Why do music?

This piece is merely a short summing-up of some musings I've been having over the past few months, as I've seen my investment - of time, finances, and identity - in music steadily increase. If you're involved in art too, please comment after you read and let me know what motivates you to do your art?

As far as I can tell, the common reasons people commit to a lifestyle in which music - or art of any kind, though music is the field about which I've been thinking the most, as it's also the most personally relevant - takes a high priority, comprise a short list:

1) money - $$$
2) sex - self-explanatory
3) fame - being easily or widely recognized or liked
4) power - becoming credible or well-known enough to be listened to (think Arnold Schwarzenegger - for him, art (acting... of a particular sort) => fame => power)
5) God - for reasons of religious calling or spiritual satisfaction
6) personal artistic satisfaction - you really love your art; you enjoying singing, or acting, etc.
7) being cool - similar to fame, but with more of an edge: being a figure to which others aspire or desire to be like in full or in part.

An 8th category could be "success" - but I'm guessing, when questioned as to the meaning of success, most would answer in some combination of the above 7 categories.

Of course a lot of these could reduce to one another - money leads to power, God leads to personal satisfaction, fame leads to money, being cool leads to sex, and so on. But they are still distinct.

Why think about these categories?

I've been thinking about these categories of motivation as I've been stepping up my own musical output, profile, and aspirations because the question of target is now coming into view: I've started talking to a few small labels, begun thinking about who I want to make music for, why I make music, where I want it to take me - and where I want to take it.

None of these questions can be answered without first knowing, or at least having some sort of handle, on the issue of goals: do I want to reach 5 people, 500, 10 thousand, 50 million? What do I do when I'm reaching them?

When artists catapult to fame without answering these questions, they have public meltdowns, imploding under their own weight: you get a Marilyn Monroe, a Kurt Cobain, a Lindsay Lohan. And so the Korean pop world has a well-covered-up but increasingly alarming pattern of celebrity suicides. People who rise to fame, all the while viewing fame as the ultimate goal, are consumed and spit out by the churning media machines.

But when those who rise to prominence have these questions of goal and drive answered from the start, you get artists like 50 Cent, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and whom it seems like Lady Gaga is becoming: men and women who understood the place for fame and artistic success in a larger picture of personal well-being. They are the ones who managed to use the pop culture/media machine while not succumbing to its ravishes - they may have been used in the process, but it was at least an exchange of sorts, instead of an enslavement.

So, for me, the initial question is: will you pursue music?

It seems that I have answered this question: yes.

The next question: why? And what will you do if - when? - that music becomes something - you become someone - people care about?

Well, let's see:

My self-assessment

1) money - this category is alluring, but ultimately, not a motivating reason. Whether it would be right for me to have significant amounts of money or not is another question: long ago, when I first began making music, I told myself that I would never have music be my primary income stream: I recognized then, as I still do, I think, that relying on the money I make from music is a very quick way to stop enjoying my music. It would be, at least, for me. I think. Whether this is true or not may be up for question in the future: at the moment, however, money is distinctly not the primary motivation for my musical aspirations.

2) sex - nah.

3) fame - This is definitely a highly tempting aspect of musical success, more so than (1) but less than (7). To be well known is intensely appealing to me, for the same reasons, I suspect, that it is to many of people in my generation: popular media has told me, as long as I have been alive, that people who are widely known matter. And hence, I now believe, if I am widely known, I will matter! More well-known, more influential.
As I think about it, I do believe that fame is one of the reasons that I would pursue music. As my rap partner/strategic consultant D-One has often told me: if no one's listening to it, why are you recording it?
There are other motivating reasons - 5-7 being chief for me - for me to pursue music, but I will say this: I hope that my music can become famous among the right circles! They may not be large, and they may not be circles that are well-known, but I do hope that my music will have impact on the right people (finding who the right people are is a topic I want to reserve for a future post - suffice it to say that they don't always look like the people you would have chosen, but they are the people you need to grow to love!). And to do so, it must speak with authority (which I'll touch on next) into at least some group larger than myself.

4) cachet/authority/power - this is part of my hope for music. As I believe my life testifies to, there are deep truths and realities that I believe are important to talk about, bear witness to, experience, and share in community with others - the flip side of this is that there is an intimate privilege in being someone with whom people are willing to open themselves and show vulnerability. In music, especially if you're doing the kind of music that manages to resonate with people on an emotional level, you are given the immense honor of both speaking into people's lives as well as being someone with whom people want to share. This is important to me.

5) God - Is God directing me to do music? I think so. I find personal joy in it (more in 6, below), I find it natural, I believe the music I do is not only in line with my faith, but supplementary to it, and I believe that my music is fundamentally about Truth - which, coincidentally, is another name for God in my understanding. So, yes, 5 is a motivation for my music: To remain a venue for spiritual growth and expression of spiritual truths.

6) personal artistic satisfaction - This is also a high priority for my music. I want to make good music. However, I've realized that I am also fairly satisfied with making a plethora of styles of good music, from love songs to old-school lyrical hip-hop, to contemplative new-school joints, and in between. If I could make a VERY WELL produced Far East Movement/Black Eyed Peas kind of party/club joint, I would be happy with that as well! So, personal satisfaction is a high priority. But I'm also easily satisfied.

7) being cool - I do think that being cool is, well, cool. However, as I consider this category, I also realize that I'm more interested in (4) than in (7): if people will permit me to speak into their lives with some degree of trust, I don't care very much whether it's because I'm considered cool, or if it's because of some other reason. So, I would put down (7), but only as a means to (4), thereby indicating that (7) is not truly a motivation for music, but rather a step to the true motivation, which is (4).

So, it seems as though my answers are: I am pursuing music primarily for reasons of (A) fame (within certain accepted limitations), (B) cachet, (C) personal artistic satisfaction, and (D) I find in it a puzzle piece toward my spiritual calling.

The next question is: what if I could obtain (A), but at the cost of sacrificing (B) and (C)? What if I could obtain only 2 of the 3?


If you're a musician or any manner of artist - which of these categories motivates you? Why? What are your thoughts on this entire topic/issue?

I Don't Want To Be Racist Against White People.

All my White friends, here's one to you.

Am I Being Racist Against White People?

There is a twofold concern for me as I explore ethnicity and the systematic, generational sin of oppression and cultural violence: (1) Am I demonizing and objectifying Whiteness, Western tradition/authority, and European culture? And even if I am not, (2) am I being perceived as doing so?

This question concerns me for several reasons: (A) if I am, I am being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is not only bad in itself, but it (B) leads to me, and other similar critics of power, being discredited or invalidated. This all contributes to (C) a widening divide of miscommunication or silence between those who are set to inherit the reins of traditional structures of power and contemporary voices who seek to point out the outstanding flaws in those systems.

If you'll bear with me - I'll try to be humble - let's examine these points:

The Natural Response to Violence or Assault

(1) A natural response to injustice is to render the unjust oppressor as inhuman. No one wants to think that someone who is in any way like me could do something so horrific to another; no, there must be something about a criminal, about a rapist, about a murderer, that makes them fundamentally different from me. This mental distance works both ways: slave masters, in order to justify the status of their slaves as property, dehumanized them along racial and cultural lines. If an African exists in a lesser form of being - whether a vastly inferior species of humanity, or not even as human at all - then, in a literal sense, it is not inhuman to claim possession over an African man or woman. Psychologists and historians who worked with post-war Nazi soldiers have noted that one of the ways that the German people coped with the horrific actions of the Holocaust was through a willing dismissal of the shared humanity between German Jews and German citizens of Germanic descent. [1]

Similarly, if, say, a close friend were to be murdered, I know that my temptation would be to see his murderer as a horrific, bloodthirsty, psycho bastard with no humanity, and nothing shared in common with myself. I think it's a general rule: we don't like to admit that we could share anything, even the slightest trace of fundamental humanity, with someone who could do such a thing. It is a natural coping mechanism, tinged with a trace of moral self-righteousness: how could anyone do such a thing? combined with well certainly, I would never be capable of such horrors.

This Is Wrong - What's Going On?

