• Allows you to fetch all of your Flickr photosets as albums inside your gallery
• Allows you to fetch any Flickr user’s public photosets, recent photos, “favorites”, and/or “most interesting” photos (according to Flickr) and load them as albums inside your gallery
• Allows you to fetch an album of photos from a Flickr group
• Allows you to fetch an album of photos filtered by specific tags
• Allows you to fetch photos at any resolution that Flickr supports
• Allows you to fetch both public AND private Flickr photos that you have READ access
• Allows you to fetch photo descriptions from Flickr to use as photo captions inside your gallery
• Allows manual and programmatic refreshing of your XML images file, or your entire cache of Flickr API calls

The final result is a Flickr photo gallery wrapped in a premiere Flash-based slideshow interface that is delightful to your web visitors.

Visit the official Fetchr4SSP homepage!

Background

This project started for me just trying to finagle my own way of getting all my Flickr photos organized into album photosets and all available in an easy-to-use interface on one of my WordPress-driven websites. A tall order… but I knew it was doable. After fumbling with some WordPress plugins and such, nothing really worked smoothly enough. A Flash solution was needed, so purchased a license for SlideShowPro (SSP) and I couldn’t be happier!

The next task was putting together a PHP script that would build the complex XML needed to properly load all my Flickr photos organized into photosets into SSP. I tried an existing one with some success, but it lacked a few vital functions I needed… and it wouldn’t handle certain SSP abilities. Soooo, I coded my own. And after some polishing decided to put together a sharp website to peddle my fine creation to the masses.

My wife, the nurse-type, has taught me to initially give grossly obese humans the benefit of the doubt… because it is conceivably possible, however unlikely, that their condition is from a freak “gland” issue or some other medical condition that they either did or did not bring upon themselves. The aforementioned fellow definitely appeared to be a self-infliction.

But I also believe in freedom. I think everyone is free to eat however they choose to within their means. I say “within their means” because I think there is something fundamentally flawed with being obese AND collecting public assistance. I’ve covered this before including the sometimes non-usefulness of WIC.

For instance, does it make any sense to give food stamps to obese people? Okay, there could be the extreme exception for medical reasons, loss of a provider, natural disaster or other misfortune. But I mean, really… on the whole is someone who is obese really in need of assistance getting food? Aren’t those people’s layers of lipo-love-flesh a testament to the fact that they have a ready supply and are indeed eating very well, thank you?

So if you have your own money then you should be able to use it to buy whatever food you like (healthy or unhealthy) and eat it in whatever quantities you like (dainty or super-sized) however often you like (first breakfast, second breakfast, elevensies, and so on). My communist state of New York has already banned trans-fats from restaurant use in some areas - even though this has problems of its own.

And recently we find that misguided (read authoritarian) politicians in Mississippi want to ban fat people from restaurants!? How insane is that? Granted, I’ve seen some of the largest people anywhere at the local Chinese buffet squatting in a booth and scarfing down every fried morsel they can get their greasy, stubby fingers on. But so what? It’s a free country, right? Or at least it WAS.

Here’s the rub… to be a FREE country you have to enforce two very important principles. First, people must have free choice. Second, people must bear the consequences of their choices (both good and bad) . This is tremendously important. Consequences to one’s own actions is a feedback mechanism that must not be tampered with or the delicate balance that allows for free choice will be disrupted.

If people want to eat gluttonously, that this their free choice. Then, if they want to fly somewhere, and their large torso won’t fit into a normal airplane seat, then they can buy two tickets for adjacent seats or choose another form of travel. If their morbid obesity causes severe medical problems, they need to figure out how to pay the upcoming medical bills or go without medical attention. If they are wealthy and can pay medical bills without batting an eyelash, good for them. If they used their free choice to acquire health insurance, good for them. If they used their free choice to blow their money on non-essentials, then they should rely on family and friends to help pay their bills (NOT the government).

If the government stepped in and “cushioned” everyone whose gluttonous lifestyle caused huge medical bills, then that combined with finite resources would create the need to start dictating to people what they can and cannot eat. This is bad, but is necessary in a socialist state where health care is “provided”. The UK is already projecting huge costs to the public over the next few decades due to the terrible obesity “problem”. Who knows what further behavioral restrictions will be put in place there. That is exactly why I’m 100% opposed to ANY form of universal healthcare.

You know… if you’re gonna’ be stupid, you gotta’ be smart about it.

I love one-liners, and the poetry of this one rang true in my ears as soon as it left my lips. I quickly Googled to see if anyone had ever officially said it yet (like Yogi Berra), and to my delight they had not. So I get to have my very own one-liner… my very own Yogiism. Well done me.

The event that stimulated this burst of reason was this - I was told of a group on the website Facebook (a social networking site similar to MySpace) that was entitled “Henry Mills sucks penis” [the name has been changed]. This group was started and joined by current and former members of a local Christian school… and the object of their wrath, Mr. Mills, is a well-respected official of that same school and church. The group’s Facebook page includes disrespectful and insanely inappropriate and infantile content that I won’t share here.

Now… how nervy do you have to be to create and/or join such a group actually using your primary Facebook account with your name and picture displayed for any school official or parent to identify… and to do this while having not yet graduated from the school?! While you’re at it why don’t you just set your diploma on fire right now?! And needless to say, once the school found out about this Facebook group just a few days ago, it was quickly put out of its misery.

So upon hearing this story I exclaimed, “You know… if you’re gonna’ be stupid, you gotta’ be smart about it!” There is harmony in this statement - it’s found in the mix of bumbling wisdom and denotative paradox. But as I pondered, I discerned some “deeper” force at work here. So I put my thoughts down in the form of a socio-algebraic law:

Mooradian’s Law of Multiplicative Idiocy

As the probability of an individual or entity to engage in an idiotic action increases, the faulty cognitive processes driving this increase also propend the same individual or entity to engage in further related idiotic actions, such that the original idiocy is amplified through a mechanism of synergistic multiplication. This described propensity incites a daisy-chain of idiotic action occurring independent of (and possibly in addition to) the coincidental succession of an individual’s or entity’s natural random idiocy as expressed by a Poisson distribution.

As a previous leader of soldiers, I truly saw this law in action. Anyone who’s been in the military knows soldiers and sailors sometimes have an affinity for mayhem. And certain sailors and soldiers have perfected foolishness down to a black art. Now, it amazed me how my soldiers would sometimes commit egregious acts of idiocy, and follow it up by recording their actions in photographic or audio-visual form - thereby supplying incrimination leading to their own demise!? That’s the law of multiplicative idiocy.

Recently, on a local blog, I was conversing with an argumentative and illogical fellow. No sooner had I soundly discounted all his faulty lines of reasoning, when a mysterious second fellow appeared on the blog and echoed the first fellow’s identical illogic. Little did “either” of them know that I’m an admin for the blog… and I could see that “both” fellows were posting from the same IP address! Upon greater inspection, a third and fourth troublesome fellow on the blog were also from this same IP address! When pressed for the truth, the original fellow claimed that the other “three” fellows were indeed real people (housemates) whom he shared his home computer with. Of course, he couldn’t then explain why when I tracerouted his IP address it routed back to a single-point external gateway for a local health insurance company (as verified by their IT security staff). That’s the law of multiplicative idiocy.

How about the lady who tried to pay for her Wal-Mart merchandise with a counterfeit bill? She used a bill of such a high denomination ($1 Million) that not only did the store have no choice but to examine the bill with such scrutiny as would certainly discover the fake… but the store wouldn’t have had nearly enough cash to even make change, anyway! That’s the law of multiplicative idiocy.

