Musings on Woven Hand and Worship Music

Woven Hand's "Winter Shaker"

The circle is vicious of
Thoughts altogether vain
Haunted by battles lost
Still living on Idian land
I clap my dirty hands
Given over to self and left
To own devices
A quaking in the person

All his glory
All his glory

Deep devotion
At the bottom of the sea
Iniquity goes down like water
I have been staff struck
By a finger in the sand

All his glory
All his glory

This circle is vicious
Spoken behind the hand
It is the storm
That brought me in

Hallelujah
Hallelujah

It may not be a secret, but I do not enjoy worship music or what passes for worship music these days. That does not mean I don't find value in it, nor do I think we should be rid of it. I know many who find fellowship and solace in songs and hymns of old.

I considered for a little bit that it could be hardness of heart. The idea troubled me for a little bit before I realized that as a kid I didn't enjoy worship music that much either. Also, Braveheart manages to make me cry like nothing whenever I watch it. Maybe it is something different.

Maybe the painting of a different portrait upon the same canvas is necessary. In Winter's Shaker, you have native American ritualism, but instead the lyrics are perfectly Christian. I have found the song to be a little confusing, though I'm mildly confident that David Eugene Edwards has based the first stanza on the first three chapters of Romans and coupled it with his background.

In some ways, I do wonder if the Holy Spirit is speaking to the person through his own culture, or if the person giving praise is worshiping his own deity. However, thinking about being "star struck by a finger in the sand" harkens back to Daniel's interpretation of the "writing on the wall" and yet reveals something far stronger: what happens after? The recognition of sin or the 'vicious circle.'

'Spoken from behind the hand' could indicate fear or oppression (consistent with how we treated Native Americans) and yet the doxological (new word) statements of praise seem consistent with Paul in Romans 1l.

Either way, the song offers plenty to chew on.

I consider the song to be as pure worship as I can ever imagine, as not only do I find God in the music speaking to me, but I can sense community and fellowship with the original artists. I do not go to worship music to be propped up or torn down, but to get a glimpse of the Divine calling amidst human longing and our often pitiful attempts to communicate the transcendence of God. This in fellowship with others creates community and a desire to listen further.

Or, to put it more personally, I would be terrified encounter David Eugene Edward's God. Maybe that is what worship music should do. Just thinking.

For a snippet of an interview with David:

David I’m curious about your upbringing, I'd like to hear it from you what it was like to be raised in such a conservative protestant church.

We grew up under the law, we grew up in the Nazarene Church. It was a part of the holiness movement, which started out in Texas in the 20’s I think. It was all about your behavior. You didn’t play cards, you didn’t go to movies, you didn’t drink, you didn’t smoke, you didn’t dance, women didn’t wear makeup, women didn’t wear the color red, and so on. From one Sunday to the next Sunday, if you did any of these things you were constantly told you’d go to straight to hell. And so you had every Sunday to re-give your life to Christ. But if you died in the middle of the week, you were going to hell. That’s what I was being thought as a child.

You abandoned this church at one point…what happened?

My mother had a nervous breakdown, she just lost it…and that was it for me.

That’s not a way to live a life...

No it’s not. It’s no way for anyone…no one can measure up to it. And the people who think they are measuring up to it are lying to themselves. Or maybe they deceive themselves to the point that they actually think they are better than others. But they’re not, and I think most of the times they know they are not, and they’re just playing a role because people will think of them as sinners if they didn’t. That’s why you see when a TV preacher or a public person makes a mistake and is being caught with another woman, the world just jumps on that like a lion.

Right, because they’re hypocrites...

But that’s the whole point you see, every man is a hypocrite! Every man! The man pointing at the hypocrite is himself a hypocrite. We are all liars, whether we preach to large crowds or friends. Every one tells other people what they should and should not do, what’s good and bad, as their own set of laws. And then every person in its turn does the same. I’m telling you, there is no end to the laws; you have to drop’em all, you have to drop’em. You have to say to yourself I can not keep the law, I can not do it. The only way to stop sinning is to realize that you’ve already been forgiven. The only way to stop doing evil is to realize that God does not longer hold your sins against you, because of what Christ has done for you. There is no tally up in Heaven as in Oh, look what he did now – that is what the Devil does, and he brings it to God’s attention every time. He is the one who keeps a track of that and brings it up to God every time, Look! And God says I already paid for that with my own blood, thank you very much. It’s a finished deal. This was taken care of on the cross. But we’re still living this creation out, until it’s the time to be done. His kingdom is not of this world, it doesn’t belong to the Catholic Church, it’s not in Rome, it’s not in a building, it’s not in a box hidden in somebody’s crypt. There’s no magic in anybody’s bones, there is no magic in any of this stuff.  There is only you, the complete sinner - and God has completely forgiven you for what you’ve done. And you still have the free will to receive what he is offering to you, which is complete absolution. If you choose not to, then this is the only thing that you will be condemned for, because it is your choice. Everybody’s sins, everything evil anyone has ever done, has already been forgiven. And you can take this to Hitler, or to the best person you know.

