountable. Yet despite of stagnant or even dwindling Church attendance Christian media is a successful and even growing industry. People still have faith but feel a disconnect with Church itself.

3. What can we do to improve our relationship with addressing this issue? Or can things be improved?

Fortunately all is not lost on this issue. Churches have numerous ways to combat this disconnect, from Podcasts of Sermons to Outreach Groups to House Churches. The latter two are perhaps the best responses the Church has. Both allow much more intimate worship than trying to blend into a crowd of dozens, hundreds or even thousands. These are not complete solutions to the problem, in the end we must remember even if we know the sin, the sinner is made in God’s beautiful and infinitely complex image.

Kyle A. Kiekintveld is a writer based out of Western Michigan, he is an avid beer, music, literature and video game aficionado. Despite his love for profanity, violent, violent video games and Harry Potter, Kyle is fairly certain Jesus would like him. He can be found on Twitter and Tumblr.

The Power of Race in Interracial Churches

McKnight on Korie Edwards:

There are problems in American culture for interracial churches: since churches are disestablished, people can choose which church they attend. Since people are smitten by “homophily” (we choose people like us), we choose churches like us … and that means white folks choose white churches and African Americans choose African American churches.

What’s more: white people, or better yet white hegemony, are both structurally powerful and blind to what whiteness means. Whiteness is about power in the deep structures of society; race is about structured power.

Her contention is that interracial churches are more or less white-based churches and not genuinely interracial churches. They are merely a dish of white ice cream with sprinkles spread all over the surface. Whites have a structural advantage, there is white normativity, and white transparency (not seeing whiteness) means white normativity will prevail. This whiteness is inherent to interracial churches, so she argues.

African American churches have been places of refuge, so interracial churches — remember the element of choice — is not the choice of most African Americans, and those who do choose the interracial church are usually those who were reared in multi-cultural contexts.

Korie Edwards examines church worship, church participation in extra-church activities, in spiritual affirmative action, in racial identity, and in why folks attend interracial churches … her conclusions mesh across the board: interracial churches are shaped by whiteness and not genuine interracial elements.

What will those be?

For the rest of the article, and Scot McKnight's endorsement, enjoy it here.

--Nick

The State of Stress in Millennial America

I found this survey quite interesting. I tend to be a fairly stressful person so this wasn't news to me.

USAToday:

Stress levels for Americans have taken a decidedly downward turn across the USA — except for young adults, whose stress is higher than the national norm, says a survey to be released Thursday. 

Those ages 18-33 — the Millennial generation — are plenty stressed, and it's not letting up: 39% say their stress has increased in the past year; 52% say stress has kept them awake at night in the past month. And more than any other age group, they report being told by a health care provider that they have either depression or an anxiety disorder. 

The online survey of 2,020 U.S. adults 18 and older, conducted in August by Harris Interactive for the American Psychological Association, has been taking the stress pulse of Americans since 2007.

On a 10-point scale, where 1 means "little or no stress" and 10 means "a great deal of stress," the 2012 average is 4.9. 

But for Millennials, it's 5.4.

 --Nick

An Egalitarian Perspective on Women in Combat

This is not an easy issue. Most Christians would agree that war is something to avoided at all cost, and that one doesn't go to war unless one has excellent reasons. This controversy over the service of women has been percolating in the back of my mind for a long time, and I think I'm completely uncertain about what I think. I'm a convinced Egalitarian in the church and in the home, so this is a new idea for me.

So this will be mostly off the cuff, just to put some thoughts down on pixelated paper.

I think that . . .

The physical and psychological duress can easily effect men as well as women. I've seen such things in both male and female friends, especially in some people I love. So in terms of "durability" I don't have much reason to be opposed to women in combat.

I think that . . .

I wouldn't exclude women from combat, or being on the front lines, if they were able to pass the standards set by the military and we had the complete support of not only the higher ups but also from those on the ground. This means testing such things and allowing for units to support or deny the motion.

I think that . . .

It would bother me greatly if, hypothetically, I were to hop on YouTube one day to find a minute long video of a female soldier being tortured. On an emotional level, it bothers me period but for some reason, to watch a woman suffer (as I have witnessed women being oppressed) has always bothered me. Violence towards women in film and television is a phenomenon that rattles my bones and I can't bother to watch. I nearly walked out of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo multiple times.