The problem here is twofold, both a problem of reality and effectiveness: first, the reality is that no entity or individual is blameless, and responding to evil by mentally distancing oneself from it is just wrongminded. Brokenness and perversity, when glimpsed in others, should not elicit my recoiling from them as diseased and inhuman, but rather my embracing them, knowing and acknowledging that I too have had my times of ugliness, hatred, anger, and violence. The reality is, as much as White, western cultural imperialism has hurt many people and cultures, I too, even in my short 23 years, have insulted, demeaned, and objectified many. To pretend that I am not also a participant in brokenness is to lie.

Secondly, by creating distance between myself and my oppressor, I lessen the possibility for her to reconcile herself with me and make amends to me, even if she desires to do so. As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right, and responding to a slight by slighting another only draws both parties further from reconciliation and mutual growth. Even if I were perfect, and my enemy were an incredibly spiteful person, distancing myself from him - while perhaps a useful coping mechanism, and a helpful step towards healing from the injury - ultimately does nothing to prevent the recurrence of the exact same slight, whether towards me or another.

Of course, the burden should be on the oppressor to make amends to the oppressed; even if the oppressed does not ask for apology, it is common human courtesy that if one has created a problem, one ought to fix it. If I kicked down your fence, appropriate apology is not to return bearing a hammer, hand it to you, and let you fix it; it lies on me to return, hammer in hand, and repair the broken fence.

But the simple and sad truth is that many people - myself included - are blind to the wounds we create for others. So to those of us who can be gracious - who have received grace from One who has been wounded by us, and are thus in turn in position to go to those whom we have wounded - it makes sense to do so. Just because I didn't create the problem, doesn't mean I can't be part of the solution.

In the Eye of the Beholder

(2) Tragically, even if I am just telling the truth - or, at least, the truth insofar as I understand it based on fact, evidence, and reasonable inference - I can be perceived as demonizing others. This is difficult.

One thing that I have learned, through reading accounts like Tim Wise's incredible White Like Me, is the unforeseen degree to which people coming from different backgrounds actually possess vastly different experiences. I am not talking about simple social distinctions, like a family only being able to afford bus passes vs. a family being able to afford an SUV. I am talking about completely different perceptions of social order. For example, I grew up with the explicit understanding that police exist to protect me and my friends: I was constantly instructed, in school, at home, and at church, to go to a police officer if I was scared, on my own, in trouble, or lost.

How far is this from the experience of an undocumented immigrant child growing up in, say, downtown Los Angeles! Disregarding the legality of her immigration, an undocumented immigrant girl not only cannot trust the police, but will likely actively distrust them - after all, the legacy of the LAPD is rife with scandal, corruption, abuse, blatant brutality, and more.

Imagine if eight-year-old middle-class suburban Chinese-American me could talk to that Los Angelena. When told about her view of the police, I would have considered her ill-informed, crazy, making up stories, and worse. And while, perhaps, her view of the police would be no more true than mine, I hesitate, now, to say that it is less worthy of consideration.

This is something that often concerns me when I disseminate information into the aether, as it were. I have no way to tell whether my audience is receptive or dismissive; and, while the information that I have uncovered is damning and even sickening to see, it is most terrifying to think that my desire to share the truth could be easily read as simple reverse racism. You can't handle the truth!(?)

After all, it is easiest to respond to an unpleasant message by disengaging from it: writing it off as fallacious, exaggerated, or irrelevant. Whether because a voice is too uncomfortable, too hypocritical, or personally offensive, it is very easy to be discredited, especially in circles into which you are speaking as a critic.

Vision for Reconciliation

But this is distinctly not what I want to do. I do not think that it is the time - at least, in the arena of racial reconciliation - for voices to only be present in the wilderness, crying out to those few who are attracted to them and who are willing to put up with their personal quirks. In this age, I think that the call is to go before not just those who want to listen, or are willing to listen, but especially to those who do not want to listen, and to convince, persuade, or somehow beg them to lend an open ear.

If the persecuted speak only to the persecuted, they cannot proclaim on behalf of the hurt and those crying out for justice. Proclamation comes into a community, and prophetic [2] voices and communities do not retain or hold in prophecy, but share it and spread a message of truth. The difficult, sad, and exhilarating mission for those of us who want to speak truth in love is that communication requires speaking to others, not merely at them.



[1] This is usually how it goes in war crimes: the object of one's transgression is seen as not human and, therefore, not possessing value on par with the subject's humanity. An alternative occurs in the case of child soldiers in Africa: there, instead of being taught that the targets of their violence are subhuman, the humanity of victims is often acknowledged, but simply devalued. Child soldiers are forced to rape, kill, and maim friends and family members, resulting in a general devaluation of all human life, rather than a specifically targeted dehumanization.

[2] Here I use "prophecy" in the general and original sense of "a true proclamation or statement," rather than the more contemporarily common sense of "a true statement about the future".

An honest inquiry

In short: why do so many people who say that we shouldn't force people to "do good", say we should punish people who "do bad"?

Some musings, hastily thrown together, on a subject that I've been wondering about since the summer, provoked largely by my readings on educational and income disparity. The following is neither exhaustive nor particularly cogent, and is barely logically coherent; it is not intended to be any of the above, but rather merely to verbalize musings, provoke thought, and request further input:

One of the more convincing arguments against positive social welfare policies* that I have been presented, is that the enactment of such policies equates, essentially, to the litigation of morality: making good action compulsory for a society - as a whole and, by extension, as individuals - removes the potential for individual moral action. The argument presumes that it is valuable, if not inherently necessary, to allow individuals room for real moral choice; take, for instance, the case of welfare**.

In such a case, I've heard it argued, the government should not act to provide for unemployed or unemployable individuals, because it should lie on the conscience of every moral actor within the state to do so. For the government to dictate that state funds should be used for the provision of aid to such persons is suboptimal, because, in such a case, the government is now overstepping its bounds: instead of providing its people with a stable framework within which to make ethical decisions, the state is now making those decisions on behalf of the people. Essentially, the argument seems to run, legislating morality reduces the ability of people to make moral choices.

OK, I can ride with that, at least to a certain degree.

My question arises from the fact that, as far as I can tell, there exists a sizable population of those who would use an argument similar to that presented above to argue against positive social welfare policies, but, when confronted with a negative social welfare policy***, seem to believe that thusly legislating morality is unproblematic. For example, I believe (with little evidence beyond the personally anecdotal) that there are many people for whom generous welfare policies are repellent because they compel agents into action without moral choice, who, at the same time, oppose gay marriage, precisely because it is morally wrong.

This seems contradictory to me.

Is it? Is there some fundamental difference between positive legislation of morality and negative legislation? Perhaps gay marriage - or strict gun control, the death penalty, harsh enforcement of Reagan-era drug laws, etc. - presents a threat to the very structure of the rule of law in a way that large numbers of unsupported, unemployed citizens (or, to touch on a hornet's nest: "illegal immigrants") do not; and, as such, should be legislated against in a distinct way, being that one of the necessary components for a stable state be a code of law that supports its own enforcement, rather than being self-undermining. In such a case, I would grudgingly agree that, while suboptimal, the necessity of such negative moral legislation is manifest.

But I don't see this argument for negative moral legislation obtaining, at least not in a way that is clearly distinguished from the argument for the necessity of positive moral legislation.

To sum up: There are people who say that certain aid policies (welfare, Affirmative Action, etc.) are wrong, as giving people support decreases the need for individual agents to take morally praiseworthy action. Of those people, however, many argue that morally proscriptive policies (anti-abortion, outlawing gay marriage, etc.) are necessary. This seems contradictory.

I'm sure that I have friends & readers who have put in thought, and have well-considered insight on this particular issue. Please, your thoughts?



*i.e., those policies that actively work to provide recompense for the unduly disadvantaged, rather than to eliminate the conditions which lead to social inequality (in broad terms: think affirmative action, as opposed to abolishing slavery).

**Note: this is not the only, or even the best, argument against welfare. My intent isn't to pronounce a stance on Welfare-in-concept or the current welfare system, simply to outline a single stance I have seen articulated.

***"Negative," in this case not meaning "bad", but meaning "preventative", as opposed to "positive" meaning "constructive"

A thought

Arrogance has been on my mind a lot, recently.