The robber who empties the convenience store cash register, but then pays for a soda with his credit card before leaving. The student who vandalizes school property, then brags about it to a teacher. The man who shows up to DUI court drunk. That’s the law of multiplicative idiocy.

Thankfully, the resurgence of microbrewing in the United States is helping to overcome the great loss and to resurrect the art of brewing. I personally long for the return to the glory days of Christian pubs where God’s men gather to drink beer and talk theology.
- Mark Driscoll, The Radical Reformission

Now, many Protestant Christian churches in America have been near-continually lying to their congregations for almost a century about what the Bible says on wine and alcohol. They deny that Christ both made and drank wine with his apostles despite overwhelming scriptural evidence. Not until fairly recently in US history has the newer church generation been mature and powerful enough to start casting out the feminism-driven romance with prohibitionism (alcohol is sin) and abstentionism (it’s not a sin but Christians should abstain) that has been perpetuated by “nearly-false” prophets. To be fair, not EVERYONE preaching such blasphemy does so from a Satanic heart… some are merely ignorant or mentally blocked by their legalistic upbringing… but never-the-less it is a sin to declare a sin something that is not.

Diligently do everything I command you, the way I command you: don’t add to it; don’t subtract from it.
- Deuteronomy 12:32 (The Message Bible)

It never ceases to amaze me how anyone (even people trying to pass off as Christ-followers) will re-write and re-interpret history and scripture to suit their own purposes. I’ve expanded on such in my previous post Chardonnay and Lean Pockets. Here’s a link regarding what the Bible says about alcohol [LINK] and a link that even specifically addresses Jesus drinking beer [LINK]. And yet another link on the history of beer in the Christian-influenced world [LINK].

If self-righteousness were an art form, many Protestants’ work would be in the Guggenheim!
- Brad Stine

Here is a little history refresher (taken from The Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll) that I like to bring up every now and then:

• Saint Gall was a missionary to the Celts and a renowned brewer
• After Charlemagne’s reign, the church became Europe’s exclusive brewer
• When a young woman was preparing for marriage, her church brewed a special bridal ale, from which we derive the word bridal
• Pastor John Calvin’s annual salary included upwards of 250 gallons of wine to be enjoyed by him and his guests
• Martin Luther once wrote of the Reformation, “While I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.”
• Luther’s wife Catherine was a skilled brewer, and his love letters to her when they were apart lamented his inability to drink her beer
• When the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock, the first permanent structure they erected was a brewery

It is a striking truth how scarce the above facts are within Protestant sermons in the US. And as if our myopic faith had no limit to its hypocrisy… our “teachers” often neglect the fellow brothers and sisters in Christ across the ocean who live in cultures not plagued by relics of abstentionism and having no temptation to re-write the Bible. They regularly drink beer and wine with such Christ-given freedom that American visitors from legalistic backgrounds often express great shock and discomfort, a testament to the false doctrine they were force fed from birth.

Some Methodist minister by the name of Welch invents grape juice in 1869 to replace communion wine and we’ve been suckling it ever since.
- Steve Mooradian

I’m no liberal Christian… I’m a politically conservative, theologically fundamental Christ-follower who happens to drink beer and worship in blue jeans playing electric guitar. And now I will brew… but with so many choices of fine ales and lagers I am left to ask myself… what would Jesus brew?

Greece bumped the US Team (filled with NBA players) out of gold medal contention… Greece having only a single NBA player on its roster. This feels just like the 2004 Summer Olympics where the US got bumped from the gold medal round by Spain (I think). Geez… in the 2004 Summer Olympics we couldn’t even beat Puerto Rico, one of our own territories?!

Face it… United States basketball, embodied by the NBA, has become a spectacle… a spectacular exposition of attitude and showiness performed by grown, whiny children. We care more about dunks and 3-pointers than any of the fundamentals of the sport. Our fast-food entertainment culture desires the flash and sizzle of hard drives to the hoop and aerial acrobatics… not the mundane execution of 12-foot pullup jumpers and dependable foul shots. The NBA suits, knowing flash equals cash, restrain their own refs from calling the two-step rule on the big “playmakers” as they take 3-and-a-half steps to the hoop. Hey, if the crowds sing then the registers ring - somebody show me the money.

But alas… this perverted form of basketball encounters the truly objective challenge in the face of international competition. Are the NBA tricksters the best? Are the US court magicians superior? Nope. It turns out that a basket made from a 15-foot jump shot is worth the same as one made in a spectacular alley-oop. Without the Figure Skating judges giving points for “Artistic impression” the US style of flash over substance gives no advantage… and is possibly a disadvantage.

Things weren’t always like this. Remember the 1992 Summer Olympics? Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and the rest. We utterly cremed the opposition. But these players listed were the best. They had the fundamentals of the sport down cold. They knew (even and especially Jordan) that flash was great, but it was SECONDARY to getting the basketball in the basket. People like to say that today’s players are the best there ever were. *cough* What?! I think not… just look at how they do against other countries whose teams aren’t filled with cash-pumped players and whose people would rather watch soccer.

Now you may also say, “Hey, this is all because so many of today’s NBA All-stars refuse to play in non-cash events.” It is true that today some all-stars duck out of representing their country in international competition (which is a blog post for another time), but that is only a further testament to their selfish, glitzy mentality… and probably reveals a deep fear of being embarassed by teams they outwardly perceive to be inferior. Do you really think that these results would be any different if there were different US players there? Not in today’s NBA. We’d be better off using our college team all-stars.

Here’s an excerpt from the article linked at the top:

As they warmed up before Friday’s semifinal against Greece, the U.S. players put on a jam session for the fans.

Dwight Howard dunked emphatically. Dwyane Wade bounced the ball off the backboard, caught it and stuffed. Elton Brand jammed an alley-oop pass. Finally, LeBron James flew down the lane for a tomahawk.

As the crowd roared, the Greeks lined up at the other end and shot free throws. The moment foretold Greece’s 101-95 victory in the semifinals of the world championships.

The U.S. has dazzling skill; the Greeks are a dazzling team.

“We have to learn the international game better,” U.S. coach Mike Krzyzewski said. “We learned a lot today because we played a team that plays amazing basketball and plays together.”

[emphasis added by Negative99.com]

You have to learn the international game better?!? If that means you have to learn how to score more points than the other team, then YES, you’re right. Bless my soul, though, but I thought scoring more points was the key to American basketball as well.

This is why myself, and a growing number of others, don’t watch the NBA. How long until March Madness 2007?

Why? Because I want elected leaders who have policies that appeal to the movers… to the get-up-and-goers… to the put-the-potato-chips-down, turn-off-Oprah, and-let’s-go-vote-right-now-ers. I want votes cast by those with the most initiative… the most “genuine” concern about the outcome. I want the most civicly minded people to have all the say in who holds office. Because on the whole these people have some level of work ethic. The person who poops out on voting because it was raining (or because it was too much work to MapQuest the polling place… or because they didn’t feel like making the short phone call to find out their district) is NOT the person I want choosing a leader, because they’ll be more likely choose a laziness-enabler… some pervert in an ugly tie who’ll dole out handouts in exchange for slave votes. Yech!

It disturbs me when I see all these paid advertisements to try and “coax” people into voting. Whatever. Listen, either they care or they don’t. This ain’t American Idol and this ain’t supposed to be fun. It’s a duty… hence the phrase civic duty. You don’t do it because it’s entertaining or because some blowhard music artist tells you it’s kewl (and btw… that music artist… they ain’t votin’). You do it because it’s the right thing to do. Whining about being disenfranchised by the “boring parade of middle-aged bald men in ugly ties” only serves to reaffirm your immatury and lack of fitness to vote… and thus I am tickled that you don’t.