For the full interview, enjoy it here.

--Nick

Odd Theology: The Politics of Pokemon

Because I feel like it, I'm going to annoy some people about their favorite childhood game. A modest proposal, if you will.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

Think about it. Free care for your Pokemon who have been shuffled off to fight your own battles. And I don't think Ash has ever needed free healthcare, because blacking out and waking up in a completely different location is normal.

ANIMAL CRUELTY

I think PETA might be onto something here. Despite some variations, most Pokemon seem to be relatively harmless unless provoked. Or stunned. Or hit with rocks. Seriously, is our ego that conflated to believe that helpless animals fighting on our behalf does anything besides wreck the integrity of the sanctity of life?

He said while sitting on a sheepskin rug.

DRUG LEGALIZATION

X Factor drugs to be used on Pokemon.

Given how Ash treats his Pokemon (that is, with reckless abandon regardless of their personal abilities; like sending an electric Pokemon to fry a rock), I doubt he seriously has any issue imbibing the drugs he stuffs into his mutant little Mickey Mouse rat.

In case you were wondering, Pikachu inhaled.

SCHOOL SYSTEM

Apparently, this is the failure of homeschooling. Utterly delusional. If there were a nationalized school system, there would be far less fat neck beard Pokemon trainers running around. The movement must be stopped.

And while we're at it

GAY RIGHTS

Rainbow badge. Think of the children.

CONCLUSION

Pokemon teaches our children that animals have the right to be beaten, captured and tortured into fighting. This assures us that the end result is that they can be healed and leveled up for us to further exploit. Like surfing on them. It teaches our children that healthcare is an inalienable right (scoff), violence is justifiable and evolution is an animated scientific fact.

Like gravity. Or the screams of lobsters in hot pots.

Pokemon is nothing more than a leftist liberal looney bin libertarian screed against all that is statist and strict. And for that, it must be burned at the stake.

--Nick

*paid for by Team Rocket*

Odd Theology: P.O.D. & the "I Am"

For those sensitive, the following post contains bad words. 

Read if you wish.

For those that don't know, P.O.D. released their newest album recently, and with it has come a firestorm of controversy within some Christian circles. You can see my review of the album here, but I'm more interested in exploring why and how this song "I Am" received such a frosty response. 

For thoughts that interact with mine, check out James Arnold's post.  

CRITICAL CHRISTIANITY

I reviewed the album before the official release and honestly missed the controversial word. I only noticed it when my friend James pointed it out to me via text message, and he heard it from my friend Calvin. I went back and finally listened to the song several times, and was shocked. Not at how aggressive and profane it came across, but by how blatantly Christian the song was. 

Here are some excerpts from critical reviews that I found to be gravely missing the point.

JesusFreakHideout:

Though P.O.D. claims to be a mission-based band focused on reaching the lost, their main fan base is undeniably in the Christian market. Many were shocked, and will be shocked, to hear that the boys decided to go with a word that is held as the ultimate "dirty word" in our society. Sonny sings, "Are You the one that's comes to set me free? 'Cause if You knew who I am would You really want to die for me? They say You are that cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree. Well I know You are the one and Son of God, so tell me who the f*** is he?" It's been a point of contention for quite some time now (since an unedited form of the song made the rounds to media). Thankfully, the guys decided to edit the word after some prayer and deliberation, but the fact remains that it is plainly there and recognizable, smeared out or not. In my opinion on the matter, I find it unacceptable. The usage of such a word directly after the name of Christ is completely disheartening and dirties the most beautiful name on earth. I understand reaching out to a person that doesn't know Christ, but that doesn't mean we have to act or talk like them to accomplish the mission, role-playing or not.

The author goes onto complement most of the tracks, suggesting that without the addition of "I Am" the album would've earned four stars. But this one song sadly "skews" the entire album.