I've been perusing some of the writings of Canadian Skeptic James Randi, listening to recordings of the aggressive Atheist debate of Richard Dawkins, and reading through weblogs self-identified with the freethought and Brights movements, in addition to exploring conversation with quite radically anti-religious persons (dialogue being altogether too bilateral a label for what I've experienced).

The standard rhetorical aesthetic of such fora of discussion seem to be a self-righteous anti-religiosity; transcending the boundaries of cheerily areligious belief, the new wave in modern atheism seems to have a bitterly antagonistic bent towards religion, a condescending, sneering sort of spite directed towards the faithful. In such systems, characterizations of theist beliefs often involves words and phrases such as the following: "magic," "imaginary friend," "arbitrary," "unfounded," &c.

Such discussions, and their underpinnings, truly sadden me for two reasons: (I) First, and primarily, as one who believes - intimately, personally - in the being of a loving, wonderful, perfectly fulfilling God who has created and does sustain all of existence, it saddens me that there are people who would so decisively and boldly cut away the possibility of a relationship with that loving God. All rhetorical flourishes aside, the loss of an inexhaustible source of infinite care and grace, even if only metaphysically so, seems as though it ought to bring grief in some degree.

For this reason, I don't feel quite the same way for those atheists who renounce God, but do so with a sense of the loss of the sweetness of what could have been: I can empathize with the humanness of loudly pronouncing, God is not; but, whispering, if only he were. But the point of view that I have recently encountered - rare, I think, in my postmodern surroundings - and that which has been grieving me, is the outright arrogant proclamation: God is not, and it's damn finer than if he were!

If God is not truth, but tale, might we at least admit the beauty of the story‽

(II), such discussions do elicit a fair degree of nervousness in myself: how much of such militant and callous opposition to the very concept of God is social karma for the past wrongs of "Christianity" [the sum of Christians-in-name] (or Christianity [the sum of Christians-in-truth, putatively distinct])? Was there an era - or manifold periods? - in Christian history where theologians, being found bearing the greater weight of authority in their respective societies, were found so overbearing, cocky, swaggering in their clerical roles, that they thus disparaged those honest dissenters in their midst?

Do I? Regularly, I'm sure. How often, in my own unthinking stagger through life, have I hurt, damaged, even spited others, and all while proclaiming, in my best Christian guise, to be an earthly representative of the all-loving Heavenly Father? Of course, I've spoken faithful testimony of being a "broken human being," to being a "sinner in constant need of grace". But has my life born witness to these truths? Or has my life reflected a know-it-all, condescending, self-proselytizing wretch content and happy to sow self-glorifying pride?

A thought.


[edit: 3:35 PM] And, to make it explicitly clear: The arrogance to which I'm referring does not fall exclusively within the atheist camp. My attention has been drawn, increasingly, to my own personal arrogance, theological, intellectual, and otherwise in nature, the pervasive reality of which is pretty challenging and self-perception-shattering (or perhaps, better put, is spurring me on towards redrawing my self-perception).

Regarding Judaism and Israel

A quick thought, prompted by an exchange with a college friend, following an earlier (if not the earliest) post on hyphenated-Americans, along with beginning to watch (a process that will likely take a substantial amount of time) Spielburg's modern classic Schindler's List:

Whenever discourse includes a discussion of the Jewish people, it is vital that we separate the Jewish people and the modern nation of Israel. It is perilously easy to conflate (a) disagreement with the actions of the Jewish state in the geopolitical landscape and (b) Anti-Semitism. This is a form of an ad hominem, but one which seems to be more insidiously prevalent.

That's how it seems to me, anyways. Am I wrong, and (a) reduces to (b)? I strongly don't think so, but am open to arguments in the positive.

The question; and a thought.

The Question

After a respectable (or thereabouts) deal of reading and thought (particularly reflecting on Frank Chin's repeated critiques of Maxine Hong Kingston), this is the question that presents itself:

How to be American without being White? How to be "of Chinese descent" without slipping into reactionist sinocentrism?

Of course the cultural inheritance of The West isn't to be lightly discarded or vilified, nor is the East (or even the immigrant experience) to be mindlessly embraced and valued. The answers' typeface is far from black-and-white. But among shades of grey (not shades of greige), where does one alight?

(Hint: God is the answer. [No, this is not just a flip answer; Yes, this is still a Christian, and not only ethnic theory, blog, appearances to the contrary])

The Thought
That said, another thought occurs to me at the moment (A few minutes ago, I jokingly told a friend that tonight was my Asian-American Film Studies night): while I have previously been a proponent of the narrative-as-description(e.g., NWA's Straight Outta Compton can be justified as a descriptive, not prescriptive, outline - "not a glorification, but a presentation"), I am increasingly understanding of the need to present balanced-but-idealized portrayals in the media, serving the function of a corrective to unbalanced and two-dimensional portraits of Americans of Asian/Pacific Islander descent.

I had a fairly strong and disconcerting response to viewing, Monday night, Justin Lin's modern Asian-American crime drama Better Luck Tomorrow: there is a scene in the film, in a backyard party, where the core group of four Asian-American protagonists (portrayed as and by a varied group of Asian-American males) confront a group of White antagonists. After a brief fistfight, instigated by implicitly racial (but only indirectly racist) comments, one of the Asian-American gang pulls a gun on the lead antagonist. The subsequent beating of the White varsity athlete - leaving him bruised and bloodied, but not permanently physically harmed - both signals the core group's increasingly rapid descent into crime and materialistic excess, and foreshadows the nadir of the film, where a similar beating takes place: this time, against a spoiled Korean-American private-school kid; and this time, to the death (based on an actual incident in early-90s Southern California).

What disturbed me about my response was that, in both cases, Lim took care to portray the Asian-American protagonists as complex, well-rounded characters: morally speaking, they were on neither the high nor low ground. In both cases, there were senses of moral indignation and vindication ("getting back" at the White bullies; retaliating against the rich prep school kid who treats his girl like dirt), and also a sense of excess and transgressed boundaries.

However carefully-laid-out the mores of the film, my responses were affectively discrepant with my moral construals of the situations, and I have little choice but to admit that the distinction was likely simply because of the race of the tragic protagonists: whereas I would unhesitatingly condemn the actions in abstract, the fact that violence originating from Asian-American sources, especially against a Caucasian figure, is contradictory to my construal of the stereotype of expected Model Minority behavior (albeit a malformed and, in fact, highly inaccurate stereotype) seemed to serve as justification for my emotional consent towards the action.

This is, I willingly and mournfully agree, evidence of a shamefully akrasic mental process, the ramifications of which I'm concerned, especially regarding my vocation as a minister, a profession part of the call to which is love for the Other above the Self, love for all facets of God-created diversity, and striving on behalf of reconciliation, healing, and understanding (Gal. 3:26-29, among others). However, it is not, I would guess, a drastically atypical response to such media depicting violence from an oppressed (or, more often, nowadays, suppressed) minority directed towards the dominant majority.

One thing that I always wondered, watching the incredible HBO series The Wire, a bastion of verisimilitude and narrative-as-depiction-of-reality, was how so many Black voices (not only, or even particularly often, academic Black voices, but definitely a predominance of street voices, as seen anywhere from nahright.com to the Smoking Section) could willingly applaud explicitly villainous figures, or at least what seemed to me at the time to be: the drug lords (Marlo, Stringer, Avon), shooters (Snoop, Christ Partlow, etc.), and other Baltimore inner-city hood figures (the more complex morality of characters such as Omar Little, Bubbles, etc., is of course less cut-and-dry).

Of course, what I didn't understand at the time, on a subjective level (and am now only beginning to scratch the surface of, as I begin to analyze my personal response to depictions of violence by the oppressed), is that the characters are not usually being lauded for their actions: their actions are the signifiers of a larger motivation, that is, defying power and breaking stereotype. The problem is that reactive stereotypes - the clever, tactical, chess-piece-moving crime lord as a response to the dumb, happy, bumbling Sambo - are also a system of entrapment and limitation for minorities: we sketch out extremes, but fill in no grays, leaving room for the Huxtables and the Barksdales, but fewer and fewer Redd Foxxes in between [note: by "Redd Foxx," I meant, a sympathetically- and humanely-portrayed member of the honest lower class, i.e. in Sanford & Son. Not quite sure if this was too opaque a reference.].