I think that . . .

The Bible doesn't seem to explicitly disallow a woman from serving in the military, though it doesn't give much positive reasons to support it either. Deborah was a leader, general and prophet over all Israel but it never says she picked up a sword. You have instances of women defending themselves with mighty force throughout the Scriptures (Jael being an example) but Scripture seems to be silent on the issue.

I think that . . .

I really don't know what to think. Part of me believes that if a capable woman wants to serve her country and wants to do so on the front lines, then she should be allowed to do so. Another part of me wishes we didn't have a problem with this in the first place.

All of me wishes it never came to any of this. A poll by Politico shows that 75% of American voters are in favor of women in combat. I wonder what the stats are for those in the Church.

Thoughts?

--Nick

What Would Jesus Brew, or "Pub" Theology

I'm totally down for this. Stouts and Porters for the New Testament (particularly Paul) and IPAs for the Old Testament, particularly the good parts.

Kerby:

In Norfolk, Virginia, Holy Trinity Catholic Church regularly lists in the weekly bulletin “Theology on Tap” at a local bar and grill. There a regular crowd gathers to ponder Christianity over a glass of ale … or milk, whatever suits attendees, who often include local university students and sailors from the nearby base.

In New York City, Jay Bakker, son of disgraced televangelists Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, preaches in bars while sipping on iced tea since he’s been sober for 14 years after a tumultuous childhood in front of TV cameras.  

In Cheyenne, Wyoming, Uncle Charlie’s Grill and Lounge hosts a weekly “Bibles and Beer” discussion that routinely attracts people of all faiths – and even an atheist, reports Kevin Moloney for USA TODAY. “As many as 45 people have shown up, some toting Bibles. Some might have a drink; others stick to water,” he reports. “Some talk; others mostly listen. There are only a few ground rules: Avoid debate and stick to the text to be discussed that week.”

The idea of Bibles and bars may be highly offensive to devout teetotalers and worrisome to recovering alcoholics. Aftre all, in some circles, it’s not a matter of discussion whether the wine Jesus miraculously made from water at the famous Cana wedding was actually unfermented grape juice.

Southern Baptist spokesman Dr. Richard Land says he’s never tasted beer and doesn’t want to. “While the Bible may be subject to various interpretations concerning alcohol consumption (as well as the nature of the beverage consumed), Southern Baptists’ understanding of the issue has been exceedingly unambiguous,” the jovial Land wrote in a recent column, noting that the convention has regularly passed anti-alcohol resolutions as far back as 1886. “We often have been reminded of the potent question from Charles Sheldon’s In His Steps: ‘What Would Jesus Do?’”

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Allah: A Christian Response; Chapter One

WINDING THE WIND

Building off the foundations of his opening about the stakes between Muslims and Christians, Volf begins with a speech delivered by Pope Benedict XVI after the crisis over the Danish caricatures of Muhammad in 2006. The relevant portion is quoted below:

"In the international context we are living in at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced that, to foster peace and understanding between peoples and men, it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected."

Volf then begins with a historical analysis behind the initial support from Muslims for the Pope, and then the sudden backlash that followed when the Pope seemingly turned their back on him. Having not studied this issue in any real depth beyond mining the internet for the alleged cartoon, this was a real eye-opener. This is the world's most powerful Christian and he seems to be sounding tolerant and in the mood for the building of inter-religious bridges. What changed?

The Pope said:

"Intolerance and violence can never be justified as a response to offenses, as they are not compatible responses with the sacred principles of religion."

Volf believes that this reference to Muslim's rioting after the caricatures, and the Muslim backlash against the Pope's words was both productive and dissatisfying. The Pope seemed to be revoking his initial support. But the material seems far deeper than just that.

I will confess, it strikes me as both odd and amusing that caricatures would invoke such a violent response, but this coming from an American sitting in his parents house.

Muslim scholars responded with an "Open Letter" that contained a refutation of the Pope's words, a letter that in one year would become the document "A Common Word Between Us and You."