Pluggedin:

So what's with the crass slang and rogue f-word? Regardless of the intended social or spiritual commentary, they just don't belong here. Ultimately, Sonny Sandoval, Marcos Curiel, Traa Daniels and Wuv Bernardo do a better job stumping for their San Diego heritage and the 'hood than respecting their legion of Christian fans. Moreover, there's enough righteous anger and grim imagery on hand that some young Warriors could get fired up and pointed in the wrong direction. Parents inclined to let their children download Murdered Love's safer tracks a la carte should still plan to walk through those lyrics together.

So, here are two examples that I will explore in the next section.

KEEPIN' IT REAL & OR CULTURE GAP DEFINITIONS?

The review by JFHO has simply missed the boat for the ocean. A minor point first. The "dirty word" in our society can easily shift tomorrow to something silly like "floops" or some such absurdity. Ask someone what the worst thing you can call someone, and you will get several different (colorful?) responses. This is a subjective claim.

Second, I don't think P.O.D. has ever been concerned about what evangelical Christians have thought. Especially when these same Christians (not JFHO that I know of) made a point of getting on P.O.D.'s case about tattoos, touring with Linkin Park and other such things. Sonny has made it clear that he isn't interested in the homogenized atmosphere that evangelicalism can produce. 

Third, I find it completely acceptable to include the word. Why? Because Sonny isn't writing for the reviewer of JFHO or PI or even me. The issue is solidarity, and Sonny has chosen to side with the victims. The poor, the abused, the forgotten, the deemed worthless. Seriously, I doubt that these souls mince their words about their experiences and since Sonny is channeling their voices into this song, why would he? In talking to non-Christians, I encourage honesty and that includes listening and saying what is on my heart, and listening to what is on theirs. This is identification with victims. Plain and simple. This is relationship.

It simply isn't fair to the context of what Sonny is singing about. The reviewers may not like it, but this reveals a large gap between Christendom, namely this:

Idealization and reality.

P.O.D. has shown they aren't interested in playing up the idealized notion of everything is okay. Everything is not okay. Read the headlines. Look at the slums in San Diego and Los Angeles. Look at these mega-churches and the wealth they have. Everything is not okay. To expect them to acquiesce to the reviewers' personal preferences of how one "ought" to talk is simply not how experiences and reality work.

Interestingly, if one listens to the entire song in context and avoids zeroing on the naughty words, the song is incredibly powerful. It includes spiritual warfare, a hearty dose of total depravity and Sonny explicitly paraphrases 2 Corinthians 5:17, and this passages deals with restoration and inclusion with Christ. This also echoes Isaiah 43:18, "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past." The song is redemptive and triumphant. It is overcoming sin with grace, with atonement, with Christ.

This not only implies that the soul involved is delivered from his or her suffering, but that Jesus is the only way. This song, from a theological standpoint, is as orthodox as one can be. You have atonement, resurrection, and redemption as clear as a bell. If I may be allowed to be cheeky, this should not be about "farewell Sonny Sandoval."

This is a triumphant ending to a sad, horrific story about individuals desperately in need of Jesus. This track is as missional than anything I've heard sung in church. Perhaps even more so.

And we miss such things because the word fuck?

PRAYING WITH ANGER

I'm not necessarily of the opinion that one has to conform to an image in order to convert the image bearer, but there is a time and place to recognize that things aren't as simple as we would like to think.

Sonny and Christianity Today:

The new album seems like the most explicitly Christian one you've ever done:

I don't think it was thought out that way; I think it's just what's on my mind. As I read Scripture and prepare for the return of the King, it's like, this is the reality. This is the truth. Kids in this culture, as extreme as they are and as crazy as they are, need truth. We don't have time to sugarcoat the gospel. It doesn't take a genius to realize that we're all living in a dying world, and without our faith in God and without his redemption we're lost. These kids realize that. So I think they just need someone real and relatable that says, "You're worth much more than you think, and God's not your problem. He's for you; he's not against you. And once you realize God loves you, you have to embrace it and make a decision on how you live your life."

Context is everything. Singing about sin doesn't involve butterflies and prosperity for every person. It instead invites us to look into the darkness for anyone, and to dive into it without abandon. We are called to imitate Christ, and He didn't seem to have a problem getting His hands dirty.

Sonny's purpose in this song is mission. Is seeking out those that are lost. 