So, another question: where do we locate the line between audience discernment and filmmaker's discretion? Certainly the filmmaker should feel at liberty to create Art: but, and this is a topic on which I've touched before (specifically, in my senior Philosophy thesis), what is the intersection between Morally Good Work and Good Art? In that previous work, I strongly advocated for the imposition of moral sanctions on a work of art (humor, in that case), due to both a priori and a posteriori factors that seem to fall in favor of morality being a determining factor for the quality of art.

But the question then becomes one of reasonable doubt, or burden of proof: does the filmmaker (or rapper, other musician, artist, etc.) presume an audience comprised of the Lowest Common (discerning) Denominator, and simply create art that is unabashedly moralizing? In such cases, films become preachy, and subtlety is specifized out of the equation.

But the alternative seems more and more distasteful: choices of presentation content and form are, implicitly, choices to condone audiences' viewing of particular material (for this reason, I recently started but could not finish both Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho [novel] and Jody Hill's Observe and Report [film]). Previously, I held to a reasonably extremely high view of individual volition: I acknowledged the real occurrence of akrasic mind states, but did not pragmatically concern myself over them. More and more, I regret this: both personally, discovering the truth of the saying that "once seen, you cannot un-see" certain materials; and pragmatically, in terms of furthering social progress and harmony, realizing (as I did when watching Better Luck...) that portrayals of immoral or unconscionable behavior, even when within the framework of a largely critical work, have the potential to grasp the imagination in a much stronger net than I had previously wanted to believe.

Of course, the potential remains: I may merely be particularly weak-minded, an outsider. I am familiar with the major arguments: kids know the difference between DOOM and the halls of their High School, and killing a few hundred digital representations in GTA IV won't lead anyone to the slaughterhouse. In fact, proponents of the gaming industry argue, such artificial violence, far from promoting violence, actually helps those in whom rage and anger have built up to let off some steam, destressing and potentially averting a future tragedy.

Previously, I was highly sympathetic to such claims; in fact, I agreed (as do I still now, though with greater qualification) that freedom of speech was a paramount right. But, as recent developments in the video gaming world have shown, freedom of speech, as with any other freedom, can be abused, not for the sake of art, but for the sake of commerce: in such a case, use of freedom does, I increasingly believe, actually constitute abuse or exploitation of speech, leading to negative social repercussions and, ultimately, indirect disenfranchisement of or disconnection from the Other (whether Otherization occurs by race, gender, or simple emotional distance). That such depictions constitute a legal problem, as statutes currently stand, is highly unlikely, I assume; still, my concern is not with the present legality, but rather the present ethics of the situation and, based on an increasing understanding of the ethical landscape, future policy decisions.

Several other areas remain to be addressed. Among them: a persistent question, so far as I understand, in Asian-American Film Studies is the pragmatic response to limited roles for Asian-American actors: marginalized as "wimpy businessmen... or villains with balls", several Asian-American actors have chosen to play the "villains with balls" (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, The Slanted Screen). It's difficult to blame them; but it's also easy to be troubled by this response, on both sides of the racial divide (Us and Other). The Mortal Kombat villain Shang Tsung is, while not emasculated, possessor of a twisted and villainous strength: it is easy to see in him the same archetype as a Stringer Bell or Avon Barksdale, wealthy, organized, manipulative boogeymen. The choice (and I pray it is a false dichotomy) presented to Asian-American actors seems to be marginalization or villainization: is it a wonder that many chose to be villainized?

And of course, one doesn't have to look far to see why an Asian-American presence was Othered and, subsequently, villainized: the widely-documented phenomenon of Yellow Peril was a racial agenda explicitly furthered by the spread of anti-miscegenation laws in direct response to (among other factors) a fear of competition by the Other.

As a friend commented on one of my several earlier posts, the point is not to find a scapegoat: White American dominance, Asian American complicity, and industry/industrial greed have definitely all played key roles in bringing the place of Asian-Americans in the media to their contemporary position. The point is, however, to find the roots of a pernicious construal of an entire section of American society, to see how it insinuated itself into wider American culture, and to find a healthy, healing, reconciliatory means of mutual affirmation and support.

Racial mutterings

"And what does it say about President Obama's claiming to be post-racial when his first Supreme Court nominee is Sotomayor, his attorney general, Eric Holder is a huge reverse discrimination supporter and his education undersecretary for civil rights, Russlyn Ali, so often calls people racist when they dare disagree with her reverse-discrimination advocacy." - Marty Nemko, May 31, 2009.

What does it say? That he's willing to consider people who hold certain views for certain positions. What do you think it means, Mr. Nemko? Oh, never mind - I've deciphered your ever-so-sly intimation: President Obama is a racist. That wasn't so hard to say, was it?

Being post-racial does not mean being post-race. Nemko is making the same disturbing mistake that I've seen several other commentators making when discussing race: he assumes that "being post-racial" somehow equates to the idea that "race is no longer an issue". This is the same fallacy that equates "diversity" and "being color-blind": Diversity is not the absence of color, but the affirmation of color. And, in the same way, moving past racism does not and must not equate to "no longer caring about or discussing race"; it must mean "affirming race and issuing correctives so that the roots of racism continue to lose their grasp on America."

The Commander-in-Chief is not some political Gordian Knot that, once sundered, signifies freedom and equality throughout the land. It is a sign - as there have been many, as there will be many - that the American people are beginning to progress as a community. It's wonderful that the country voted a Black man is president; it's wonderful that some minority citizens aren't cowering under the lash. But until every minority citizen can live out a life in this country with a reasonable expectation of freedom from the dictum that Your Race Isn't Welcome Here - whether suppressive, as in the case of the Asian "Model Minority" myth; or oppressive, overt racism - "post-racial" America is still an unfulfilled process.

So, what does it mean that Obama's Supreme Court nominee is a Hispanic woman? What does it mean that he supports certain policies on race?

Might it simply be that President Obama thinks that these choices will continue the push towards racial equality?

No?

Oh, OK.

Similarly, from right-wing blog View from the Right:

"[What does post-racial America mean?] It means a post-white America, an America transformed by the symbolic removal of whiteness as the country's explicit or implicit historic and majority identity. ..."

Guess what: America is post-white. In the last national census, 26% of responding Americans self-identified as something other than White Alone. Of course, the majority of citizens are White; English, a language with European roots, is the de facto primary language of the land. But what does it even mean for a country to have a "majority identity"? And what does it have to do with me? Sure, Whiteness is an explicitly and implicitly dominant part of this country's culture; but, and pardon my boldness in this, I assumed that the majority identity of this country was American culture.

You know: Muckrakers and Superman (created by 2 Jews), French fries (created by a Native chef), Jazz (no comment necessary), Rock (comment unnecessary again), transcontinental migration and bicoastal communication (a network built on the backs of Irish and Chinese immigrants). A melange of racial influence and scrappy do-it-yourself intuitive inventiveness. Yes, White influences served as the initial foundation for this country; and its further development was definitely fueled by waves of immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, Germany, France, and other countries in Western and Eastern Europe.

But, at some point, my dinner ceases to be a couple of carrots, two chunks of meat, a packet of spices, and a pot of water, to being a stew. A stew, a broth with distinct elements hinted-at but inextricable from the lot. Why can't "my" country be the same?

I fear - though I sincerely hope to one day be proven wrong - that the intimated answer of many commentators on ethnicity in America is simply thus: This Is Not Your Country.

This is what some say: "the anti-white policies and attitudes, from affirmative action to open borders for Hispanics to the multicultural rewriting of history [oh heavens no; History is anything but!] to endless compaigns against "white racial privilege," [a thorough myth] will remain in place. What will change is that whites will not protest these anti-white policies any more, will not mutter under their breath about them any more, will not even think about muttering under their breath about them any more. Instead, they will unreservedly embrace them, in the joy of racial unity and harmony."

And this is what I hear:

This is not your country; you're living in rented space.