At this point, Volf has contended that the Pope has actually revealed a great chasm between both Abrahamic religions. His history lesson, build on modern principles, extrapolates from the past wars to create a tapestry of open wounds and smoldering fissions. There is a distinction made between Christianity's "God as reason" and Islam's "God as pure will" that travels back to the 14th century. Miroslav contends that historical Christianity seems to teach that God encourages reason, deliberation and persuasion; the perception of Islam is far more based on arbitrary violence and the use of the sword. In Benedict XVI's view, the Muslim God is a completely arbitrary deity, and therefore Islam is incompatible with deliberative democracy.

Now given that the Pope made comments about freedom and the "intolerance" of Islam in his speech, he inadvertently opened old wounds and showed a perceived distinction between both faiths. For me, this was illuminating. Whatever your thoughts thus far, Volf cannot be dismissed as not chasing the devil into the tall reeds of details.

From my own experience, I have noticed a great chasm between both faiths, but I had never thought to reconcile them together. I still don't think we really can, but Volf has certainly planted something in there. Away we go.

GENERAL RIVER OF CONSIDERATIONS

Even beyond the distinctions between Christianity and Islam (trinity being a big one), Volf contends (himself a strong trinitarian) that he has no interest in creating religious pluralism. He seems to view that as an intellectual cop-out and too easy to fall into. Christians, we are not dealing with some crazed liberal fundamentalist out to overturn everything we hold dear. Nor are we dealing with an impotent scholar who cannot recognize his beard from his nose. Miroslav Volf's work cannot be dismissed, and it ought not be. In fact, in an interview he admitted that the blurb on the back of Allah ["Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?] wasn't his doing and he did seem to express some doubt as to it's intended result.

However, Volf does seem intent on creating a sort of political pluralism. He does leave room for his being overly idealistic, and I do think he is. This is not a slam, but I'm a cynic. At this point, I'm hoping he's right but one glance at the headlines about material within our own borders doesn't give me great cause for celebration.

I'll leave it to later chapters for Volf's thesis to hopefully work it's magic.

A COMMON WORD BETWEEN US AND YOU

Inspired by the Open Letter mentioned in the first section, the expressed goal of the drafters was not to create division, but to mark similarities. I will several verses (I think that is what they are called).

According to the Qur'an, "Do not contend with people of the Book except in the fairest way." (AL 'Ankabut, 29:46). 

Taking up the claim that Muhammad follows the example of many heresy hunters, Benedict mentions the famous verse from the Qur'an, "There is no compulsion in religion" (Al Baqarah, 2:256).

And the one that stuck out to me and it is according to the Open Letter, "God has many Names in Islam, including the Merciful, the Just, the Seeing, the Hearing, the Knowing, the Loving, and the Gentle. Their utter conviction in God's Openness and that "There is none like Him." (Al Ikhlas, 112:4).

"If justice, mercy and knowledge are God's own attributes, then there is no room for divine capriciousness." (Volf, pg26). I will contend that capriciousness could be compatible with such things, provided it is redefined. But, that would be a redefinition, right?

LOVE OF GOD, LOVE OF NEIGHBOR

According to the Open Letter, Islam is at it's heart about love of God and love of neighbor. Though the Qur'an never explicitly states 'love for God,' a human attribute is applied to God. There is none like Him. The drafters of the Open Letter remind Muslims that their hearts must be completely devoted to God. According to the hadith, Muhammad stated, "None of you has faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself." The Common Word then goes on to bring about the two greatest commandments written to Muslims and Christs, love of God, love of neighbor.

They view it as an area of common ground, where Christians and Muslims can rejoice in similarities. This could be the bridge, Volf argues, to bring us closer together. As we found in the first post, Muslims and Christians make up a substantive percent of the world's population, and getting us to play nicely together in our respective sandboxes might be a worthy option. Even, if Volf concedes, it is overly idealistic.

I will conclude this section with a remark from Nostra Aetate, written by the Second Vatican Council:

"The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful, and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God."

CONCLUSION

I will confess that I didn't know this section existed anywhere. In fact, I know many Christians would say it is wrong, dangerous or even heresy to say such a thing. I know many/most Christians would never even think of such things.

I will also confess that I don't really know what to make of such things from the Second Vatican Council. I am looking forward to seeing what Volf writes and how he nuances much of his arguments. Thus far, I am unconvinced, but Volf's thoughts cannot be dismissed.