It also disturbs me that there are movements out there who want to make it easier to vote… by allowing registration in multiple locations and even suggesting that registering to vote be part of the required process for getting a driver’s license. That stinks because it’s poisoning the voting pool with those who don’t care… or who are borderline-too-lazy-to-vote… or who are only voting because a crackwhore with an acoustic guitar and a platinum-selling album spewed enough expletives about the incumbant. Making voting easier is worse than merely randomizing the results of the election… it’s active socialistic sabotage.

Of course, to be frank and balanced… I say it should NOT be harder for the elderly, infirmed, disabled, or military to vote. If anything this should be made easier (except for those tricky seniors in Florida who try to punch eight voting cards at once). But as a rule I want those who are physically able to vote to do so completely of their own accord… and walking over hot coals… uphill both ways… while being pelted with tennis balls.

Oh, last but not least… there should be a quiz! Easy quiz. Five questions (IN ENGLISH). Questions like… How many US States are there?… What is the national bird?… Where does the President live? And you’d only have to get three out of five questions correct for your vote to count. Seriously… if you can’t get three of five right then you truly do not possess the requisite knowledge required at a minimum to add any possible value to the outcome of the election… or to the direction of the country.

And if possible… maybe we could move election day to April 15?

I would be very interested in hearing people’s thoughts on this matter, especially other Christ-followers.

Here are some edited excerpts of my thoughts on the matter:

In “No More Christian Nice Guy” Paul Coughlin talks about how Jesus suffered for us because that was his plan… that was the Gospel… and his Resurrection concurred evil, literally. We are called to suffer in his name, but the four-year-old who punches a three-year-old doesn’t do it because the three-year-old was serving Christ… he did it because a four-year-old can bully a three-year-old. He did it because he’s a little bigger and is of a fouler temper. Kids don’t get picked on because they are Christians… they get picked on because they look different or talk different or are smaller. Taking that abuse doesn’t bring any honor to Christ or his kingdom.

The old school Christianity (1950’s-ish) teaches the walk away response… they teach that Jesus would never fight back, but that is the feminist influence talking (the same that declared alcohol a sin) and it is a lie. Would Jesus really never fight back? We know that he had to be crucified, but apart from the passion (including having to restrain Peter) what other examples do we have that he accepted blatent abuse? The Bible has mostly occasions of verbal sparring, and Jesus was great at it. And when he saw someone abusing his father’s house he took action with words and with a whip! He even shouted at people. His righteous anger was not to be ignored, nor should ours. My body is a temple, and if someone abuses it it is my duty to Christ to defend what is rightly Christ’s body, too… and that may mean that if a bigger boys pushes me on the ground for no reason I may have to get up and punch him in the mouth as hard and fast as I can.

Studies show that the “ignore it” doctrine shoved into kids’ heads in school does not deter bullies… they aren’t bullying (most of the time) for the reaction they get from you, but from the reaction they get from their laughing friends. Bullies don’t like to have their macho-ness challenged so they specifically target the least likely person to fight back. That’s the reality of bullies. Our mothers would be happy to see us boys simply walk away from fights… of course they aren’t the ones that have to face those same bullies the next day in school or on the playground. They are speaking as a female, and in the end we aren’t commanded to please our mothers, only our Heavenly Father.

I personally think the sermon on the mount has been misconstrued to allow Christians to be pushovers and not stand up for what is right. We wouldn’t let anyone abuse our wives (indeed the poor fool who tries to abuse my wife will quickly be laying fetal in a puddle of his own blood and excrement)… and we wouldn’t let someone come and take our property from right under our nose… so why would let someone take our dignity and/or harm our physical being? Do we literally stand there and let them hit the other cheek? Is that a literal command to us? If that’s the case then even walking away becomes an un-Biblical response. But I don’t think that’s what was meant, anyway.

Now, everything in moderation. We need to know there’s balance involved and that the other extreme is just as wrong. Going out looking for a fight is not going to draw anyone to the cross (at least that I can resonably surmise in the few seconds it takes me to type this). Once you’ve physically deterred a bully pursuing him for more “deterrence” is probably wrong. Also, if someone steals from your home and you didn’t catch the thief in the act of stealing, finding him at a later time and THEN stabbing him in the leg with your kitchen knife is probably a bad idea.

[...]

And everything in moderation again… I’m sure it’s a whole new ballgame when you’re not living in a foreigner friendly place and the rules can sometimes morph into an enemy. That needs to be taken into account. We’re called to be wise as serpeants… and Christ showed us that when he was in a tricky situation and people were trying to stumble him with trick questions. He didn’t walk away… instead he answered deftly and with a subtle sting that left his enemies speechless and the crowds amazed.

[...]

It’s been demonstrated that young males need to be taught by their dads how to be a man because the nature that God put in us men He (in his infinite wisdom) did not put in moms. They don’t understand, but that’s ok. I would get worried when our response, as males, to physical conflict resonates well with our mothers… for the same reason that I don’t take marital advice from bachelors.

Here’s some excerpts of my thoughts with regard to the allowance of defending your wife, kids, the weak… but not your SELF:

Here’s a thought. If you are the protector of your wife and children would it not be your responsibility to keep the “protector” in good working order? In that sense self-defense becomes a required requisite for protecting your family. And not even just for protection but for provision. I think if a crazy person wants to cut my arm off I have a right to pull it away… let alone not be required by the sermon on the mount to provide the other arm as well.

Even more so… if there’s a group of four males attacking me and my wife is with me I need to do my best to get out of the situation for her safety. This may mean I need to fight them as long as I can so she can get away… because I would greatly fear what they’ll do to her when I’m incapacitated by them. If we can’t get away then I need to take them out… for the same reason, my wife’s safety.

I think there’s also a difference if you’re suffering at the hands of local authorities (like Christ, Paul, and the disciples) or if you’re suffering because a drunk on the street decided he didn’t like you.

I didn’t mean to make my thoughts sound like weak vs manly. I see godly as BOTH meek and manly. I do think that feminism during the late 1800’s to present has reduced Christ’s character to a gentle bearded lady… concentrating on all his gentle and meek responses and glossing over his angry and forceful (violent?) responses. Therefore “godly” has taken on connotations of pacifism in disproportion to Christ’s example. Godly can mean meek or manly, depending on the situation.

This just came to me: would we teach our wives that the godly response to an attacker is to let them beat them or rape them or whatever? I just cannot resolve that with Christ’s character… therefore, for me, I need to understand turning the other cheek in a context that does not contradict what I understand of Christ. because I’m really, really sure that Christian females aren’t required to allow themselves to be raped as a way of suffering for the kingdom.

You are right, it does take courage to not respond in kind… and if your continued well-being is not in danger (i.e. the attack was a one-blow wonder) then not responding is probably the better response (and a difficult one). But remember, a literal interpretation of turning the other cheek doesn’t allow for walking away but for standing there until they’re done abusing you. I just can’t imagine how that’s correct.

And then after greatly scouring the internet I came up with some links that had seemingly Scriptural lines of reasoning for self-defense. Most of it seemed to speak of the fact that we are under the authority of the government, and so if someone is attacking us illegally, in defiance of that authority, then we are to respond in self-defense as permitted by that same authority and law.

Many have wondered just how far the famous “turn the other cheek” instruction from Jesus Christ should go in everyday Christian Living. Does it mean that we must allow ourselves to be defenseless victims of every thief or attacker that may come along?

It’s very important to realize the context in which Jesus Christ was speaking. In essence, He was telling those gathered there before Him, as well as us today, that Christians are not to respond to religious persecutors as though they were common criminals. He went on to say, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44 RSV).

