I really like to read and study philosophy. That doesn't make me a philosopher. Several of my colleagues in theological education (missionaries as well as Ukrainians) can really get serious when our discussions cross over into philosophy. That doesn't make us philosophers either. And all of us end up teaching philosophy, in one way or another, in the various courses we teach and sermons we preach in institutions and Churches throughout Ukraine. Not even that brings us close to sharing the kind of nature/intellectual caliber possessed by a true, academically trained and actively engaged philosopher. I know because I just spent the last week with a real philosopher, and it wasn't anything like the above experiences.
Dr. R. Douglas Geivett — accidentally referred to as "Dr. Doug" during dinner one evening and hence, referred to as such from now on in our home (sorry Doug) — taught apologetics to the Talbot-Kyiv students this past week. Dr. Geivett is a professor of philosophy of religion and ethics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He has graduate and post-graduate credentials in philosophy, and he has been teaching apologetics, epistemology, philosophy of religion and a host of other courses for over 15 years. He has written and edited several books, written chapters and articles for edited works, written journal articles, and he speaks and debates regularly at Christian and non-Christian institutions and academic conferences. He is at the forefront of the evangelical revival in philosophy and it was quite a privilege to have him here in Kyiv to provide top-notch training to our M.A. students.
I tried to sit in on his class as much as I could. I've taught apologetics twice since being in Ukraine and expect to teach it many more times in various settings before our time here is done. My course (and the future students to whom I will teach it) can only benefit from my gleaning from Dr. Geivett new ways to think about and present apologetic themes and ideas. But being an administrator for the M.A. program, I had to spend lots of time out of the classroom attending to other necessary matters. I should have refrained from going to the class altogether, since what I did sit in on only made me want to be there all the more. Fortunately, one of the students recorded the lectures and will provide me with a copy. Unfortunately, I won't have any of Geivett's PowerPoint slides or most of the charts he drew on the whiteboard. Maybe the student will lend me those, too.
The personal highlight of Doug's visit was Saturday, after the course was over, when I took him on a 9-hour tour of Kyiv. Because professors for our M.A. program have to teach 8-hour days for one week straight, I try to refrain from barraging them with too many questions and discussion items during that week. But once the course is over, it's my turn. We talked about epistemology, apologetic methodology, potential graduate programs and plenty of good books, all interspersed with facts and figures about Ukraine and info about our respective families, of course. In general, I always get a little discouraged when I think about future Ph.D. studies, because I'm not sure if I'll get accepted into a program or be able to handle the level of study if I were to be accepted. Doug, in spite of his full exposure to my inferior capabilities as a philosopher, was extremely encouraging and gave me some really good advice (applicable whether I choose to pursue a philosophy or theology Ph.D.). Not all philosophers are so analytical that there's no room left for grace and friendliness. Thanks, Doug.
If you have a chance to read anything by Dr. Geivett, do so. He started a blog a few months ago and it is already jam-packed with posts and links. He most recently edited the book, Faith, Film & Philosophy: Big Ideas on the Big Screen, which has its own blog, as well. He gave me the book as a gift and I look forward to reading it this summer. You should too! You can see what else he's written by checking out the faculty publications page of the Talbot website or by downloading his curriculum vitae from the same site. If you get a chance to hear him preach, lecture or debate, or are able to take a class with him, do that too. You'll only benefit from it and you'll be that much sharper, intellectually, for it.
But to any future teachers coming to teach in the Talbot program, be warned; when a philosopher, theologian, Church historian or Biblical scholar comes to town, you'll have to deal with more than just the students. Your leisurely tour around Kyiv after a long week of teaching will include some hard questions and serious discussion.*
*"Hard" and "serious" are relative. What's hard and serious for your tour guide, won't likely be hard for you.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Jesus on Film — Give Us the Gospel of Mark!
During the course of my preparations to teach last week's Christology class, I came up with an idea. Inspired by both Scot McKnight's little book, Who is Jesus? and Donald Guthrie's big book, New Testament Theology, I decided to read through the four canonical Gospels in a week and underline every name Jesus was ever called or by which He was ever referenced. McKnight and Guthrie both provide deeper and more insightful than normal investigations into the various titles assigned to Jesus in the Gospels and the meanings those titles carried for those who used them. My goal was to read them all in context and in comparison with each of the other Gospels.