If one reads the Psalms, or even Job, you will see prayers that are fraught with anger, with abandonment, with sin. Crying out, yelling. All this to say, the fundamental difference is reality versus idealization. Some Christians are idealists, and others are realists.

I am a realist. I don't expect good things to happen, and I've been not only blessed by "I Am" but I played the song with my very conservative mother in the car, and she got it. It prompted an insightful conversation about our hidden sin, and how condemnation always seems around the corner.

CONCLUSION:

But then there's this guy named Jesus. The guy who makes all things new.

And He moves in mysterious ways.

The people this song is about don't hear the naughty language, they hear the identification. They hear the understanding, the empathy, the sympathy. This makes them open. This let's them know that they are human.

This assures them that they aren't alone. Never alone.

P.O.D. and I Am:

I am the murderer, the pervert, sick to the core
I am the unclean dope fiend, I am the whore
I am the beat down, mistreated, sexually abused
I have violated, fornicated, and sexually used
I am the con artist, cold hearted, smooth preacher
Cash stealer, emotion bleeder, the soul leecher
Feed off the poor, but I'm a slave to the rich
I'm in depression so this reflection is making me sick

Are you the one that's come to set me free?
Cause if you knew who I am, would you really wanna 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?

I am fake, fraud, phony, I'm a known liar
Anorexic, rejected object of your desire
Suicidal thoughts keep one in the chamber
I'm a turned out streetwalking heroin banger
I am a secret cutter, porn lover, the town drunkard
Next door, neighborhood slut, I'm somebody's mother
Outcasted, arrogant, bastard son
I'm the talk of the town but this story has just begun

Are you the one that's come to set me free?
Cause if you knew who I am, would you really wanna die for me?
They say you are the cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree
But I know you are the one and only son of god, but tell me, who the fuck is he?

So tell me
So tell me!

And now it's spreading like a deadly disease
And now it's spreading like a deadly disease
And now it's spreading like a deadly disease
But I won't let you bury me!
Woo!

I am
I am what you've reaped, I am what you've sewed
I am that guy talking to himself, I am alone
I'm the forgotten child, ravaged and raped through sex traffic
Since I'm a little strange, my daddy called me a faggot
I am insecure, immature, even I disgust me
In denial, pill poppin', prescription junkie

Are you the one that's come to set me free?
Cause if you knew who I am, would you really wanna die for me?
They say you are the cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree
But I know you are the one and only son of god, but tell me, who the fuck is he?

So tell me

I see demons, eyes bleeding, my soul impure
Already know that I'm diseased, but tell me what's the cure?
This is me, we are him, and I am you
Old things pass away and all becomes new
This is me, we are him, and I am you
Old things pass away and all becomes new
This is me, we are him, and I am you
Old things pass away and all becomes new

--Nick 

Odd Theology: Pluralism & the John 14:6 Challenge

The epic fellas over at Homebrewed Christianity offered up a challenge of how to interpret John 14:6, and what progressives Christians have to say about it. Well, I don't identify as a progressive Christian, but I figure I love a challenge.

And I may get a free book out of this. Which is better.

FEAR AND ASSURANCE

The first recorded words spoken after the resurrection are, "Do not be afraid." The angel speaks this, and proclaims that Christ has risen. In fact, we see this throughout the gospels [1]. The assurance of the heavenly being is to remove the fear beset a physical creature.

John 14 begins with the context of the previous chapter, where Christ was in fellowship with his disciples. There he washes their feet, predicts his betrayal and generally makes St. Peter look stupid.

I imagine the disciples are pretty down after this. Here is where it gets interesting. In the previous verses (1-4) you have the assurance of future rewards of belief, of fulfilling the promises of old, and the covenant given that Jesus will not abandon them. This has practical implications for all people, but I won't go into that.

How will we know the way? This verse is immediate and pressing. How are we to see such things? How are we to know? What assurance, and so forth.

This makes the next section far clearer.

THROUGH ME

Imagine a son watching his parent leave for war. Imagine the tiny hands clasping to keep hold of his beloved parent. This example serves as a great reason to think that Thomas (and the disciples in general) felt, perhaps, abandoned by Jesus.

Which makes his declaration that He is the only way. This is probably about salvation (and I'm inclined to think it is), but the pressing context is of future reconciliation and of restoring their doubt and giving them cause for faith.

Given Thomas' question in the previous verse, this makes more sense. The relationship could be about future eschatological restoration (heaven, hell, purgatory, etc) but the immediate fulfillment is Jesus assuring his disciples of a present separation and future reunion.