Jesus Christ was not prohibiting self defense by Christians in a manner permitted by law. He also said, “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace.” (Luke 11:21 RSV). No “turn the other cheek” for burglars or looters, and by extension, every other sort of common criminal.

-www.keyway.ca/htm2002/cheek.htm

The New Testament says not to defend yourself when someone takes legitimate legal action against you requiring you to do what the law requires, or simply asking to borrow from you. You also are not to defend yourself against actions by the government; this issue is dealt with in greater detail in the author’s article on civil disobedience. This is different from someone who breaks the law trying to do you harm, because it is appropriate to defend yourself against illegal actions. However, you must pray for those who persecute you, and bless those who intend you harm.

-www.foxven.com/s-self.html

I recommend reading the entire articles of both of the above quotes. The second one is wicked long… just to warn you.

I am going to see TDVC because it will probably be a great movie and I like to see great movies. I like to watch Tom Hanks breathe an intangible but undeniable spark into the life of almost any character he plays. I try to only watch so-called Christian movies when they also are great movies on their own (like The Passion) or have some merit other than their “Christian” label. It makes no sense to watch inferior artistry just because of the label. Would you let a dubiously mediocre surgeon cut you open because he was a Christian?

I am going to see TDVC because it will be a topic of conversation for sure. The controversy alone has generated more dialog than any movie already released right now. The talk may well be questions about the validity of various parts of the movie… the accuracy of the historical references… the theological implications… and of course, the “could it all be true?”. Many of my friends and coworkers will come to me, being “the religious guy”, and ask me what I think about it or what my “priest” says about the movie. I know this from experience.

If I don’t see the movie I can’t enter into those conversations… I can’t directly and credibly engage those people with their questions. As a Christian I’m called to engage. Some Christians might say I could engage by speaking what I know to be true from the Bible about who Christ was and who Mary Magdalene was without having to see the movie… but it wouldn’t be as genuine, as applicable to specific scenes, or as honest. And it wouldn’t be as credible. Credibility is important, because there’s too many hypocritical Christians out there already. You know who you are… you who will condemn Desperate Housewives or Harry Potter or [fill in the blank]… and you haven’t even seen any of them!? All you know is that some schmuck behind a pulpit found it to be a convenient target to fill a Sunday morning rant session and you walked away with an opinion other than one you formed yourself. Now I’m not advocating diving headfirst into the sin city underground and steeping yourselves in every manner of worldly medium… there has to be some limits and you need to use your brain… but today’s Christians tend toward a missionally debilitating conservatism when it comes to culture.

Back to TDVC… I’ve heard Christians tell me that “I don’t want my money going to them”… but who is them? The “them” is probably about 75,000 people scattered over all of the cinematic industry, from marketers to mass-producers to theater employees to stunt doubles. The notion of keeping money away from a particular “them” is a fool’s notion. Your money will go to Hollywood in some form or another no matter what movie you go to. Then the argument Christians are ultimately making by proxy is whether or not to see movies at all, but that’s not the argument they’re vocalizing… so are they confused or intellectually dishonest? Or maybe just plain hypocrites? Christians have had a shameful streak of openly boycotting a “Judas” only to ultimately patronize a “Pontius Pilate”… whether we’re talking clothing, movies, restaurants… you name it. Here’s a tip - see the best movies, buy the best clothing, and eat at the best restaurants. Dig?

So you’d have to be an “outed” gay Muslim cleric hiding in a Pakistani cave not to have heard all the controversy surrounding this movie. Catholic and Protestant groups are calling for boycotts and disruptive litigation. But why? They say the movie is offensive… but how? Sure, the story has all the historical accuracy of an episode of the Teletubbies… much like most other stories from books and movies. Sure, it said Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, but does that offend you to hear someone think or say that? Are we all of a sudden offended by anyone with a different view than our own? Do we only see movies or read books that we already agree with? Who exactly, then, are we trying to engage? Many are seeking some truth from somewhere in this topsy-turvy world, and they just may look for it in TDVC… wouldn’t it be great to use TDVC to enter into a dialog with them about Jesus? Wasn’t that what the Book of Acts says Paul did in Athens?

Pastor Ed Marcelle of Terra Nova Church was a scrambled soul looking for truth in 1988, long before he became a pastor, when the movie The Last Temptation of Christ came out. The movie was met with much controversy from Christians for how it depicted Christ, so local churches would picket theaters and hold demonstrations. Ed recalls going to see the film and having to jostle his way through a crowd of Christian protesters who wore stern frowns of disapproval toward everyone they saw and stood in stiff-shouldered groups to impede entrance into the movie. What was the goal of any of that? What possible constructive purpose did that serve? None… those Christians may have had sincere hearts and some Biblical knowledge but they were acting like idiots. They could have brought a friend to the movie and then afterward talked all about Christ for hours over coffee… a priceless opportunity.

To my Christian readers, listen up a second. TDVC comes out soon. Don’t play the idiotic boycott game… and don’t let priceless opportunities slip away. Be like Paul in Athens and go see the movie. Because if you don’t then someday you may just have to explain why not. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

Here’s a good site for TDVC error checking: www.davincidelusion.tv

So what is it about this book? First of all… this is not a highfalutin and boring diatribe on Christian blah blah blah. In fact, nowhere are the words highfalutin or diatribe used. But the book is written very well, and with a straight-forward no-nonsense manner that breathes honesty… and is injected with a poignant wit that can only come from sincerity. In effect, Mark Driscoll writes perfectly.

“Reaching Out Without Selling Out” is the tagline for this tome of relevancy. And indeed, being relevant (and theologically sound) is what makes modern missions effective (see my previous post on relevance). If ever there was an instruction manual on how to be a Christ-follower carrying out the great commission right where you are… surely this is it! Most of our present approaches to reach the world fail… and we need a radical change in how we share the truth to reach our post-Christian culture. That radical change is what Driscoll calls “reformission”.

We are all on a mission with Jesus everyday, and we are either good missionaries or bad.

I could write for days on the topics expressed in this book, but you’d assassinate me or my wife would leave me, so I’ll be pithy. Driscoll makes clear that effective churches need to have the message of Jesus (the gospel), a true gathering of believers, and hearts in tune with the culture they reside in. Missing any of these three creates a ministry that lacks a vital component of who Christ told us to be. The balanced blending of all three of these, built on the foundation of the Bible, is what being a reformission Christian is all about.

What most churches and Christians seem to have the problem with is “culture”. Reaching the world actually means you have to go in the world… and if you think that’s intuitively obvious you haven’t been to many churches lately. Most church leaders will pay out mad duckets to send someone to an unpronounceable wasteland thousands of miles away to spend years learning and embracing the language and culture and music. Yet these same “leaders” won’t learn the music of their own culture a mere one mile away. You can’t make this stuff up. Driscoll calls the Christians that ignore their own culture “traditionalists”.

…Traditionalism fails to distinguish between Biblical principles for ministry and cultural methods for implementing those principles. Traditionalism clings to dated ineffective methods in the name of staying truer to tradition than to Scripture. The result of traditionalism is a Christianity that has all of the right answers to all of the wrong questions…

I remember a good friend who was the Principal of a school in Michigan. He would watch the show Dawson’s Creek religiously. As adult male to adult male I would toss him the obligatory hardship for devoting his time to such a teeny-bopper diversion. But you know what he told me? When asked why he watches it he responded in a tone similar to someone answering a trivia question they already knew the answer to… “All my students are watching it.” That really stuck with me… that short sentence spoke volumes.

Reformission Christians and churches exist to perpetuate the gospel and should be swift to change their cultural forms if they are not the most beneficial for achieving that goal. This is what Paul told the Corinthians about being all things to all people and using all means to see as many people as possible saved (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Reformission churches have to continually examine and adjust their musical styles, websites, aesthetics, acoustics, programming, and just about everything but their Bible in an effort to effectively communicate the gospel to as many people as possible in the cultures around them.