Well, as I often do, I bit off more than I could chew and found myself closing in on the end of the week prior to my class having read only Matthew, Mark and the first third of Luke. Thankfully—as many of you likely already know—there is a movie out that is not just based on the Gospel of John, it is the Gospel of John, word for word, no additions, no subtractions. Visual Bible International puts Scripture to film and, preserving the text in full, builds the acting and cinematography around the text. It's the same thing that happens when you read John and imagine how it all played out, only someone else has done the imagining for you and made a really great movie from it. So, instead of watching another episode of Lost or a little more of Ken Burns' mammoth documentary Baseball, we watched The Gospel of John.
I was as blown away by how beautiful of a film it is as I was when I saw it in the theater in late 2003. I remain baffled as to why it was released during the height of the debate over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Almost all of movie-going Christianity (and a good chunk of those who refrain from movie-going) had focused all of Its attention and energy on The Passion, hence almost no one went to see The Gospel of John. If it would have been held six to nine months and released in the late summer/early fall of 2004, I think it would have been infinitely more noticed and appreciated for how unique and powerful it is. I don't have anything against The Passion, I just think the Gospel of John is outstanding and should be on more people's radar screens.
"And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen ..."
And here is why I'm a little down that it is not more appreciated than it is. At the beginning of the DVD there is an ad for a Visual Bible International version of the Gospel of Mark, using the same superb actor and, I would expect, the same disciples and other characters from The Gospel of John, most of whom did a fabulous job. The only thing stated as far as a release date was "coming soon." Not having seen that ad before, I rushed to the computer and tried to find out if it had been released yet, or when it was going to be released. I couldn't find much, but what I could find informed me that the project is pretty much dead in the water since The Gospel of John did not bring in the revenue or attention that all had hoped. There may be some things happening to push the new film project forward that aren't being disseminated via the internet, but it doesn't look good. So, with as much enthusiasm as I can muster in light of my apparently dashed hopes, I encourage you all to buy, not rent, The Gospel of John. It's better than The Jesus Film, a more complete picture of Jesus' life than The Passion and is just a great movie. And then, if you agree that it's great, tell everyone you know about it. And then, with time, just maybe we'll get to see the literary beauty of Gospel of Mark expressed in the same cinematic beauty as was the Gospel of John.
Well, as I often do, I bit off more than I could chew and found myself closing in on the end of the week prior to my class having read only Matthew, Mark and the first third of Luke. Thankfully—as many of you likely already know—there is a movie out that is not just based on the Gospel of John, it is the Gospel of John, word for word, no additions, no subtractions. Visual Bible International puts Scripture to film and, preserving the text in full, builds the acting and cinematography around the text. It's the same thing that happens when you read John and imagine how it all played out, only someone else has done the imagining for you and made a really great movie from it. So, instead of watching another episode of Lost or a little more of Ken Burns' mammoth documentary Baseball, we watched The Gospel of John.
I was as blown away by how beautiful of a film it is as I was when I saw it in the theater in late 2003. I remain baffled as to why it was released during the height of the debate over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Almost all of movie-going Christianity (and a good chunk of those who refrain from movie-going) had focused all of Its attention and energy on The Passion, hence almost no one went to see The Gospel of John. If it would have been held six to nine months and released in the late summer/early fall of 2004, I think it would have been infinitely more noticed and appreciated for how unique and powerful it is. I don't have anything against The Passion, I just think the Gospel of John is outstanding and should be on more people's radar screens.