--NIck

Dual Impressions, "P.O.D.'s 'Murdered Love'" review

P.O.D.'s new release Murdered Love is both high-powered and controversial. Check out the review that James and myself recorded, and then decide for yourself about the controversy.

Here is a sampling of the lyrics that have gotten such a fierce reaction:

I am the murderer, the pervert, sick to the core, 
I am the unclean dope fiend, I am the whore
I am the forgotten child, ravaged and raped and sex trafficked
Since I’m a little strange Daddy called me a faggot
Are you the one that’s come to set me free?
Cuz if you knew who I am would you really want to die for me?
They say you are the cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree
But I know this is the one and only Son of God, so tell me who the fuck is He?

PS, it is quite good and worthy of discussion.

Murdered Love Review

--Nick

A Theology of Max Payne 3

SPLATTERED PIXELS

There is often so much more to rendered pixels and splattered colors. In finishing the nearly 12 hour campaign, I was struck with so many thoughts and wonders. This won't be a review, though there will be spoilers. However, I am more interested in the narrative and oft potent theological motifs explored in Max Payne 3 and how they relate relevant worldviews and perspectives.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY

In the beginning, there was Jack Daniels. Though similar to Denzel Washington's character in Man On Fire, this drunken and violent loser is far more compelling. The opening, rendered in stunning cinematics and a distraught voice over relays the trajectory for the next 12 hours. 

Simply, Max Payne is the embodiment of the worst we can become. He is not only crawling beneath the bottom of the barrel, he's found a new dimension of sorrow and pain. To many, he is not worth saving and he has little desire to save himself. For him to down painkillers and alcohol, then throw up as if this is normal brings a horrifying concept:

How can you save someone who doesn't want to be saved?

And how does this relate to God, free will, and the terror of the unknown specter of possible damnation and redemption?

In Brazil of his own (free?) choice, Max begins contractual work for a ludicrously wealthy family, swerving on top of the South American food chain. Brazil, as it is presented, reminds of me of the stereotypes of the 80s: coke, whores, and corporate yupsters (a new term?). It is here where the haunted Max actually seems relatively normal. At least, normal enough.

Within the first few minutes, we are treated to a critique of excessive capitalism and a fractured family atmosphere that seems to correlate very well with the United States. Commercialism is seen as god-like and people pursue it past every little thing that would offer true pleasure. It is here where Max Payne is not only alone, but rotting away beneath the floorboards of excess and sadness.

He doesn't want to be saved.

A FLIPSIDE TO NIHILISM & REDEMPTION

After the abduction of his boss's trophy wife, Max goes on a failed rampage, with each passing sequence more personal than the last. Unaware of the cultural shifts and politics, Max blunders headfirst into an already delicate situation (another critique of the United States) and tries to blast his way into saving the woman. 

It is interesting to notice that the further Max gets along in his quest, the more ambiguous he seems to feel about saving himself. At many points, you genuinely wonder if he is actually pursuing redemption and is instead simply hoping for that one lucky bullet to put him out of his misery. In fact, the second option seems far more plausible. 

God is never directly mentioned in the story, but for every lens flare and operatic cut scene, the presence of something is near. The specter of death, as mentioned, is close. However, the dualistic apparition of damnation/redemption is closing in and Max seems to realize this. Yet he continues to track down this woman through airports, train stations, buildings, strip clubs and the favela. 

Why?

He had many chances to drunkenly blast himself away. It seems being of sober mind reduces the suicidal tendencies. Why doesn't he kill himself? It has nothing to do with a God-complex, and the idea soon becomes a little more clear:

He is actually pursuing redemption. He seems his redemption in saving the life of an abducted woman. And this brings me to another idea. We, as people, are often the most staunch believers in our "truths" and often it takes a complete and total paradigm shift in order to shake us from our beliefs. A racist meets a minority that helps him. A drunkard meets his only son for the first time. Max has encountered, in the very essence of his being, the true desire to genuinely save. 

Instead of succumbing to failures, Max continues to press on.