At the end of each chapter in the book Driscoll includes an interview with a reformission Christian. These people span the full spectrum for sure… Hollywood insider, secular radio host, former exotic dancer turned office administrator, secular band manager, television broadcaster, pub & brewery owner and operator… and my favorite, the tattoo and piercing studio owner, operator, and artist (who also owns his own tattoo magazine).

The tattoo guy’s remarks showed more insight than a dozen Christian Sociologists could journal together in a week, and packed more truthful punch than a 100mph Gideons King James taken in the belly. When asked about his ministry…

[I'm] revealing the truth of the gospel to everyone I come in contact with, primarily people between eighteen and thirty-five, and many who are very unlikely to set foot in a traditional church setting.

[...]

I feel I was put in this particular profession for the purpose of reaching this postmodern generation with the truth of the gospel in the arena of a desperate, lost, and angry culture. My goal every day is not to target and convert anyone but to look for opportunities when I might be able to show Christ’s love to people who have never once been shown what the real message of the gospel is. What they have been told, and what they’ve seen themselves, are the lies of legalism masquerading as the gospel, and “quick to judge and condemn” Christians pointing their fingers at them.

[...]

From what I see in the Gospels, Jesus preached to a society from within the culture of his day, not from above it as the Pharisees did. In my opinion, the majority of churches today are more concerned with converting one cultural image into their own cultural image, with the implication that theirs is “Christian” (where no one drinks alcohol or listens to secular music and everyone dresses in business attire), while those cultures which differ from their view are not. Once again, this is definitely pharisaical. Unfortunately, I find this sums up the majority of the church world all too well.

Wow! How true is that!

Driscoll deftly crafts the path to reformission, and it involves breaking down several myths that have been injected by the enemy into churches over the years (and no, this does NOT involve the Da Vinci Code). The biggest myth to me was “culture equals worldliness”. The fact that Christians have regarded to two as synonyms has nearly killed reformission.

There are elements in every culture that could be used to oppose God and His work on the Earth but that are in and of themselves neutral and useable for either sin or worship. Examples include tasty food that could be used for either sinful gluttony or holy feasting, music that could be used for either idolatry or worship, and stylish clothing that could be used for either lust or beauty.

And of course, what book on being culturally relevant would be complete without a quick refresher on alcohol. Our feminism-driven romance with prohibitionism (alcohol is sin) and abstentionism (it’s not a sin but Christians should abstain) has sickeningly not only produced a couple generations of pussified church leaders, but has made them dangerously close to being liars. Indeed, the enemy has been using this lie to mislead an entire nation of believers. So, compliments of Mark Driscoll, let’s have a history lesson, shall we?

• Saint Gall was a missionary to the Celts and a renowned brewer
• After Charlemagne’s reign, the church became Europe’s exclusive brewer
• When a young woman was preparing for marriage, her church brewed a special bridal ale, from which we derive the word bridal
• Pastor John Calvin’s annual salary included upwards of 250 gallons of wine to be enjoyed by him and his guests
• Martin Luther once wrote of the Reformation, “While I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.”
• Luther’s wife Catherine was a skilled brewer, and his love letters to her when they were apart lamented his inability to drink her beer
• When the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock, the first permanent structure they erected was a brewery

Most of those facts I did not previously know. Indeed I have cause to believe much Biblical truth on alcohol has been obscured from many a pulpit for many years. Some Methodist minister by the name of Welch invents grape juice in 1869 to replace communion wine and we’ve been suckling it ever since.

Thankfully, the resurgence of microbrewing in the United States is helping to overcome the great loss and to resurrect the art of brewing. I personally long for the return to the glory days of Christian pubs where God’s men gather to drink beer and talk theology.

Fortunately where I worship is inside a nightclub operated by (and right nextdoor to) Brown’s Brewing Company, a great local pub and microbrewery. But why does the alcohol thing matter? Driscoll explains this and much more in the book. I need to quit now or I’ll never stop… but maybe meet me for a Cherry Raspberry Ale at Brown’s and we can speak more on these things… as true Christians like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien would… over a beer.

Every time you see a news story about the “catastrophic sky-rocketing” price of gasoline they always stick a microphone in the driver’s window of some rusty lemon and get candid comments from a below-average joe claiming to be sweating crude because he can’t afford to buy gas to go to work… but he’s got $20 of McDonald’s and $15 in cigarettes sitting in the front seat. And seriously… a buck more a gallon makes commuting to work unaffordable? Are you kidding me? Where do you commute to work… the sun? We’re paying a fraction of what Europeans pay… is it still too much? We’ll pay $2.75 for 12oz of Spring Water (whatever the heck that is) and $4.60 for a 16oz Mochaccino, but that extra $5 that it’ll cost to drive to work this week is out of the question? Puh-lease.

This is the friggin’ United States of friggin’ America. This is an amusement park where everyone is richer than they realize. Really. People drop $5000 on a family vacation but then tell the news reporter that because of gas prices they’re afraid they’ll have to change their plans. What?! NEWS FLASH: Unless you’re going to travel the friggin’ country by automobile gasoline is not, has never been, and will never be the primary, secondary, or tertiary expenditure on a vacation. This family who’s ready to drop five G’s is going to pay about $30 more in gas. That’s less than 1% of their total vacation cost and they’re thinking of scrapping the whole thing?! What about sales tax (from around 5 to 8%)? Sales tax is like ten times the extra cost of gasoline on our vacations… but I don’t hear anyone saying that they’re going to have to scrap that exotic nude tropical island getaway because of the blasted sales tax. School taxes will go up ridiculous amounts each year… hundreds of dollars… but everyone would rather freak out about the extra $.80 in gas it cost to go to the mall and buy $125 sneakers and $62 cologne. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

Should I mention that many complaining of fuel prices are driving highway-legal Sherman tanks not known for their efficiency? That’s ok… the people didn’t buy them for their efficiency… because they didn’t have to… because they could pay $20 a gallon for gas before they’d change their driving habits. And you know what? They’d probably still buy the Sherman tank. And nothing says “I Love Me” quite like a Lincoln Navigator or a Cadillac Escalade.

Speaking of habits and behavior… oil is one of the most inelastic commodities there is… and until oxygen is no longer free oil will probably be THE most inelastic commodity (see the graph to the right). In our society everyone drives except in deep urban settings with robust public transportation systems. As such, people will buy gasoline so they can drive where they need or want to go. The price of gas goes up… but people still buy the same amount of it. Why? Because their driving habits stay the same. In our culture it’s not like we’re all in a big dorm room and all my dorm-mates head to the same class at the same time every day and we can carpool just like that. No. Everyone does their own thing and they have different destinations… different stops on the way… different times they like to leave and different times they like to arrive… and in our fiercely independent society nobody is in a hurry to give any of that up an inch, even if it means paying more in gas. We’re demonstrating everyday that we’re willing to pay mad duckets in gasoline so that we don’t have to change our personal routines… myself included.

And with regard to gas prices… many like to target the oil companies because they’re making record profits. Well done them. Here’s another NEWS FLASH: Oil companies don’t set the price of gas. Their profits are reflections of the rising price of gas. If you purchase real estate and the price of land in your area jumps up, then you’ve made yourself a big profit. Well done you. Oil, being a commodity, is set on the commodities market… and the price is whatever commodities brokers are willing to pay. Most of the fluctuations in price are due to human skittishness and fear more than anything. And it’s too easy to envision the oil companies as fat, white, middle-aged CEO’s who are stealing these so-called profits right out from under us. Oil companies are like any big company… they are tens of thousands of employees of various levels who are all smiling at the high cost of gas… just like you’d be smiling if you’re industry came into mega-bucks. Now, if you want to ask why the CEO gets a $400 million dollar bonus… that is a good question, but not related to gas prices.