"And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen ..."And here is why I'm a little down that it is not more appreciated than it is. At the beginning of the DVD there is an ad for a Visual Bible International version of the Gospel of Mark, using the same superb actor and, I would expect, the same disciples and other characters from The Gospel of John, most of whom did a fabulous job. The only thing stated as far as a release date was "coming soon." Not having seen that ad before, I rushed to the computer and tried to find out if it had been released yet, or when it was going to be released. I couldn't find much, but what I could find informed me that the project is pretty much dead in the water since The Gospel of John did not bring in the revenue or attention that all had hoped. There may be some things happening to push the new film project forward that aren't being disseminated via the internet, but it doesn't look good. So, with as much enthusiasm as I can muster in light of my apparently dashed hopes, I encourage you all to buy, not rent, The Gospel of John. It's better than The Jesus Film, a more complete picture of Jesus' life than The Passion and is just a great movie. And then, if you agree that it's great, tell everyone you know about it. And then, with time, just maybe we'll get to see the literary beauty of Gospel of Mark expressed in the same cinematic beauty as was the Gospel of John.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Phones and Motorcycles
Not long ago, my wife had a post called "too bad I don't have a camera phone," which talked about some very Ukrainian cultural experiences. Yesterday, for a brief moment, I wished I had a camera phone to capture what I thought was going to be a very American cultural experience with Dietrich.
We were in a nearby mall and, while Josie shopped for a few things, I did my best to entertain Dietrich. It helped that there was an indoor skating rink (plastic, not ice) since Dietrich loves other little kids and can spend quite a while simply observing them. His dad, on the other hand, got bored after a while and looked for some other amusing distractions. I noticed a few of those riding machines for little kids—a spaceship and a race car, to be exact—but they required that you put the kid in them alone, so they were intended for kids a little older than little D. But around the bend I saw a few more machines—a horse and a police motorcycle, to be exact—and they were just Dietrich's size. I could stand nearby and hold him on the machine while it did its thing.
Next I tried to insert some coins. There was no way any standard Ukrainian coin was going to fit into the slot that seemed to be the intended place of insertion. I walked over to the spaceship and race car and noticed a sign (printed on a standard sheet of paper in Ukrainian, not Russian) that might have been telling me where to get tokens from, but I couldn't read it. I walked back to the horse and motorcycle and noticed the same sign nearly hidden between two huge, illuminated, protruding posters for clothing. Finding the sign wasn't much help, since I still couldn't read it, so I asked a nearby security guard how to use the machines and, since he answered me in Russian, I was off to get a coin.
$1.00 later, and for the first and last time at that price, we headed toward the motorcycle (no pink and baby blue horses for my son!). I put in the oddly but properly shaped token, held Dietrich on the motorcycle and we were off. That was the moment I wished I had a camera phone. But it was a brief moment. Within 5 to 7 seconds, he was certain that he did not like this black and white contraption with its flashing lights and poorly tuned, quite loud engine. I promptly took him off, gave him a few seconds to recover and gave it another shot. He let out a ear piercing shriek and we were done with the riding machine experiment for the winter of 2008.
No need for a camera phone just yet.
We were in a nearby mall and, while Josie shopped for a few things, I did my best to entertain Dietrich. It helped that there was an indoor skating rink (plastic, not ice) since Dietrich loves other little kids and can spend quite a while simply observing them. His dad, on the other hand, got bored after a while and looked for some other amusing distractions. I noticed a few of those riding machines for little kids—a spaceship and a race car, to be exact—but they required that you put the kid in them alone, so they were intended for kids a little older than little D. But around the bend I saw a few more machines—a horse and a police motorcycle, to be exact—and they were just Dietrich's size. I could stand nearby and hold him on the machine while it did its thing.
Next I tried to insert some coins. There was no way any standard Ukrainian coin was going to fit into the slot that seemed to be the intended place of insertion. I walked over to the spaceship and race car and noticed a sign (printed on a standard sheet of paper in Ukrainian, not Russian) that might have been telling me where to get tokens from, but I couldn't read it. I walked back to the horse and motorcycle and noticed the same sign nearly hidden between two huge, illuminated, protruding posters for clothing. Finding the sign wasn't much help, since I still couldn't read it, so I asked a nearby security guard how to use the machines and, since he answered me in Russian, I was off to get a coin.
$1.00 later, and for the first and last time at that price, we headed toward the motorcycle (no pink and baby blue horses for my son!). I put in the oddly but properly shaped token, held Dietrich on the motorcycle and we were off. That was the moment I wished I had a camera phone. But it was a brief moment. Within 5 to 7 seconds, he was certain that he did not like this black and white contraption with its flashing lights and poorly tuned, quite loud engine. I promptly took him off, gave him a few seconds to recover and gave it another shot. He let out a ear piercing shriek and we were done with the riding machine experiment for the winter of 2008.