This is not your country; you're living in the perpetual guest room, furnished similarly to - as comfortable as - the master bedroom, save for its lesser metaphysical status.

This is not your country; as long as you behave yourself and act like us, we'll grant you squatters' rights. But don't get too comfortable; and for (a Western Protestant) God's Sake don't put up your own decorations! Our paintings - our decorative coffeetable books - our carefully-selected DVD library are good enough for us. And they ought to suffice for you.

Well, I don't ask to remodel; I'm quite happy with the kitchenette the way it is, and the laundry machine works quite well (though the couple who used to own the house have mentioned that you've were a little underhanded in repurposing it from them). But if, as you say, this room is mine for the letting - indeed, not merely for subletting but actually leasing-to-own - can I please at least add a film or two to your library? What about removing some of the more dull or outdated magazines from the nightstand?

Can I, perhaps, cook the food in "our" kitchen - food that my wages bought - the way my mother taught me to cook?

Might I, at the least, hang up the pictures of my father from his youth?

No?

Oh, OK.

(Update: I was prompted on facebook to further defend the connection i draw between "affirming Whiteness" and "xenophobia". I did so by drawing upon the concept of white privilege; more information is in the comments.)

Question on Lewis

Famously from Lewis's Weight of Glory:
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."

What happens when mud pies become genuinely (though not necessarily actually) more attractive than a holiday at the sea?

Children Bearing Gifts: the Relationship of Christians to Art.

Children Bearing Gifts: the Relationship of Christians to Art.

Originally given at Café a Dieu, 04.04.2009,

at The Golden Center, St. Thomas More Catholic Chapel and Center at Yale.

The first personal encounter with art that I can recall comes from the age of ten, when my sister and I attended a class taught by a professional artist from our church. Once a week, we would pick up our sketchbooks and shoeboxes full of art supplies, be packed up in the back of our minivan, and dropped off at a church classroom. There, Mrs. Barrett would teach us about perspective, colors, or shading, then turn us loose, pencils and oil paints in hand. Our parents, as they arrived to pick us up, were be greeted by arms filled with paintings and sketches, the fruits of our labors and their monthly tuition checks.

Even now, returning home, I still occasionally come across sketchbooks filled with my youthful handiwork. Browsing through the artwork, I often wonder what my mother must have thought, every week, as her son returned bearing page after page of lovingly, painstakingly, and poorly drawn STAR WARS spaceships.

My mother has preserved sketchbooks that are literally filled, cover to cover, with illustrations of X-Wings, TIE Fighters, and the occasional attempt to illustrate the Battle of the Death Star. And, let me tell you: what I lacked in aesthetic skill, I more than made up for in productivity.

By high school, I had begun to regard these drawings with a hint of embarrassment. It wasn’t that I had grown artistically; but I had grown ashamed of my youthful enthusiasm for Luke Skywalker. Recalling my younger artistic streak, I would wonder what could possibly have motivated my parents to store such pitiful things away so carefully.

Reflecting back now, I think I’ve begun to understand why my parents saved those drawings. It’s not that my art - in either content or execution - was of any aesthetic value. But they are still dear to them because of what they represent: memories of me running up to my mom after class, bearing my latest work, filled with the childish joy and simple pride of spending my youthful reserves of skill and energy to produce something just for her. And, while my mother has never been a STAR WARS fanatic, her love for me transformed my interests and delight into her own. For this reason, I think, my mother finds twofold pleasure in that artwork: first, as a symbol of her importance to me; and, second, as a genuine representation of me as I was at the time; my childhood interests and passions.

I suspect that the work of a Christian Artist is best performed when it stems from similar desires, turned towards God: beyond displays of ability, or the production of aesthetically stunning works, the Christian who finds herself engaged in Art is engaged in the same pursuit as that child painting, singing, or dancing for his loving parents: we are conveying, to God, His unequalled significance to us; and we are producing work that brings its audience into an honest encounter with the truth of our love and passions.

I. To convey to God our unequalled enjoyment of Him.

These may sound vague: what does it mean to tell God that He is of unequalled importance to us?

The first answer that springs to mind comes from the Protestant and Catholic catechisms, which open by addressing the goals of human existence: in the Reformed Church’s Westminster Shorter Catechism, the first question is asked, What is the chief end of man?, and this answer provided: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever. Similarly, the Second Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church begins with a prologue that trumpets that “The Life of Man” has as its purpose “To Know and Love God”.

To Know God; to Glorify Him; to enjoy Him; to Love Him. If these are the primary ends for which we, as Christians, believe we have been created, how do we pursue them? How do we, limited, weak, fragile human beings, bring Glory to an almighty God?

In 1^st Peter Chapter 2, Verse 9, the apostle writes that “you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, so that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” Receiving the love and care of a vast and intimate God uniquely enables us to bring Him glory by proclaiming in His presence our joy at having seen ourselves “called out of darkness, into His wonderful light”. We were once guilty of an infinitely terrible crime, and faced with an infinite punishment, the only escape from which comes by an infinite grace, which, having been received, evokes in us infinite gratitude and joy.

And, in just the same way that my youthful dedication to my parents led me to hand them the fruits of my artistic labor – poorly executed, but faithfully offered – our infinite gratitude to God finds its expression in faithfully handing Him the poor fruits of our lives: our paintings and poems, songs and dances. In every facet of our selves, including the artistic, it is right to find ourselves desiring, first and foremost, to bring God praise, by demonstrating the quality and abundance of our lives in Him. As we begin to understand what it really means to be saved by grace, this desire to respond in joyful gratitude begins to push out all the other competing desires and patrons clamoring for our attention and service.

But, there is an objection that can be raised to all this; after all, it may sound troubling to limit the scope of our artistic expression simply to those things which bring God glory. After all, why can’t we let art be free of such external constraints, let it simply be “art for art’s sake”?

Well, for one thing, love, even as it brings freedom, also necessitates limits. Any mutual love imposes on the lives of those whom it touches; but it is a joyful imposition! Yes, Love limits us; it limits us in our impatience, when we desire to withhold forgiveness; It restrains us in our jealousy, in our boasting, in our pride, and in our anger. Love, when truly tasted, makes us long to stare into its depths and lose sight of everything else as we contemplate and adore the object of our love.

II. To provide audiences an honest encounter with the truth we find surrounding us.

And also, by saying that our art should bring God glory, I don’t simply mean that the truths we convey have to be uniformly pleasant.

A natural part of becoming a Christian is that a man gradually finds himself peering into two worlds at once: the world that is “real-at-the-moment”, and the world of “actual reality.” The world of the moment is the world of suffering, of distance, of sin; but, being brought more and more sharply into focus as we grow more familiar with God, is the world as it actually was intended to be: a world of peace, of intimacy, of healing and loving unity.

This is what I mean by saying that it the second goal of the Christian Artist to provide the audience with an honest encounter of truth: God’s revelation of Himself – at once intimately personal and immensely large-scale – provides the Christian with two points of view, both of which serve the artist as inspiration. To limit the scope of artistic revelation to one or another of these viewpoints rings false: while our hope is sure and our faith secure, to claim that we can distill our experience of Christ into feel-good, pastel-colored images of serenity and passivity is a dramatic oversimplification. If we do so, we create kitsch, a shallow sentimentality that is the opposite of Good Art, because it has no connection to the complex experiences and dreams of the audiences we invite to partake in the artistic experience with us.

The opposite oversimplification – presenting the dire state of sin, while withholding a sense of overpowering hope – is equally poor art, for it is also untrue. As Christians, for whom “in all things, we are more than conquerors, because of Christ who loved us” (Rom. 8:37), it is disingenuous to pretend that our eternal well-being can be jeopardized by the passing and momentary ills of this world.

We Christians have space to discuss both despair and hope precisely because our hope can be counted on to endure. In the Christian life, there is room for both the sad truth of the fallen world as well as the glad tidings of the redemption that is beginning to shine through its cracks. After all, without death, resurrection is meaningless; but, without resurrection, death is simply a cold, inevitable end-of-story. So it is necessary to present, in our every creative work, the full trajectory of the Gospel, never shrinking from honestly portraying the total story of fallenness and redemption; but always hinting at glimpses of the Hope to overcome the despair, and the Comforter who seeks us out in our loneliness.