THE THRESHOLD OF BRUTALITY

The concept of redemptive violence and the spilling of blood has it's roots in the political games of old and the myths of the past. In fact, it makes for great and compelling story telling. Who doesn't want to see Neo shoot hundreds of people and Leonidas vanquish his enemies. However, when encountered with villains that feed off the innocent, Max is stricken by revulsion and is actually moved into a greater action. To view true inhumanity should bring about a tidal wave of change. To not only save and punish, but to eradicate. His view of evil shifts from an individual focus to a corporate. Yes, "corporate" functions in a nice way as a double meaning.

And it makes more sense to me that, while I've begun to question the morality of "redemptive violence" (particularly in war), I cannot shake the crucifixion. In fact, the very act of what has reconciled all things is indeed a violent act, a horrific act. In fact, the pierced hands and feet seem to defy such a thing. This gives me great pause. It all comes back to the Christ.

Max Payne, in his campaign to save an innocent woman and to finally restore his honor, is walking right towards his own crucifixion, as if going to the ends of the earth means something now. He is willing to die and a shocking thing happens: while he has a dim view of human nature (particularly his own), he does subscribe a wealth of worth towards the woman and a hint towards himself. If he truly thought anyone else could do a better job, he would stop and return to his addiction. 

But he doesn't. He doesn't even ask for the cup to be pulled away from his lips. He rushes into it with a passionate fury.

If not me, who else?

I do wonder if the Christ wondered such a thing at any point.

CONCLUSION

Max's baptism is in both blood and fire, and as the hero walks away into the sunset, he is still scared and broken and beaten. The sins of the past have the hope of resolution in a future existence, and Max is prepared to face such things once again. In a hopeless place, Max found redemption.

Hopped and Bothered; Lienenkugel Sunset Wheat

Lienenkugel -- Sunset Wheat

Alcohol content 4.9%. Pours in a thin head. Very little lacing. Very cloudy appearance. Aroma of aged (very aged) orange peels. A hint of blueberry. Very clear Fruity Pebble influence, though this is strained in the taste. Flavor is ripe (too ripe) with fruits and pebbles, almost bitter. The flavor is indeed crisp and refreshing. The metallic aftertaste gives way to another bite of Fruity Pebbles. Wheaty sweetness.

Buy if: You want a light beer that tastes like a breakfast cereal.

Overall: I got the Fruity Pebbles aspect, but once I got past that, there wasn't much to it.

2.5 out of 5.

--Nick

"Would Paul Have Made a Good Evangelical?"

 I thought this was pretty awesome.

Enns:

No.

Even when you account for 2000 years of cultural differences between Paul and Evangelicalism, the answer is no.

Why? Because Paul didn’t treat the Bible the way mainstream Evangelicalism says you need to.
The way Paul handled his Bible–what we call the Old Testament–would keep him off the short list for openings to teach Bible in many Evangelical seminaraies and Christian colleges. Heck, John Piper, John MacArthur, and R. C. Sproul probably wouldn’t let Paul lead a home Bible study, at least not without supervision.

Here is the main reason why:

For Evangelicals, the Old Testament leads to the Gospel story. For Paul, the Old Testament is transformed by the Gospel.

For Evangelicals, the Old Testament, read pretty much at face value, anticipates Jesus. For Paul, the Old Testament is reshaped in order to conform to Jesus.

For Evangelicals, the Bible is God’s final authority. For Paul, Jesus is the final authority to which the Bible must bend.

You see, Paul had a monumental theological and hermeneutical task before him.  The Old Testament is centered on Israel’s need for obedience to the law of Moses in order to stay in God’s favor–what the Old Testament often calls “life.” God’s favor is most clearly demonstrated by Israel’s remaining in the Promised Land–if they obey, they stay; if they disobey, the are cast out (which is what the exile to Babylon was all about). And, as an added benefit, when Israel is faithful to God, the other nations will take notice and also bend the knee to Yahweh, Israel’s God.

Obedience to law; holding onto the land (and along with it worship in the temple); conversion of the Gentiles. All central elements of being an Israelite.

The Gospel of Christ that Paul preached said:

Law was a parenthesis, a temporary measure; holding on to land is now a non-issue; Gentiles can claim Israel’s God as their own as Gentiles.

Clearly something has to give. For Paul, it was the Old Testament.

For the rest, 

Peter Enns.

--Nick

Fundamentalist Christians, Gays & Electric Fences?

Oh my. I thought this was from Cracked. Or the Onion. Or the Huffington Post right beside the Kim Kardashian boob pictures.