No need for a camera phone just yet.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Bad News for the Futrue of the Sanctity of Life Movement
Although it can be depressing to think about how little progress has been made in the fight against abortion and against the slow move toward the acceptance of euthanasia, one thing is encouraging—the debate has remained in the center of the public square. As long as sanctity of life issues are debated and discussed we can hope and pray that the maxim of Justin Martyr might eventually prove to be true, "it is not impossible to put ignorance to flight by presenting truth." Maybe, just maybe, we can persuade the public and influence the government of the atrocities of abortion and euthanasia by sticking to our consistent, rationally defensible and morally superior message of the value of all life. With these issues debated frequently and fervently, it could and should happen.
But our goals will be harder to attain if the debate simply fades into the oblivion of historical curiosity. If younger generations fail to see life vs. choice issues as worthy of sustained public attention, then our message will have not only intellectual, emotional and moral obstacles to overcome, we will have to overcome issues of general knowledge and basic awareness. According to an article in the Feb. 11 edition of Time, we might be facing just such a change. The article focuses on the youth vote in the '08 presidential campaign and the contributors make the following comment,
"Pollster Frank Luntz gathered a group of New Hampshire students on the eve of the primary there, and the hour-long conversation barely touched on the hot buttons of yore: abortion, crime and affirmative action. Their world, after all, encompasses RU 486, lower murder rates and Oprah. What concerns many of them is the nature of politics: the perceived gridlock of parties, conniving special interests and shallow biases of the media." p. 39
I won't dwell on the lack of substance in the group of issues that do concern this particular group when compared with the issues that they supposedly don't care all that much about. All I'll say is that I hope, for the sake of the human dignity issues, that this little sample of youth is not representative of the broader youth population. If it is, our job is going to get harder, not easier.
But our goals will be harder to attain if the debate simply fades into the oblivion of historical curiosity. If younger generations fail to see life vs. choice issues as worthy of sustained public attention, then our message will have not only intellectual, emotional and moral obstacles to overcome, we will have to overcome issues of general knowledge and basic awareness. According to an article in the Feb. 11 edition of Time, we might be facing just such a change. The article focuses on the youth vote in the '08 presidential campaign and the contributors make the following comment,
"Pollster Frank Luntz gathered a group of New Hampshire students on the eve of the primary there, and the hour-long conversation barely touched on the hot buttons of yore: abortion, crime and affirmative action. Their world, after all, encompasses RU 486, lower murder rates and Oprah. What concerns many of them is the nature of politics: the perceived gridlock of parties, conniving special interests and shallow biases of the media." p. 39
I won't dwell on the lack of substance in the group of issues that do concern this particular group when compared with the issues that they supposedly don't care all that much about. All I'll say is that I hope, for the sake of the human dignity issues, that this little sample of youth is not representative of the broader youth population. If it is, our job is going to get harder, not easier.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
In But Not Of
With the spring semester starting this week, I probably won't finish this book for a while. That being the case, I want to share something from Kenneth A. Myers', All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians & Popular Culture—a horrifically bad title for an outstandingly great book—before I forget. By the time I finish the book, the current passage I'm mulling over will have been replaced by countless others, I'm sure.
First of all, a word about the book in general. It was written in 1989 so, lots of the "popular culture" Myers addresses is not so popular anymore. But so far, none of his now-outdated references have negated any of his principles. You can take out references to VCRs, cable boxes and Bon Jovi and replace them with DVD players, Wi-Fi and Justin Timberlake and the message hits home just as effectively. In sum, Myers warns us against completely removing ourselves from culture—which would be not in and not of—and against mimicking our culture by keeping all of its forms but replacing the secular content with Christian content—which would be of but not in. He proposes that we live in such a way that we influence our culture towards consistency with what God intended for it in the beginning. Christians, being Spirit-filled, live sanctified lives that can affect and influence the unsanctified culture in which we live. This is how to truly be in and not of. The rest of the book is a discussion of how we got the popular culture we have, how to assess it and how to go about influencing it for the better.