Art expresses the truth, hope, and passion that we have found, or want to find, in the world around us. At age 10, I found my passion in STAR WARS; and my art reflected that. But now, for today, and tomorrow, and increasingly as the days pass, that passion is focused on the being and character of God. And I hope that the work of my hands can come to daily reflect that focused passion more and more.

Once, I drew pictures of spaceships, and happily presented the results of my work to my parents. Today, right now, we are all creating, not just as artists, but as humans going about our daily lives. I pray that we can, one day, happily present the results to our Heavenly Father.

Racism?

On one of my commutes up the hill today, I passed a car with the following bumper sticker plastered across the rear window:

"It is just as racist to vote for a man because he is black as it is to vote against a man because he is black."

I firmly disagree, and here is the reasoning, in brief, behind my disagreement:

-There are two reasons why somebody's race will affect your support of their candidacy: (1) Either you are racist (defined as: you assume people have certain characteristics/qualities, whether positive or negative, simply because of their appearance and heritage), or (2) you believe that their experience of race has colored (ha ha... no.) their growth and point of view.

-I heartily concede that the sticker slogan applies to cases of (1). That is, it is equally racist to vote for a Black person on the assumption that simply being Black makes an individual better than, say, an Asian or White candidate, as it is to not vote for her on the assumption that Blackness, on its own, makes one worse than the alternatives.

-However, the sticker slogan fails in its consideration of (2): that is, that being Black grants a candidate a particular experience, for example, growing up as an ethnic minority in a very racially-charged (if not outright racist) society.

-In the case that (2) obtains, I see no reason that being Black - along with the experience of being Black in America that this brings along - is not a perfectly good (albeit yet insufficient) reason to vote for somebody. It is not racist to think that possessing the experience of being an ethnic minority in America will increase somebody's ability to serve as President.

-The opposite is not true, however. To not vote for somebody solely because of his or her status as a minority in America connotes an evaluation of the minority experience that settles on it as insufficient or detrimental to one's ability to serve as President.

Thoughts? There are arguments above that are highly undeveloped, largely due to time constraints and general laziness regarding rigorous thought post-graduation. Anyone want to push me on this?

Holla.

Something I don't quite understand

How is it, according to conservative minds, that welfare - supporting individuals who have failed in the marketplace, who can't take care of themselves and need the government's help - is a dirty word and an execrable practice, while large-scale bailout - supporting corporations who have failed in the marketplace, who can no longer handle hteir own affairs and need the government's help - is a necessary, requisite, and even noble part of the economic machine?

Man beaten in Shreveport, LA, for wearing an Obama shirt

This shit is ridiculous... I could comment or say whatever, but the pictures and his account below bear witness on their own. All I have to add is that this story needs to be told... the word needs to be spread. Right now, a google search for "Kaylon + Shreveport" turns up no stories on major news outlets. Go here for more and the latest info, and blog, IM, email, and otherwise share what's going on.





















Local Man Wearing Obama Shirt Beaten By Group of White Men

information from Mr. Johnson's family:

Kaylon was on his way home around 11 p.m. Saturday night (12/6). He was returning from a trip to the Natchitoches Christmas Festival where he was selling items from his newly opened Obama Shop.

Kaylon stopped at the Citgo station off I-20 and W. Bert Kouns (near Greenwood) to fuel up. A witness says the truck drove then came to a stop. The occupants of the truck were White men who shouted at Kaylon "F*** Obama" [I note: other accounts report racial epithets also being used] after noticing his Obama shirt.

The men got out of the truck, approached Kaylon and proceeded to attack him ... breaking his nose and seriously injuring his eye. Kaylon will have to have surgery later this week as a result of these injuries.

No other description is given other than they were "large" White men. The clerk in the station apparently was able to get the truck's license plate number.

Kaylon was not only assaulted, he was robbed as well. The suspects took his wallet before they fled.

***

"Kaylon was a key coordinator in the Shreveport for Obama campaign."

***

Fundamentally speaking

The questions seem to proceed, in rational order:
Am I alone?
Where is the Other, the self, and the other self?
Are they sustainable?

If we cannot - do not - share in suffering, then do we share? (Is it categorically selfishness to share joy and not pain?)

From where does a conception of duty arise, and to what extent are its boundaries self-determined?


Grace must cover it all over.

What's good? (temporary space-filler)

Man. Mad lots of happenings what did come up throughout this week. Lots to be thankful for, and quite a bit that I probably ought to ponder before letting it out to air dry. Highlights (i.e. list of potential blog posts, musings, and just a general sketch of an update for yall):

1) My estimated salary this summer is far higher than I had thought it might be - nearly 2 to 2.5 times what I had originally estimated, in fact (This seems rather obnoxious and self-congratulatory, but does it help if I say that, yes, as tempting as it is to be self-aggrandizing, I have been forced to realize that this is ultimately - and immediately - attributable to God, and to be used for Him?). What does this mean about me? How am I going to respond responsibly - especially considering that I am the dude who has never had more than a few hundred to his name?

2) A short piece I wrote up about my experiences in Beijing/北京 and about the Olympics/奥运会 might wind up - in print and online - in the New York Times (i.e. the stringer said yes and asked for a bio, now I just wait to see if/when it pops up).

3) The items I ordered from Lions Den's massive moving sale got to my parents' house! Commemorative drop with pictures to follow.

4) Donations for my ministry internship hit 72%, with about 3 weeks left to go before my deadline. Go providence.

5) A friend just mentioned to me - and it gave me pause for thought - that, upon perusing my blog and hearing/seeing what I've been up to, he got the impression that (1) I get around the world a good deal (I'd like to think so, in any case), but (2) I never seem to be in the role of a tourist; something to the effect that I always seem to have a reason for where I go and what I do. This made me think: for one, purposefulness is a pretty great feeling. And second, upon further reflection, I realized that I have a fairly deep dislike of playing the role of tourist. The idea of passively partaking in something that, by definition, I am not a part of, has never really interested me: I've been overseas six times in the last four years, not to mention several trips around the States, but never once as a pure tourist. In fact, I can't recall any single incident of my hearing of some place or country and subsequently thinking "hey, other people have enjoyed it; so I ought to go. Perhaps I might, as well". This might be interesting to further explore: a philosophy of travel/tourism.

How is this movie not being problematized?!!!!??

The Love Guru.

How is this movie not a problem? Mike Meyers walks around for a few hours with a bad Apu accent and it's no big deal?

Homey done been getting a pass for way too long.

[Xanga] A Personal Statement of Faith - Draft

I'd appreciate feedback on any or all of this statement. It's a work in progress - I tried to support most of it Biblically, and address as many issues of faith and doctrine as I could, but I'm certain there are things that I forgot/overlooked/am too ignorant about to have anything to say. It's something I'd always wanted to get around to, and now I'm doing it as part of the materials for raising support for my post-graduation internship in the church.

---

Personal Statement of Faith

Jesus Christ

I believe that Jesus Christ is and was fully God (John 8:58, Acts 13:38) and fully man, with all human emotions (John 11:35, etc.), limitations, and experiences, having taken ?voluntarily and willingly ?upon himself human form (Phil. 2:7), in order to, in some way, enable fallen men to come before God the Father (John 14:6). I believe that the life of Yeshua bin Yusuf, Jesus the legal son of Joseph, is a historical fact, including his birth to Mary, Joseph wife (Luke 1-2), his life, ministry, death (as related by the Jewish historian Josephus, as well as the four Gospels of the New Testament), resurrection, and ascension (Luke 24). I believe that he will come again at the end of history to judge the living and dead (Revelation 20:11-15).

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah attested to by the Jewish prophets and prefigured by Jewish law. I believe that fulfillment and happiness lies in a personal relationship of gratitude towards, love for, and obedience to Christ (John 14:15). The characterization of Christ and His teachings that I have seen revealed in Scripture, meditation, and prayer is one of peacemaking, love, sacrifice, righteousness, and humility (Matt. 5:1-14). I believe that Christ has been eternally and everlastingly present in relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the most important element of Christianity: acceptance of the truth of His miraculous birth, life of love and guidance, sacrificial death, and miraculous resurrection and ascension is critical for a Christian believer, second only to a personal understanding and experience of His person (Romans 8:1-8).