So what’s the solution. Ask four people and you’ll get five answers. There’s no viable competing auto fuel that’s feasible for present-day society… maybe eventually electric or hydrogen cars will be more prevalent, but not yet. So as long as gasoline is the only car fuel and we refuse to change our habits the demand curve for oil will stay inelastic. As long as the demand curve is inelastic there won’t be sufficient feedback in gas prices to offset the rising costs of it. In effect we’re all doing the Kabuki Dick Dance here… so if you want to do something proactive either learn all the horse trails that lead to your job and local malls, or do what I did. I heavily invested in oil funds, both last year and this year, and I’m smiling ear to ear when I see the price fluctuate, because I make money the more scared people get about gas and the future of energy. So please… be afraid… be very afraid.

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.
- unknown

Let us look at this phenomenon on a familiar micro-scale… the video game. In Wired’s article the economics of today’s larger scale games, specifically its MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft, were examined for their effect on the mental captivity of their audience… the player. It was found that scarcity, not abundance, was a key ingredient to an engaging experience. Now, while every gamer loves a challenge, why would rich and fantastical environments with limitless resources not attract everyone who’s dreamed of making Trump Tower look like a taco stand? It’s not attractive because it’s not hard… and as it turns out, hard is fun.

Economics is loosely defined as choice under scarcity. After all, in the real world, there’s only so much to go around. You can’t always get what you want, and unfulfilled desires give rise to markets. But in a game world, there’s no inherent reason for scarcity. Game designers have given us plenty of utopias where we can have all the mithril we want, to buy whatever we want whenever we want it. Problem is, those worlds turn out to be dull. For example, the developers of Active Worlds made everything in the game free. Players built enormous houses - in which there was nothing to do. The game never quite caught on. That’s why today’s newer massive synthetic worlds make life hard. It’s why we have to scheme, fight, and occasionally beg for food, shelter, transportation, and great big flaming swords.
- Geekonomics, Wired Magazine - April 06.

Take a game like World of Warcraft… when you’re not fighting bands of enemies (or following the foolhardy Leeroy Jenkins into a deathtrap) you’re fishing, leatherworking, skinning, tailoring, or any of several otherwise mundane tasks. If you want choice armor and weapons you have to earn them. If you want a sweet ride of a mount you need to pay some mad duckets. And if you want the gold you have to earn it, lawfully or otherwise. It’s not easy, but this game is growing in players and servers every day. It’s hard, but it’s fun.

So why is hard fun? I’m not much for the rambling of psychologists, but a clue may be found in the seminal work of former University of Chicago psychology professor Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. He has a theory called Flow.

Flow is a mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing, characterized by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity.
- Flow, en.wikipedia.org

While the full concept is no doubt complex (and not without its more dubious assertions) the basic premise is simple. Activities that possess “flow” usually share a few common characteristics: clear goals, focus, loss of the feeling of self-consciousness, distorted sense of time, direct and immediate feedback, balance between ability level and challenge, sense of control, and intrinsic reward. If we look at this list we can quickly see the parallels with successful online videogames.

More than just in massive multiplayer games, there are smaller bite-size examples as well. Recently a small Flash game aptly titled Flow (created by Jenova Chen for his University of Southern California thesis project) gained notoriety when word of it quickly circulated through the blogosphere. In true Digg or Slashdot fashion Chen’s thesis website was flooded with online visitors in just a few days. Why, you ask? Is this game some gargantuan leap of Flash ActionScript technology? Nope. It’s small, simple, and patterned after Csikszentmihalyi’s principles of flow… making it unquestionably fun. There’s no record of high scores (there’s no score at all), but more than a few curious surfers found themselves engrossed in the wonderfully entertaining and aesthetically pleasing world of a small sea creature. Diving deep into the ocean to nibble little bright wisps of nutrition while out-swimming competitors was never so much fun!

Economics in games… flow in games… what’s the point? In the safety of the video game microcosm the behaviors of people reveal themselves in ways applicable to the “real” world. The same flow theory principle of ability-challenge balance that buries a fast-money-MMORPG is the principle that makes games like World of Warcraft flourish. This is, consequently, the same entrepreneurial drive that powers real-world capitalist economies over socialist or communist structures. The same lethargic undertones of the government collection of resources and subsequent reallocation can stifle the creativity and ingenuity of a people just as easily as reckless riches can kill a game. Think this is all a stretch? Think again.

This classic risk-reward model has proved itself over and over. Who would argue against the fact that the drive to excel is greatest where there is much to gain through excellence and nothing to gain through inactivity? This gain can be in the form of needed bread and water or a fleet of luxury cruise liners. If you were getting free food, would you then feel the need to grow it? Of course not… not unless your food source was going away sometime soon. If you got unlimited free healthcare would you have any incentive to stay healthy and make good choices? Of course not… we’d have a whole society of Keith Richards competing in the X-Games. If you knew your report card would be straight A’s would you study as hard? Not likely. And If you knew your concerted efforts towards a lofty career goal were sure to gain you nothing would you reassess your goals and reallocate your efforts? Of course you would…and you’d be right to. It’s all about the balance… the flow… the scarcity of resources… the risk and reward. What we demonstrate in our virtual worlds only mirrors our real instinctual behavior… and flow will engage us regardless of the venue, digital or actual.

So the next time someone asks what things would be like if everything was free, cleave them in twain with your battle axe and take their gold… because hey, if you survive you’ve earned it.

• Geekonomics, by Edward Castronova, Wired Magazine - April 2006
• Flow (psychology), en.wikipedia.org
• World of Warcraft, en.wikipedia.org
• http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/

I learned that bands of elves, half-lings, dwarves, wizards, rangers, and warriors aren’t just for Dungeons & Dragons (a role-playing game despised by Christians). Rather, my fellow faith-lings are quite fond of Mr. Tolkien’s mystical epic of magical creatures and mystical characters… and of Mr. Lewis, who wrote quite a fantasy tale of his own filled with much of the same. Of course, the magic and wizardry in their tales are very acceptable to my dear and righteous faith-lings. BUT… don’t you dare go see Harry Potter and his band of demonic Satan-worshiping ne’er-do-wells. For some reason a good dose of Rings or Narnia will deftly craft an allegory in a child’s mind to help shape their moral compass rightly… but a brush with Harry Potter will plunge them deep into the dark downward spiral of witchcraft, demon-possession, and premarital sex.

I also learned that it’s not a bad thing to enjoy some good pipe-weed or ale. Just about every good guy in Rings was either smoking or drinking (or both) at some point during the story. I already knew about the ale, but pipe-weed was always something I rather more enjoyed smelling than partaking of myself. But hey, if I ever get a hold of some Old Toby I just may see what all the fuss is about. You know you gotta love Tolkien… and Lewis… for they are master craftsmen true… and, should there be any chance of a kingdom to come, I’ll bet they’re tilting back ales right now laughing at all of us.

In place of a Dark Lord you shall have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn, treacherous as the sea, stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!
-Galadriel

I also learned that evil witch sorceresses are peculiarly enchanting! Check the wallpaper… it’s Galadriel when she was being tempted and freaking out. There’s something about a Dark Queen. Hmm… like the Ice Queen from Narnia…. icy, yet hot. It’s a paradox… the powerful and evil woman figure, who maintains an aura of femininity and grace.