Does this equate to pluralism? I don't know. I don't think so. Jesus seems to be pretty particular. Perhaps the debate between universalism (which is where I lean) and pluralism is something that should take place in the future.

PARTICULAR PLURALISM?

I know some universalist scholars have argued that Paul (extrapolating from Jesus) is both universalist and particularist. The tension comes from the judgment passages and the universal salvation passages. The best effort seems to come from the idea of context and the audience to whom Paul is speaking.

In short, particularism is necessary in contexts where people would abuse universal salvation, and is proclaimed loudly where some would be less inclined to so.

Can pluralism be particular?

I'm not a pluralist, so I'm more interested in the question of particularism withing Christian views of pluralism. Because it seems that if one is both a Christian and a pluralist, does that entail a particular view of pluralism? Or does it come down to subjectivism? As someone who leans towards an orthodox understanding of universalism (Origen, Tom Talbott, the eastern church), where do I fit in regards to religious pluralism?

I've never really thought about pluralism, so I'm branching out right now. ;)

Thanks Bo and Tripp for the challenge. Hope I did well.

--Nick

FOOTNOTES

1. See also Luke 8:50; Mark 5:36; Matthew 14:27. 

Jars of Clay and Outgrowing Evangelicalism

Enns:

In July, Dan Haseltine of Jars of Clay, posted on his website his experience of being a Christian, a  musician, and why he finds it hard–maybe more than just “hard”–to do that within the world of evangelicalism.

The band’s in a studio trying to finish their latest record–music is down, lyrics are getting polished–and Haseltine has this nagging thought, and stop me if you’ve heard this one before:

What he really wants to say probably won’t be accepted by the evangelical community because his faith experience is moving him beyond mainstream evangelical views. Yet, those outside of the evangelical mainstream, who might actually like what his band is doing, don’t know who they are because of their long connection with the evangelical subculture. This leaves him in a “middle space,” as he calls it, a socio-religious no-man’s land.

Haseltine isn’t worried about what his evangelical audience might think. In fact, he’s relieved not to feel he has to bend his spirit to conform to an ideal he does not embrace. But he’s not angry. He’s just plain tired.

I am pretty weary from years of pretending to be more of something than I am.  I am tired of carrying evangelical expectations on my shoulders.  I have never been so sure of my faith that I was able to find a true home in the church communities where we played most of our shows.  Our particular style of writing and the perspective that we have written from has not been an easy fit into an artistic community that has such a massive agenda and only a single idea of how that agenda gets accomplished.  I don’t fit there.  I may have at one point.  I did grow up as a youth group kid wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Jesus on it.  I did drive a car with a “Christian” bumper sticker on it.  And at one point, I was sure of who God was, and how God operated.  But I am not that way now.  And so it is impossible to write from that old version of myself. I am in the middle space.

Honestly, this makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes within evangelicalism. I've heard these types of stories before, with Derek Webb being a prime example.

For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

The Unclean Gospel

I'm going to try a literary exercise. I've been reading through Acts, and recently read chapter 10 and was struck by how powerful the implications are. Especially for those living in the Western world.

The gospel is a powerful thing. It can instantly captivate and and slowly shock one who is simply not ready for it. 

VISITATION

Peter simply wasn't ready for it. I'm certain Cornelius wasn't anticipating such wondrous things either.

Cornelius is described as devout and God-fearing. The Greek word for 'devout' in this context has connotations of being 'pious.' The Greek verb 'phobeo' can mean fear or terror. The fear or terror of God, and a pious nature. According to Ben Witherington, he was "a man of some status and rank...he is depicted as performing most of the typical duties of a Jew (prayer, fasting, almsgiving). It may be said that Luke goes out of his way to make clear that neither Jesus nor his followers were antagonistic towards the Roman presence in the East or elsewhere, and that in fact even Roman soldiers found this new movement appealing and worth joining." (1)

And this pious and God-fearing man is granted a vision from the one he fears. It is almost as if God accepted this worship and right action, in spite of the fact that he was a gentile. Peter is then called.

IMPURITY

Peter is afraid. As many are today, he worries about compromise. He is a Jew. He abides by such rules. However, Peter does often get overshadowed by Paul (especially the idea of neither Jew nor Gentile in Galatians 3), but here we get to see the set-up to Peter's eventual transformation. Peter is praying, roughly around noon, which suggests his attention to regular devotion. He is then granted a vision that results in various animals being offered to him. 