God the Father

I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who created all things (Genesis 1-2), and is omnipresent (Ps. 139:7), omnipotent (Eph. 3:20), and omnibenevolent (Ps. 18:30). I lean towards a limited view of omnipotence (i.e., that omnipotence is limited to those actions logically possible), because I believe that God will, sovereign over all things, allows his willing self-limitation, though I am also open to an unlimited view of omnipotence. I take a skeptical view of open theism, and lean rather towards a belief in an atemporal God, who is not constrained to experiencing and moving through time in the same manner that we do. I believe that shalom (completeness, wholeness, rightness) and goodness are tied to and defined by the character and being of God.

I believe that the perfection of God encompasses many attributes, including (but not limited to) His perfect mercy, grace, love, justice, gentleness, forgiveness, and strength. I believe that God desires for all created beings to be in a loving relationship with Him, through Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:21) and the Holy Spirit, and for all creation to give Him praise and rejoice in Him eternally, and that these goals are accomplished through His grace given to mankind (James 1:17).

The Holy Spirit

I believe that the Holy Spirit is and has been present and active in the world (Genesis 1:2), and is so in the hearts and lives of men and women. I believe that the continual indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a gift unique to the Christian believer (Acts 2:18), but that the Spirit may also come upon those who do not have a relationship with Christ (Acts 2:17), in order to stir them to action, reveal truth to them, or otherwise act in their lives. I believe that many functions of the Spirit are revelatory, including revealing sin, the need for salvation, the comfort of belief in Christ, etc. I believe that the Spirit, like Christ and the Father, has been eternally present in relationship to Christ and the Father. At the moment, I hold to no view on the doctrine of procession and the filioque clause, though I recognize the necessity for a Christian in ministry or position of spiritual authority to have understood and acknowledged the historical and theological difficulties associated with that debate, and to have prayerfully considered them.

The Trinity

I believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are simultaneously one being and three entities, the mystery of the three-in-one relationship extant therein uncomprehensible to human minds. I believe that it is fundamentally important to emphasize the monotheism of Christianity and also to emphasize the relational aspect of the three entities within the Trinity, and view as heresy any theology that claims Trinitarianism as a polytheistic doctrine, or the nature of God to be less than three-in-one, or any member of the Trinity to be less than fully God. It is important, too, to emphasize that the Trinity is a Biblical concept (Matt. 28:19). I believe that the Godhead possesses and defines all Good characteristics, including male and female attributes. As such, though I see God as male because of His self-revelation as such through Jesus Christ and Christ descriptions of His Father, I also emphasize the need for a subtle view of gender roles and characteristics of the Godhead (Is. 55:8-9).

Man

I believe that man was created in the image of God , and that the purpose of man existence is to praise God, to e His glory? and to rejoice in Him throughout eternity.

I believe that the fundamental problem of man, and consequently the universe, is sin, defined as ebellion, conscious or unconscious, against the will of God, and pursuit of an end other than the fulfillment of that will?(Isaiah 53:6). I believe that the ultimate origin of sin is one of the unknowable mysteries of the Bible, but fully affirm that God is not, in any way, responsible for its creation. I believe that men are, as a species, sinful (Romans 5:12), but that the sin nature is not essential to man nature, but rather a perversion of the true nature of man, the template of which has only been seen in history in the fully human Jesus Christ (Romans 6:5). I affirm the stewardship of man over all of creation (Gen. 1:28). I believe that man was created with real free will (Deut. 30:16-17), but that this is reconcilable with the sovereignty of God (Eph. 1:4).

I affirm that no man can, by virtue of his own efforts, be blameless before God (Romans 3:23), but that all men may, through an acceptance of Christ sacrifice, find salvation and eventual restoration to an eternal relationship with God (Romans 6:11, John 3:16).

I condemn Gnosticism, and any theology that proclaims humans or the human Christ to be disembodied and only spiritual beings (1 John 5:6): I affirm embodiment as characteristic of humanity, and the fundamental ontology of human beings to be both physical body as well as disembodied soul, both of which are present in our earthly journey and will be present, in a changed form, after the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:35-54).

Other Beings/Angelology and Demonology

I believe that there are such beings as angels (Luke 1:26, Matthew 1:20, Mark 8:38, etc.) and devils (Jude 1:6), including Satan. I believe that all things are created by God. I believe that the primary purpose of angels, as revealed in Scripture, is to present the will or messages of God. I believe that men may be, have been, and used to be tempted, accused, and possessed by demons, but that their powers are limited by the loving will of God. Most of all, however, I acknowledge the scarcity of Biblical information on the subject of angels and demons, and, at the moment, remain hesitant to judge otherwise-Biblical theologies for any particular doctrine of such beings.

Salvation/Soteriology

I believe that salvation, the removal of an individual man or all men from a state of sinfulness and distance from God, was accomplished through the atoning death of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:21-28), and is effected in each individual life only through the power of the blood of Christ to place an individual under the aw of the Spirit?(Romans 8:1-2). I lean towards the view that salvation is only effected by a life-changing, conscious understanding of the necessity of Christ death and the subsequent establishment of a personal relationship between the individual and Christ, but remain curious about certain theologies (such as those of Karl Rahner) which proclaim that the gift of Christ sacrifice may be accepted unconsciously in certain special circumstances (especially in consideration of Romans 2:12-16). Above all, I see the Church, in proclaiming the message of Christ death, as God chosen people in this age, to carry the message of salvation throughout the world (Matt. 16:18, Eph. 5:23-27).

I believe that salvation is an internal transformation with external consequences; that, at the moment of salvation, the believer in Christ is justified and sinless in the eyes of God, but that this inward justification will be confirmed by outward signs (James 2:20). I believe that the signs of each inward transformation are highly variable, and cannot be enumerated specifically, but that common to every actually saved believer is a love for God and, thereby, an increasing obedience to and awareness of the fullness of God commandments (John 14:15, 1 John 3:18).

I believe in Heaven as a real place, in the eternal and everlasting presence and glory of God, made beautiful by that presence. I believe in Hell as a place of eeping and gnashing of teeth?(Matt. 13:42, Luke 13:27) and of utter and truest darkness (Jude 1:6). I believe that the ultimate decision regarding salvation is, has been, and always will be dependent on the judgment of God (Rom. 2:16). Regarding any sort of theology of predestination or double predestination, I remain undecided, though I do reassert the sovereignty of God will as an element of any theology.

The Scriptures

I believe that Scripture is God-inspired (literally, od-breathed?, a source of divine revelation, and useful for many types of teaching and learning (2 Tim. 3:16). I affirm the infallibility of Scripture, but draw a distinction between infallibility and inerrancy; I remain undecided on, leaning towards denial of, inerrancy. I believe that any part of Scripture may be understood by anyone, irrespective of their level of understanding or knowledge, through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Despite this, I believe that it is important for the Christian believer to desire to increase his or her personal understanding of the textual and cultural context of every part of the Bible, because I believe that it is critical for the reader to approach the Bible from a place of humility: in pursuing scriptural revelation, one ought to approach the text with an attitude of humility, eager for correction and teaching, rather than an attitude of pride, eager to see in the Scriptures what the reader has already decided ought to be there, in order to avoid the possibility of subscribing to a self-centred, rather than God-centred, understanding of the Bible.

I believe that the Scriptures were written by sinful, imperfect men, inspired by perfect God, and translated/transcribed by such men. As such, I understand the difficulties inherent in accepting any one translation of the Bible, and suggest that Christians take seriously, and use for reference, the various legitimate competing vernacular texts. I do not think that it is incumbent upon every Christian to achieve any level of understanding of Hebrew or Greek, but affirm that any believer desiring to pursue hermeneutics or Biblical exegesis beyond a basic level should consider strongly pursuing such capabilities.