Oh. Wait.

Anyway. This is spiritually painful. Even if one doesn't accept same-sex marriage, this still strikes me as unChrist-like.

Huff Po:

The barrage of anti-gay sermons delivered by North Carolina-based pastors to hit the blogosphere continues with yet another disturbing rant caught on tape. 

The pastor, identified on YouTube as Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., condemns President Obama's much-publicized endorsement of same-sex marriage while calling for gays and lesbians to be put in an electrified pen and ultimately killed off.
"Build a great, big, large fence -- 150 or 100 mile long -- put all the lesbians in there," Worley suggests in the clip, reportedly filmed on May 13. 

He continues: "Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out...and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out...do you know why? They can't reproduce!"

He also said that if he's asked who he'll vote for, he'll reply, "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover!" Many of the congregants cheer and reply, "Amen." 

Worley added, “It makes me pukin’ sick to think about -- I don’t even whether or not to say this in the pulpit -- can you imagine kissing some man?”
 
The pastor's comments seem in line with statements made by Ron Baity, founding pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem and head of the anti-marriage equality organization Return America, who told his own congregation that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people should be prosecuted as they were historically, and Pastor Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville who advocated parents "punch" their male child if he is effeminate and "crack that wrist" if he is limp-wristed. 

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Coffee, Caffeine & Thinking

As a coffee lover, I liked this.

Caffeine is the most widely consumed stimulant in the world.  We drink it in our coffee, we consume it in our cans of Coke and Pepsi. People take in so much of this drug, they rarely think twice about it. 

Caffeine is found naturally in so many of our foods and beverages, we take it for granted. On top of that, it’s often referenced for its positive effects on attention and mental alertness.
Not only is caffeine found abundantly available in natural and supplemented foods and beverages, you’ll also find it in products sold over the counter for fatigue, migraines and colds. 

But what are caffeine’s effects on our thinking? Is it helping or hindering our thought processes? Let’s find out… 

Blood levels of caffeine peak in as few as 15 minutes and on average 45 minutes after ingestion.  Some studies suggest that over 80 percent of U.S. adults and children ingest caffeine on a daily basis (Brunye et al., 2010). 

Many studies indicate that the primary role caffeine has affecting our behavior is its effect on blocking the inhibitory properties of endogenous adenosine. So what? you say. Well, that inhibition results in increased dopamine, norepinephrine and glutamate. Caffeine ingestion leads to increased stimulation of your heart (cardio) and even anti-asthmatic actions. 

Many studies have demonstrated that caffeine leads to enhanced cognitive performance involving various tasks (Brunye et al., 2010). It is often cited for its positive effects on vigilance, mental alertness, feeling of well-being and arousal.  Caffeine also has a positive effect on various domains of attention (Trayambak et al., 2009). 

Psych Central

--Nick

Countries According to Dis/Belief in God

I thought this was quite interesting.

Percent of residents who said they were certain of God's existence:

• Japan: 4.3 percent
• East Germany: 7.8 percent
• Sweden: 10.2
• Czech Republic: 11.1
• Denmark: 13.0
• Norway: 14.8
• France: 15.5
• Great Britain: 16.8
• The Netherlands: 21.2
• Austria: 21.4
• Latvia: 21.7
• Hungary: 23.5
• Slovenia: 23.6
• Australia: 24.9
• Switzerland: 25.0
• New Zealand: 26.4
• West Germany: 26.7
• Russia: 30.5
• Spain: 38.4
• Slovakia: 39.2
• Italy: 41.0
• Ireland: 43.2
• Northern Ireland: 45.6
• Portugal: 50.9
• Cyprus: 59.0
• United States: 60.6
• Poland: 62.0
• Israel: 65.5
• Chile: 79.4
• The Philippines: 83.6

Percent indicating atheism:

• East Germany: 52.1
• Czech Republic: 39.9
• France: 23.3
• The Netherlands: 19.7
• Sweden: 19.3
• Latvia: 18.3
• Great Britain: 18.0
• Denmark: 17.9
• Norway: 17.4
• Australia: 15.9
• Hungary: 15.2
• Slovenia: 13.2
• New Zealand: 12.6
• Slovakia: 11.7
• West Germany: 10.3
• Spain: 9.7
• Switzerland: 9.3
• Austria: 9.2
• Japan: 8.7
• Russia: 6.8
• Northern Ireland: 6.6
• Israel: 6.0
• Italy: 5.9
• Portugal: 5.1
• Ireland: 5.0
• Poland: 3.3
• United States: 3.0
• Chile: 1.9
• Cyprus: 1.9
• The Philippines: 0.7