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
- Gandolf

I also learned that Gandolf knows more than anybody else. If anything… I should listen to him. When it was time to give an encouraging word he was right there. When it was time to mourn he was there. When it was time to lead he was there. When it was time to dress somebody down for their stupidity (even an ally) he was right there, and his rebukes had a wonderful sting. And most important… when it was time to kick a little arse… he always brought his own whoopin’ stick!

And I learned that the elves have some enchantingly spellbinding songs… filled with rich Celtic melodies and ethereal drones. I was inspired by the Fellowship extended version scene where Sam and Frodo lament the elves’ departure to the ships leaving Middle Earth. The elves in the scene had a simple, yet haunting song that I sought to imitate on the guitar… so I wrote an extended sequence of Celtic song with chords that layer over one another in a very elvish style. I have included a few of the cool chords I use below. Note the open A string throughout acting as the drone.

x o       x       x o       x       x o       x
-----------       -----------       -----------
| | | | | | <9    | | | | | | <9    | | 1 | | | <5
-----------       -----------       -----------
| | 1 1 1 |       | | | | 1 |       | | | | | |
-----------       -----------       -----------
| | | | | |       | | | | | |       | | | 3 | |
-----------       -----------       -----------
| | | | | |       | | 2 3 | |       | | | | 4 |
-----------       -----------       -----------

   F/A               Dsus/A            G5/A

And, the last thing I learned… was how to properly bid people farewell.

I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Bilbo Baggins

The following message from Pastor Stan Key was printed on the front of the Worship Guide on January 15th, 2006, for Loudonville Community Church (LCC):

When I was growing up, churches seemed to compete with one another in an effort to be “holier than thou.” But the game has now changed. It seems the competition among churches today is centered on the effort to be “trendier than thou.”

Our praise band is better than yours… Our jumbotron screens are bigger… Our services are more seeker-friendly… Our pastor is cooler… Our ministry is edgier… Our cappuccino lattés between services are frothier…

The temptation to be relevant is great. But it is a temptation. In a desire to reach the unreached, the seduction is strong to think that newer is truer, later is greater, and bigger is better. We begin to actually believe that we must marry the spirit of the age in order to have an impact. Dean Inge captured the false allure of such thinking in his celebrated line, “He who marries the spirit of the age soon becomes a widower.”

Jesus saw through such seduction. The devil tempted him to turn stones to bread. “Give people what they want,” he seemed to hiss. But Jesus did not take the bait. Thank God! Man does not live by bread alone. He looked beyond our wants and saw our need.

The race to be trendier-than-thou is self-defeating. Not only does the church who falls into this seduction become guilty of what C. S. Lewis calls “chronological snobbery,” but this is the surest path a church can take to cultural irrelevance! The passion to be up-to-date is the surest recipe for becoming out-of-date. A church whose main purpose is to be “cutting-edge” will soon become either inconsequential or a place where a “different gospel” is preached. Years ago, Simone Weil said it well: “To be always relevant, you have to say things which are eternal.” I am slowly learning that the best way to be “cutting edge” is to be “retro.” Preach the Word. Study the Bible. Love your neighbor. Confess your sins. Do this, and many will wonder what you are up to! It is the things that make us different from the world that makes the Gospel attractive.

As your pastor, I want you to know that I am deeply committed to being counter-cultural. When people accuse me of being oldfashioned and out-of-step with contemporary trends, I say, “Thank you for the complement.” The only way I know to be truly “cutting-edge” is to preach the full Gospel of Jesus Christ! Let’s recommit ourselves to being in the world…but not of it!

Pastor Stan

A little background… our local newspaper, the Albany Times Union, had just coincidentally (or not so) featured a BIG front page spread on two other churches in the area, Northway Fellowship and Grace Fellowship. The article, titled Reconciling Religion and Relevance, praised these two “modern” churches for shedding many tired traditions of men and embracing cultural relevance. These two churches also happen to have thriving praise and worship ministries. The article boiled down to this… the Gospel message delivered in a relevant vehicle and mixed with a solid worship ministry was a recipe for church growth and cultural outreach.

On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock.
- Thomas Jefferson

I don’t believe it was a mere coincidence that Pastor Stan’s message, suggesting relevance is a temptation, appeared just after the article Reconciling Religion and Relevance was published. Indeed, his message seems to be a counter-point to this article. But unlike the churches in the article, LCC is not currently marked by sharp growth, nor a thriving worship ministry, so it’s hard not to think Grace and Northway aren’t being specifically targeted since they match the description Pastor Stan gives so well… they have better worship teams, edgier ministries, seeker-friendlier services, and at least one, in fact, serves cappuccino lattés between services (and they’re as tasty as they are frothy).

Nobody can deny that sacrificing sound Biblical doctrine in order to achieve some kind of über-current, super-relevant, contemporary church is definitely wrong. What I will deny is that a church has to sacrifice scriptural truth to be culturally relevant. It doesn’t. They aren’t even related. Some churches are both relevant and scriptural… some are just one of those… and some are neither.

In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity.
- Augustine

I don’t think anybody would argue against the case for a church being scriptural, but what about being relevant? Is relevance a temptation? Let me ask you this… how can you reach people if you aren’t relevant? We are all in this culture, like it or not. We’re all part of our society, be it as it may. We can lock ourselves in our steepled buildings and thank the Lord that we’re not like other people… or we can be Christ-like and start affecting people where they are. After preaching in the synagogues Jesus would go preach in the streets… and then go into the houses of the “un-churched” and eat and drink wine with them.

There may be some in today’s church who will read Pastor Stan’s message and take it to an extreme… they may take it as a green light for us to choose our favorite moment in time (usually the 1950’s or the 18th century) and lock ourselves, our praise, our message, our language, and our minds in that time period. Indeed, if you look around at today’s churches this is the norm. Talk about “chronological snobbery”! Somehow I don’t think being caught in a time-warp is going to draw non-time-travelers to the cross. How would it? We’re not going to reach people if we refuse to use the communication vehicles of their culture. I remember stories of early missionaries to some of the most remote mountain villages in the Eastern hemisphere… where Western pipe organs would be hauled at great expense to the newly established churches so that they could worship the “right way” with the “right songs”. People to this day still swear that the King James Bible (written in a language no longer spoken) is the only so-called God-breathed English Bible translation. Can you imagine?

If self-righteousness were an art form, many Protestants’ work would be in the Guggenheim!
- Brad Stine, Being a Christian Without Being an Idiot

NEWS FLASH: Right now… it’s now. It used to be then, but we passed then. We’re at now, now. As Christians, living now, we’re called to be relevant. We are here to affect our communities, and we can’t do that if we aren’t using the styles and communication vehicles of the culture. But why wouldn’t we do that in the first place? What so possesses a Christian to discard their own present-day styles? These are our styles, too! Yet, there still exist in today’s churches (in surprising numbers) “chronological snobs” who insist that sacred hymns put to centuries old tunes (tunes which have passed out of musical relevance) are the epitomy of true Biblical praise and worship… while those same hymn lyrics put to modern, relevant musical arrangements are discounted as attempts at being trendier-than-thou. Some even claim that the new arrangements are sinful, and even pornographic?!

I’m worried that some “chronoligical snobs” might read Pastor Stan’s message and see it as Biblical justification for their snobbery. Indeed, it’s hard not to read it any other way… and I was fairly concerned with the fact that he didn’t have anything good to say about relevance. A Wesleyan I work with thought it sounded like a classic bait-and-switch… using the fear of compromising sound doctrine to justify cultural reclusion. Unfortunately, that interpretation is pretty much how it reads.

relevant - adjective :: applicable, pertinent, material, significant, directly related and connected to the subject, object or issue

antonyms :: irrelevant, extraneous, immaterial, inapplicable, inconsequential, insignificant, unimportant, meaningless, pointless, senseless, useless, inappropriate, inapt, unsuitable

Sources :: Answers.com and Wiktionary

We need to preach the Word, study the Bible, and love our neighbors, and we need to do these in a deliberate, relevant, culturally effectual way… else we’ve done them in vain. Pastor Stan is right to implore us to let nothing compromise scripture and the Gospel message, but I am saddened to see relevance (in style and trend) being seemingly confused with the compromise of sound Biblical doctrine. I know that both can be embraced… and I know this because it was Christ’s example.