The passage that struck me today is about properly evaluating various pop culture products (songs, books, films, etc.) and determining which, if any, are acceptable for us to consume. Being the kind of person who often wonders whether or not I'm consuming too much, the chapter seemed directed right at me. I was relieved and encouraged to hear Myers express these concluding thoughts, not just because they leave a place for the intake and enjoyment of popular culture but because they correctly reflect my take on the Bible's instructions to us about culture. I think they should serve as a challenge to every citizen of the Kingdom of God as we enjoy the world into which God has placed us and, at the same time, try to influence it to be as reflective of its original intent as it can be this side or our Lord's return.
"Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial or constructive, says Paul in I Corinthians 10. Eating meat offered to idols is no problem for the Christian as long as the Christian doesn't believe that the idols have any spiritual reality. As long as the Corinthian believers were not caught up in the Zeitgeist of Corinth, as long as the sensibility of the culture did not dominate their own sensibilities, they could participate in the intrinsically innocent activities their culture afforded. But if someone was gripped by the culture's own myths, even the meat was tainted."
"The same holds true in our day. There is nothing wrong with frivolous activity for one whose life is not committed to frivolity. There is no harm in superficial pleasures for one who also has a knowledge of the tragic and of the transcendent. The subjectivism of popular culture is impotent for someone whose life is characterized by a rootedness in objective reality."
"Christians should not fear the idols and myths of our day, as long as they have no reverence for them. But idols and myths can take the form of moods and sensibilities as well as stone and creed, and there are many disturbing signs that many contemporary Christians have made the limited and limiting sensibility of popular culture their own."
First of all, a word about the book in general. It was written in 1989 so, lots of the "popular culture" Myers addresses is not so popular anymore. But so far, none of his now-outdated references have negated any of his principles. You can take out references to VCRs, cable boxes and Bon Jovi and replace them with DVD players, Wi-Fi and Justin Timberlake and the message hits home just as effectively. In sum, Myers warns us against completely removing ourselves from culture—which would be not in and not of—and against mimicking our culture by keeping all of its forms but replacing the secular content with Christian content—which would be of but not in. He proposes that we live in such a way that we influence our culture towards consistency with what God intended for it in the beginning. Christians, being Spirit-filled, live sanctified lives that can affect and influence the unsanctified culture in which we live. This is how to truly be in and not of. The rest of the book is a discussion of how we got the popular culture we have, how to assess it and how to go about influencing it for the better.
The passage that struck me today is about properly evaluating various pop culture products (songs, books, films, etc.) and determining which, if any, are acceptable for us to consume. Being the kind of person who often wonders whether or not I'm consuming too much, the chapter seemed directed right at me. I was relieved and encouraged to hear Myers express these concluding thoughts, not just because they leave a place for the intake and enjoyment of popular culture but because they correctly reflect my take on the Bible's instructions to us about culture. I think they should serve as a challenge to every citizen of the Kingdom of God as we enjoy the world into which God has placed us and, at the same time, try to influence it to be as reflective of its original intent as it can be this side or our Lord's return.
"Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial or constructive, says Paul in I Corinthians 10. Eating meat offered to idols is no problem for the Christian as long as the Christian doesn't believe that the idols have any spiritual reality. As long as the Corinthian believers were not caught up in the Zeitgeist of Corinth, as long as the sensibility of the culture did not dominate their own sensibilities, they could participate in the intrinsically innocent activities their culture afforded. But if someone was gripped by the culture's own myths, even the meat was tainted."
"The same holds true in our day. There is nothing wrong with frivolous activity for one whose life is not committed to frivolity. There is no harm in superficial pleasures for one who also has a knowledge of the tragic and of the transcendent. The subjectivism of popular culture is impotent for someone whose life is characterized by a rootedness in objective reality."
"Christians should not fear the idols and myths of our day, as long as they have no reverence for them. But idols and myths can take the form of moods and sensibilities as well as stone and creed, and there are many disturbing signs that many contemporary Christians have made the limited and limiting sensibility of popular culture their own."
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Thanks, Uncle Sam
Read the following song lyrics:
CHICKEN!
pay the chicken back back, pay the chicken back,
pay back the chicken back, do the chicken payback.