Luke's mentioning of "something like" in verse 11 suggests that the intent isn't a literal detail. Which makes me wonder how amazing such a thing could look when "something like" is the best Luke can do. Peter is then told to "kill and eat." His response "by no means" also echoes Paul, who personally favors such strong refutation (see Romans 6:1-2).

Peter's adherence to the law doesn't allow him to feast, and the voice speaks "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happens three times.

Think about that. 

The images of baptism, of cleansing, or the many laws of Leviticus come to mind. 

And yet the voice almost chastises Peter, hinting at the future idea of redemption, of gospel-infused revelation. Peter is intent upon keeping his heritage, of keeping his commission and this means no compromise. The sheet is taken away, and Peter is greeted by Cornelius's entourage, sent to bring him. 

EXPANSION

Cornelius falling to Peter's feet is akin to a slave bowing before an uncertain slave master. The language is rife with reverence. I imagine Peter, though cautious and on edge, almost nudging the man with his foot, telling him to rise. Another interesting note. Cornelius may have thought Peter as an angel or having some form of divinity. This may be why Peter stresses his own mortality. (2) The set-up is primed. 

Almost in spite of Peter's caution, he seems to take the voice to heart, echoing the "unclean" rhetoric he was given earlier. In the midst of a large gathering of people (v27), Cornelius explains what the figure told him, stating that God told him to bring Peter here. Then he says that they are waiting for Peter's words.

And it clicks.

Everything falls into Peter's lap, and his next words set off a movement that has exploded in the expansion of the Gospel to all ends of the earth.

"I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism ³⁵ but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. ³⁶ You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. ³⁷ You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— ³⁸ how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him."

Peter preached the gospel to a gentile, and the gentile responded. Peter's fear of losing his Jewish identity was lost to his shock and amazement that God was and is at work in all nations, drawing all people to Himself. 

The Gospel is living without fear. 

The Gospel is healing all.

The Gospel is inclusion into the fold of God, and we are to bring such inclusion to those that are excluded, that are bastardized and marginalized and under the power of evil, and to bring the way of the One who has given such amazing things to us.

--Nick

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Witherington, "The Acts of the Apostles" pg347.

2. Ibid. pg352.

Odd Theology: Pokemon, Dominionism & Appositional Musings

I might just do this every Sunday. Play some Pokemon and muse about the relationship between Pokemon and theology or philosophy. Y'know, nerd stuff.

Beginning with the naming of the villain:

Of course he does.

I did name my Bulbasaur "Origen." Yes. Yes I did. And I got my ass kicked by the little flamer.

This is actually kinda fun. Won't lie.

And the final results of my foray into the Pokemon realm:

Most of my favorite theologians, or at least one's I tolerate. Augustine being one. The next one's on my list are KIERKEGAARD, DANTE, PINNOCK, HITCHENS (yes, that guy) and TALBOTT.

In thinking and playing this, I do wonder why Pensacola and others reacted so strongly to the creatures "evolving." I probably learned more about biological evolution and science from the two weeks I was allowed to play Pokemon than I did in the several years of A Beka book material. Though Pensacola did allow me to play with corrosive chemicals.

Anyway.

I just got a Pikachu and named him CLEMENT. I tried naming him GAIMAN, but I think I'll wait for a psychic Pokemon to be caught.

As for theology, I do find interesting parallels between Genesis, Christian dominion-ism and the Pokemon world. Not really, but run with me.

I don't really consider Genesis 1-11 to be historical. Sure, historical things may have happened, but I see too many parallels with near-eastern creation myths and don't find the hermeneutical methods of interpreting Genesis in a young earth way very persuasive. In regards to Pokemon, I see some sort of De/Theistic Evolution at work, given the near mythological creatures and that some of the townspeople have a near "religious" fascination with them.

Gotta catch em' all never sounded so fanatical.

But, considering that Genesis 1:28 is often the central proof text for Christian Re-constructionists to support literally "ruling" the earth ( as well as "Christian" rule but I won't get into that), it came to mind when I realized I was capturing and subduing the entire nation of creatures known as Pokemon. Was it "good?" Not "good?" Or very "good?" It begged the question, "should I have dominion over this world, and subdue each creature for my own personal gain?"

Then I realized that I was debating this over brightly colored pixels when I could be eating tacos and playing basketball.

Til next Sunday!

Gonna catch em' all.

--Nick