For the rest, LIVE SCIENCE

--Nick

Weekly Esthetics, "American Psycho"

To give a synopsis of the film is almost irrelevant because, well, it is. Suffice to say that Christian Bale plays a yuppie serial killer who's tongue may or may not be planted firmly in his cheek.

The reasons I recommend this film are multiple in scope. First, the worldview is complex and offers a vast array of thoughts and perceptions, including the nature of reality and subjective experiences, an exploration of a mainstream cultural shift (though more satirical in nature), and finally a glimpse into the heart of darkness that may in fact not be as dark as the world around it.

Be prepared for some pretty graphic sexuality, (mostly) implied violence and occasional language. You know your limits. 

The narrative is fascinating, with an inner monologue that reads like Chandler if filtered through Tyler Durden. The pacing is slow, focusing on character elements and re/defining archetypes and villains. Patrick Bateman is narcissistic, cunning and uncertain about the strength of the skin that seems to hold him back. 

The film is technically proficient, though nothing stands out right now. 

All in all, I think American Psycho was a challenging film for me to sit through on the first viewing, mostly because I was stuck in film school and hated most everything that the other students loved. I still do. But, the more I thought about the spiritual and psychological factors of American Psycho, the more I considered how dare-I-say profound I found it to be. 

I consider American Psycho to be a far more interesting film than, say, Fight Club. But that is an entirely different post altogether. So, if you feel interested in seeing this, be forewarned. 

This film challenged me all throughout film school. I think many of you will find it challenging as well, and I hope you enjoy your Weekly Esthetic.

Ugh. Corny. 

--Nick

Becoming Mo(o)re, "The 'Fashionista' Pastor"

According to my friend Calvin Moore (check out his blog):

Recently, Pastor Ed Young of Fellowship Church in Dallas launched PastorFashion.com, a website dedicated to dispensing fashion tips to pastors. While, on the surface, this might seem like a ridiculous notion, one need step into any number of evangelical churches to notice the need for some timely fashion tips for our men of the cloth. Cotton and polyester need not be the only cloth we wear. Be that as it may, I do find it somewhat problematic that a pastor has taken it upon themselves to give style recommendations to other pastors. It seems like a waste of a pastor’s precious time and it is predicated upon the idea that outward appearances are a viable vehicle for communicating the gospel message.

A few practical reasons why I believe “fashionable pastors” is a bad idea:

1.     There are far more pressing needs for pastors to focus their attention on.

a.     Pastors (and the church) are called to care for the fatherless, the orphaned, and the widow. Mother Teresa was not known for her fashion sense. Billy Graham’s evangelistic crusades had very little to say about looking good for the sake of the gospel.

b.     According to The Explicit Gospel, the church is mired in teaching a counterfeit gospel in the form of “Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” People are going to church week in and week out, hearing sermon after sermon, yet are walking away never having heard the actual gospel. If this is the case, then it seems like a pastor dressed in a burlap sack who preaches the gospel is more valuable than the guy with the Windsor knot who isn’t.[1]

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

NY Times, "Young People's Priorities"

NY Times:

NYTimes/LINK

--Nick

Hopped and Bothered; Avery's Salvation

Avery's -- Salvation

Alcohol 9%. The aroma is tart and has essence of floral. Rose petals. Pear brandy. Thin head. Dark honey gold coloring. Bready. Cloves. Malty. A tad smack of hops. Nutmeg. Lots of body and flavor with a refreshing after kiss. Like velvet on the tongue. Like nectar. Crisp apple. Warm finish. The beer does lack a very strong finish, instead being subtle. It does lack a complex end bite, but it by no means ruins the experience.

Buy if: you are digging some pizza, and want a strong beer that is both light and refreshing.

Overall verdict: Pleasant and refreshing, candy-coated and smooth, this beer is welcome in both summer and winter.

3.75 out of 5.

--Nick