PIGGY!
pay the piggy back back, pay the piggy back,
pay back the piggy back, do the piggy payback.
MONKEY!
pay the monkey back back, pay the monkey back,
see the monkey, do the monkey, pay the monkey back.
CHICKEN!
pay the chicken back back, pay the chicken back,
pay back the chicken back, back, do the chicken payback.
CAMEL!
pay the camel back, sittin' on the camel back,
see the camel, do the camel, pay the camel back.
DONKEY!
pay the donkey back, back, pay the donkey back,
pay back the donkey, pay back, pay back the donkey.
all the animals together, break it down, let me hear ya …
CHICKEN!
pay the chicken back back, pay the chicken back back,
do the chicken payback, pay back the chicken.
PIGGY!
pay the piggy back back, pay the piggy back
see the piggy, do the piggy, pay the piggy back.
MONKEY!
pay the monkey back back, pay the monkey back,
pay back the monkey, pay back, pay back the monkey.
CHICKEN!
pay the chicken back back, pay the chicken back,
pay back the chicken back, do the chicken payback.
CAMEL!
pay the camel back back, pay the camel back,
pay back the camel, pay back, pay back the camel.
DONKEY!
pay the donkey back back, pay the donkey back,
pay back the donkey, pay back, pay back the donkey, pay back.
PAY THEM ALL BACK!
pay back the donkey
PAY THEM ALL BACK!
pay back the piggy
PAY THEM ALL BACK!
pay back the monkey
PAY THEM ALL BACK!
pay back the chicken
PAY THEM ALL BACK!
Do you find it hard to imagine why in the world I've posted these? You won't, if you go here and then imagine how much fun it is to jump around the kitchen with my 16-month old to this catchy number, while he laughs and screams contagiously. Every time we play this song, I'm amazed at how such meaningless, almost idiotic lyrics can bring such happiness to our little threesome. Way to go, Band of Bees, way to go!
But really, thanks goes to Dietrich's uncle, Sam, who put the song on a mix CD in celebration of the little one's life. Sam has been great about keeping us up-to-date musically through periodic mix CDs. Were it not for Sam, I would be in the dark about Sufjan Stevens, Arcade Fire and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, all bands that I can't imagine not listening to. Being in Ukraine, we miss out on a lot of American culture, but with Sam's help we're staying somewhat in touch musically. Keep it up, Sam, it's greatly appreciated.
CHICKEN!
pay the chicken back back, pay the chicken back,
pay back the chicken back, do the chicken payback.
PIGGY!
pay the piggy back back, pay the piggy back,
pay back the piggy back, do the piggy payback.
MONKEY!
pay the monkey back back, pay the monkey back,
see the monkey, do the monkey, pay the monkey back.
CHICKEN!
pay the chicken back back, pay the chicken back,
pay back the chicken back, back, do the chicken payback.
CAMEL!
pay the camel back, sittin' on the camel back,
see the camel, do the camel, pay the camel back.
DONKEY!
pay the donkey back, back, pay the donkey back,
pay back the donkey, pay back, pay back the donkey.
all the animals together, break it down, let me hear ya …
CHICKEN!
pay the chicken back back, pay the chicken back back,
do the chicken payback, pay back the chicken.
PIGGY!
pay the piggy back back, pay the piggy back
see the piggy, do the piggy, pay the piggy back.
MONKEY!
pay the monkey back back, pay the monkey back,
pay back the monkey, pay back, pay back the monkey.
CHICKEN!
pay the chicken back back, pay the chicken back,
pay back the chicken back, do the chicken payback.
CAMEL!
pay the camel back back, pay the camel back,
pay back the camel, pay back, pay back the camel.
DONKEY!
pay the donkey back back, pay the donkey back,
pay back the donkey, pay back, pay back the donkey, pay back.
PAY THEM ALL BACK!
pay back the donkey
PAY THEM ALL BACK!
pay back the piggy
PAY THEM ALL BACK!
pay back the monkey
PAY THEM ALL BACK!
pay back the chicken
PAY THEM ALL BACK!