Good links: Relevant Magazine :: Acts 29 Network
Great read: Radical Reformission

Bad art is a great deal worse than no art at all.   -Oscar Wilde

I was in NYC recently and visited the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). They had some featured paintings by Jackson Pollock. Now it was cool to actually see this man’s work, and I’m not saying his stuff doesn’t have artistic merit… (I know I’m going to get flamed for this)… but I don’t really get it. Abstract impressionism is not art to me… especially when it’s just paint thrown, dripped, tossed, flung, dropped onto the canvas. And then I read about people who have dished out big bucks for paintings done by a chimp named Congo? (story link) They call his paintings abstract, too. Isn’t that funny? Just two abstract guys monkeying around drooping paint on the canvas. Maybe the monkey threw paint in lieu of poo?

The notion that the public accepts or rejects anything in modern art is merely romantic fiction. The game is completed and the trophies distributed long before the public knows what has happened.   -Thomas Wolfe

However, the most illustrative material at the MoMA were the paintings that were just one solid color! I wish I were kidding. There were at least four of these… and yes, one of them was completely white and another was completely black. Now, all in all I loved visiting the MoMA… so let me toss in here some pics of works that I really liked… work I found to have greater than subjective artistic merit. I’ll even include some demi-chaotic selections so you can see my differentiation between reasonable abstract impressionistic quality and canvas boogers.

Now addressing subjectivity from a musical angle… just last night I was engaged in some musician chat where I had instance to heartily decry Rolling Stone magazine for its travesty of a Top 100 Guitarists of All Time list. What a disgrace this list was. Seriously. They put Kurt Cobain (whose music is thusly rank by any name) at number twelve?! He should have never come near this list. And poor Eddie Van Halen was only listed at 70? And oh so excrutiating… the monsters of guitar themselves… Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, and John Petrucci (who together just released a way-cool DVD of their 2005 G3 Tour) did not even make the list?! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!?

Musically, the above example is but a small morsel of the backward valuations some mindless conformists in popular culture have assigned to music. Now… you might say that Rolling Stone does not represent all of modern pop culture. I agree, but upon casual inspection pop culture is replete with examples. You may also say that some of these examples are from competitive market forces. I might agree, but the radio is a free market, and how many times have you turned on the radio to find nothing but garbage? How many top-selling albums feature not even one truly talented artist? How many of us know an instrumentalist or vocalist who is mind-alteringly skilled at their craft yet living on a paltry wage… while talentless figureheads rake in mad duckets (read big money) by mere and ridiculous chance? It’s enough to drive a Republican to listen to NPR.

Of course the music is a great difficulty. You see, if one plays good music, people don’t listen, and if one plays bad music people don’t talk.   -Oscar Wilde

You don’t have to walk the streets of NYC long to find local musicians and artists who are not featured in any galleries or music halls… but who are creating incredible music or paintings right in front of you on the sidewalks. I remember seeing a group of three dudes who looked like clean bums, with tattered military vet looking attire and scruffy features… and they were armed only with a couple jar lids, four or five cans of spray paint, a few small pieces of cardboard, and several blank pieces of paper that looked 17×14. Large crowds would gather and watch as one of these “bums” turned a piece of white paper into an exquisite and detailed landscape work featuring glowing moons or sunsets. The colors were vibrant and the overall work would have looked more-than-appropriate in a black contemporary-framed glass case sitting in an upscale wine bar.

So what does all of this mean? I dunno… it’s subjective, you see. But let me leave you with this…

Beauty is a harmonious relation between something in our nature and the quality of the object which delights us.   -Blaise Pascal

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s an article by Jay Mathews of The Washington Post that appeared in the February 24, 2006, Times Union. He makes the case better than I can… I guess that’s why he does what he does and I do what I do.

I’m getting rather fond of this “letter to the editor” thing. I just fired another volley to the Albany Times Union in response to this letter regarding charter schools and their perilous emphasis on standardized testing. The author described the “demoralizing” effect standards have on teachers and the horrific result - a failure “to provide fully enriched learning experience”, whatever that means.

I must take exception to Samantha Sleasman’s letter to the editor in The January 2nd’s Times Union regarding charter schools. Her assertion that charter schools, and their standardized testing, can be “demoralizing” to teachers and fail to “provide a fully enriched learning experience” is laughable at best, and derelict at its most potent. Too often we hear about educators being coerced into “teaching to the test” by the unyielding gods of standards-based education. I think it’s pretty simple, really. The tests are based on the curriculum. The curriculum is what is supposed to be taught. So, if the teachers aren’t “teaching the test” then what on Earth are they teaching? Teaching the curriculum is their job.

This notion of a “fully enriched learning experience” is subjective, rhetorical nonsense. If this “enriched learning experience” doesn’t promote the students’ retention of the class material, then I would humbly suggest it is not enriched at all. I knew some teachers in school who were great at both stimulating my learning while making the experience enriched, and when it was time for me to answer the test questions I was well prepared. I know some teachers today in the Capital District who have done this wonderfully for years, and the children in our area are better for it.

A more likely reason that standardized testing is scorned by some educators is accountability. Standards allow for a normalized measurement of a child’s education, which then allows for the accountability of school districts who are not good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. Poor teachers should be held accountable for not performing to the standards required of them… and, in kind, excellent teachers should be suitably compensated for their superior contributions. Without standards-based education it’d be much easier for a lousy teacher to continue to slide by and for an excellent one to be inadequately rewarded.

Now let me say that there is a danger that education officials could make the required standards fantastically unrealistic and put teachers in an impossible situation. Indeed, I’m told this may be the case now. I know that most teachers work hard at a job filled with irate parents (who have their attorneys on speed-dial) and out-of-control problem kids. Let’s fix the real problems and allow the standards to do what they were made to do. Charter schools, and their standards-based education, are a benefit, and a little healthy competition is better than a monopoly.

Now as a disclaimer of sorts (and I really don’t need to say this), I have many good friends who are teachers… and I’ve always known (most of) them to work hard and teach well, because, frankly, they like teaching. As such I see standards-based education as having another benefit, to allow the good teachers to stand out and be recognized for their super-ordinate contributions to their schools.

To the Editor,

I must take exception to the December 19th piece by Kate Gurnett on the so-called Christmas Controversy, which I found to be slanted and deceptive. In lieu of the exhaustive exposition required to address all of the piece’s faulty assertions I’ll try to keep this down to a low, pithy roar.

Having some (just a little) knowledge of the events surrounding the controversy over singing Christmas Carols in Colonie Center Mall, I found myself reading Ms. Gurnett’s piece with some dismay. It was probably less suited for its front page splash than it was suited for the editorial page, the more appropriate haven for opinion and general subjectivity. While reading the piece I found it describing the leadership of Loudonville Community Church as bullying, stubborn, overbearing men trying to push around a poor, helpless female mall official. Ms. Gurnett eloquently painted the mall official as a brave heroine standing strong in the face of heckling church-goers incited by their un-budging leadership who would seek to extend their evil grip onto the entire universe. I almost shed a tear at the end when our heroine deftly tamed the beastly pastors into acquiescing to her firm, yet fair conditions of Yuletide performance.

Now, Ms