I have little understanding of the Apocrypha, but lean towards the Protestant view of the Biblical canon: 66 books, with the books of the Apocrypha as useful but non-authoritative works. I strongly believe in the historicity and historical verifiability of the canonical books, and view the Gnostic Gospels and other similar non-canonical works claiming Scriptural status as heretical. I believe that commentaries and other writings can and should be used to gain perspective of the words of Scripture, but that ultimate authority in interpreting Scripture lies in the Holy Spirit.

Prayer

I believe that prayer may take many forms (intercessory, petition, praise, thanksgiving, confession, etc.), but that all prayer is fundamentally a dialogue with God, modeled on the Apostles?Prayer (Matt. 6, Luke 11) laid out by Christ for His disciples. I believe that a strong prayer life includes not only spoken or explicit communications with God, but also extends into the manner and details of one life and daily activities: in such a manner, I believe that one may learn to ray ceaselessly?(1 Thess. 5:17) and thereby be in continual communication with God.

Because of verses such as 1 Thessalonians 5:17 and stories such as those in Daniel 6, I think that prayer is not only beneficial to the Christian believer and a natural complement to his or her theological growth, but that the believer is called to regularly come before God in prayer, as an individual and corporately with others. In fact, I believe that it is in prayer for and with others that the work of the Spirit to create bonds between brothers and sisters of the Church is best done.

I tend to pray to God the Father, but believe that prayers to Christ and the Holy Spirit are not heterodox. I view prayers to Mary, canonized Saints, and any other entities as unbiblical, and am strongly cautious about condoning views of prayer which would see such prayers as an major part of the expression of the Christian faith.

The Church/Ecclesiology

I believe that the writings of the Desert Fathers and early Church leadership should be taken seriously as guides to church polity and governance, but that the ultimate guide to the direction and structure of the Church is the leading of God, revealed to those called as members of the Body of Christ (Eph. 4:4-6).

One area of doctrine that I have been wrestling with over the last two years is that of church structure and definition. I believe that there are two churches: the earthly church, comprised of those who claim to accept Jesus Christ as son of God and Lord of their lives, and the true Church, comprised of those . Not all of those who publicly proclaim to be in the church are truly so (Gal. 2:4), and I think it is possible that there are those who will never proclaim to be in the church who are (Rom. 2). However, I wonder how important a well-defined structure is to the functioning of the Church and the entrance of the Kingdom of Heaven into the hearts and lives of the secular world. On the one hand, I believe that God is a God of precision and exactitude (as demonstrated in Gen. 6, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc.), and that this is reflected in His revealed will. On the other hand, I also believe that God reasoning and plans are inscrutable to man (Is. 55:8-9), and that His secret will is thus unknowable. In-part because of this view of God will, I think that it is important to emphasize the need for a historically grounded, highly structured, organized church, adaptive to contemporary needs and worldviews, while also emphasizing the need for a highly flexible parachurch, often less-grounded in church history and organized around specific goals and theological emphases. The question of how to support and be active in both, or which to emphasize over the other, is one on which I still have much thinking to do.

My uncertainty regarding the various ways of structuring the Church also pertains to the ordination of pastors, ministers, and priests. At the very core, I see the role of pastor or Church leader as a God-given ability (Eph. 4:11), to be used for the advancement of the Kingdom of God and the salvation and growth of Christians. The question of the Church role in discovering, nurturing, training, and promoting these gifts is also one on which I desire to spend much time, along with the questions of who ought to be permitted to teach, preach, or be publicly acknowledged as a minister.

I believe that the Church should be present in every day of a believer life, in common prayer, fellowship, eating, worship, and shared experiences (Acts 2:42-47). The Sabbath day of rest, moved from the modern Saturday to Sunday, having been chosen by the historical Catholic church as the day of assembly, should be honored both in order to deepen the fellowship and faith of the individual believer as well as the congregation of all saints as well as to follow a God-ordained model (Heb. 10:25, Mark 2:27, Gen. 2:2).

I believe that many spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12, Romans 12, Eph. 4) are granted to different individuals. I tend to lean away from charismatic understandings of spiritual gifts, and am partial to a cessationist view, but openly seek further conviction on these matters.

Evangelism

I believe that evangelism ought to be approached as the good proclamation of a good message (eu-, ood?or ell?+ angelos, essenger?or essage?, and that it is among the joyful, central, duties of all believers in Christ (Matt. 28:16-20). I believe that evangelism will take many forms, including lifestyle witness, initiative outreach, ministries within the church, overseas missions, etc (1 Cor. 9:22). Most importantly, however, any form of evangelism is effective only through the grace of God and the work of the Spirit in men lives and hearts.

I also place critical emphasis on the fact that we, as followers of Christ, ought to strive to bring our personal spiritual lives into consistency with our proclamations of the Gospel and the truths revealed to us through prayer, meditation on Scripture, and other believers, in order to present a broad witness of the fullness of the life-changing revelation of salvation.

Justice

Though I deny the view of the ocial gospel?proclaimed in many mainline Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, and other denominational churches, I am strongly convicted that for Christians o be doers of the Word, not hearers only?(James 1:22) involves living lives consistent with the messages we proclaim, including the image and character of God reflected in His Creation, especially in the natural and human worlds, and the radical peacemaking, love, and forgiveness preached by Christ.

Towards this end, I think it important for Christians to understand the continual refrain found in Scripture on serving the poor (Is. 61, Matt. 25:40), disenfranchised (including the targets of racism, socioeconomic discrimination, and age or gender bias), and needy (Luke 6:17), and to commit ourselves to pursue means to do so more and more effectively and lovingly. It is also important for Christians to examine Biblical views of stewardship and understand how those views play into, or sometimes contradict, popular views of environmentalism and conservation.

I am also convicted that, as citizens of various countries and members of various demographics, Christians must also realize that their actions have ramifications on a political scope. I believe firmly that Christians should not buy into partisan views or agendas, but rather emphasize that the political duty of a Christian is motivated by the same factors as all other duties in life: to serve God and demonstrate His character, love, and salvation to all men.

Christianity and Other Religions

I believe that other world religions represent solutions ?at best incomplete, at worst thoroughly wrongheaded ?to the emptiness of a life lived without a personal relationship with God. As such, I believe that there is some grain of truth within each religion, and the duty of Christians in dialogue with believers of other faith traditions is to, through appeal to the Holy Spirit and living Scripture (Heb. 4:12), learn to separate truth from falsehood, in order to affirm the true desires of non-Christian believers while exposing the falsity of claims to salvation or fulfillment that lie outside of Christ.

I believe that Christians ought to approach adherents of other religions with the attitude of Christ (Phil. 2:3-8): to affirm them as worthy creations of God and potential adopted children of God (Eph. 1:5), and, as a result, to approach apologetic and polemic discussions not as an exercise of intellectual or spiritual dominance ("It is a wicked prayer to ask to have someone to hate or to fear, so that he may be someone to conquer." - Augustine, City of God, IV.15), but rather as an opportunity to ive the reason for the hope that you have? with gentleness and respect?(1 Peter 3:15). Throughout such dialogues, I believe that the spirit of the true Redeemer may shine truth and light into the lives of others, drawing them to Himself.

Eschatology

I believe that the end of history, the time of the return of Christ to udge the living and the dead?(as the Apostolic Creed proclaims, from 1 Peter 4:5), is quickly approaching, and has been imminent (1 Thess. 5:2) ever since the Ascension of Christ; that, in fact, the end of history has been looming near throughout the entire age of the Church.

While I do affirm that the end of history will bring with it great torment and sorrow to those who have chosen to live in rebellion towards Christ, I believe to have received enough conviction from my personal meditation on Scripture and relationship with Christ to be significantly troubled by many popularly-held views of the End Times, especially those concerning Rapture. However, due to my theological ignorance on these matters, I am highly interested in a thorough study of the Book of Revelation, in order to further form my doctrines regarding eschatology, prophecy regarding the future, and the like.

The Christian Life

In addition to the other views I have listed above regarding living out the Christian life (in particular, Phil. 2 and Acts 2), I think that the passage in 1 Timothy 3 on the qualifications of a church deacon (v. 8-13) to be excellent guidelines, in general, for the outward actions springing from a repentant and Spirit-filled soul in this age of the Church.