Do you find it hard to imagine why in the world I've posted these? You won't, if you go here and then imagine how much fun it is to jump around the kitchen with my 16-month old to this catchy number, while he laughs and screams contagiously. Every time we play this song, I'm amazed at how such meaningless, almost idiotic lyrics can bring such happiness to our little threesome. Way to go, Band of Bees, way to go!
But really, thanks goes to Dietrich's uncle, Sam, who put the song on a mix CD in celebration of the little one's life. Sam has been great about keeping us up-to-date musically through periodic mix CDs. Were it not for Sam, I would be in the dark about Sufjan Stevens, Arcade Fire and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, all bands that I can't imagine not listening to. Being in Ukraine, we miss out on a lot of American culture, but with Sam's help we're staying somewhat in touch musically. Keep it up, Sam, it's greatly appreciated.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Truth in the Least Likely of Places
Here in Ukraine, only the Catholics and the Evangelicals — who together make up a very small percentage of the Christian community — celebrate Christmas on December 25th. Instead, Ukrainians do their gift giving on January 1st and celebrate Christ's birth according to the Orthodox calendar, which is January 7th. All of this means that things are busy right up to, and even after December 25th, making it hard to slow down and focus on the spiritual Center of the coming holiday. So, this year, we decided to move our sleeping in, special breakfast and gift giving to January 1st. Rather than feeling like New Year's Day, today feels like Christmas morning.
In that spirit, I tracked down the song, Spotlight on Christmas by Rufus Wainwright that a friend of ours had mentioned in an email. And it turns out that I actually love it, despite my best intentions to avoid being sucked in by catchy pop music that lacks creativity and does not involve much talent. I'm not making a blanket judgment on Rufus Wainwright, not knowing him or his music very well. It just seems, from this song and the few others that I've heard, that he creates catchy pop music that lacks creativity and does not involve much talent.
The main reason that I love it, however, has little to do with the music but a lot to do with the second verse. It goes like this:
People love and people hate
People go and people wait
But, don't forget Jesus, Mary, and Joseph
Once were a family poor but rich in hope, yeah
Don't forget Jesus, Mary, and Joseph
Running from the law, King Herod hath imposed
And they were each one quite odd
And mensch, a virgin, and a God
But don't forget that what kept them afloat
Floating through the desert doesn't take a boat, no
Don't forget that what kept them above
Is unconditional love
Yes, the line about the boat in the desert is cheesy and yes, he may not believe what he sings about Jesus, Mary and Joseph but, at the end of the day, finding Christian truth proclaimed unexpectedly in a pop song kinda gets me going. Nothing beats Linus reading Jesus' birth narrative from the Gospel of Luke in A Charlie Brown Christmas. But with our VCR broken this "Christmas," I'll thank Rufus Wainwright for bring the Gospel to me through pop culture.
In that spirit, I tracked down the song, Spotlight on Christmas by Rufus Wainwright that a friend of ours had mentioned in an email. And it turns out that I actually love it, despite my best intentions to avoid being sucked in by catchy pop music that lacks creativity and does not involve much talent. I'm not making a blanket judgment on Rufus Wainwright, not knowing him or his music very well. It just seems, from this song and the few others that I've heard, that he creates catchy pop music that lacks creativity and does not involve much talent.
The main reason that I love it, however, has little to do with the music but a lot to do with the second verse. It goes like this:
People love and people hate
People go and people wait
But, don't forget Jesus, Mary, and Joseph
Once were a family poor but rich in hope, yeah
Don't forget Jesus, Mary, and Joseph
Running from the law, King Herod hath imposed
And they were each one quite odd
And mensch, a virgin, and a God
But don't forget that what kept them afloat
Floating through the desert doesn't take a boat, no
Don't forget that what kept them above
Is unconditional love
Yes, the line about the boat in the desert is cheesy and yes, he may not believe what he sings about Jesus, Mary and Joseph but, at the end of the day, finding Christian truth proclaimed unexpectedly in a pop song kinda gets me going. Nothing beats Linus reading Jesus' birth narrative from the Gospel of Luke in A Charlie Brown Christmas. But with our VCR broken this "Christmas," I'll thank Rufus Wainwright for bring the Gospel to me through pop culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
