Friday, November 21, 2008


I was thinking the other day about how many different types of knowledge there were.

1. Common Sense. This is knowledge gained from experience, observation, or instinct. "Don't touch hot things" and "don't insult someone bigger than you" are prime examples. This isn't things you necessarily need to be taught, and they don't teach it in school.

2. Book learning. This is knowledge learned in school. 2+2=4, Ethiopia is an African country. Knowledge that may or may not do you good. Basically, knowledge that helps you score high on standardized tests and get into college.

3. Wisdom, or application of knowledge. This is separate from common sense because people with common sense may not always have wisdom. This is "smarts" that aid you in discernment and in difficult choices.

4. Observation. This aspect of smartness can be hard to teach. This is body language, tonal reasponse etc. that helps you determine or know more about people or things without being told.

I don't know if these are all the forms, but 4 was all I could come up with.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Let it Go

Sometimes I wonder how much we Christians hold onto the world and how little we hold on to Christ. We seem to sit on the fence and try to have one foot on either side. Elijah told the Israelites "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? I the LORD is God, follow Him but if Baal, then follow him."

How can we follow God if we are continually holding on to the world? We can't, and Elijah said it's better if you are fully in the world than if you are continually putting one foot on the worlds side, then one foot on Christianity's side.

Think on that for a moment, and how scary that thought is. Do you really want to sit on the fence?

Friday, October 31, 2008

I was reading a book recently called Walking on Water. It is written by a Christian author who was trying to help Christian artists, musicians etc. to find creativity. Unfortunately, the book was filled with hermeneutical misconceptions. Too many, that it made me seriously question her point.

She compares the Christian with Mary, the mother of Jesus. Her comparison makes several major errors. 1) It spiritualizes the text. Mary's virgin pregnancy was a one time event in history. Not written as an allegory, but as a narrative. Nothing in the passage indicates we are to respond to creative ideas in the same way that Mary responded to carrying Christ. There is no comparison between Christ and our puny little creative works. 2) It draws application where no application is hinted or desired. As I said before, this is a narration of an event in history. Only once was there a virgin birth, only once was the child the Lord of all Creation.

Several other errors also were found, though many would disagree. God doesn't speak creative works into our hearts, we draw them out of ourselves. God communicates no longer through speaking to one's heart, he communicates through his eternal word, the Bible.

The times in the Bible God audibly speaks are rare, to say the least, also, if we get creative juices from God, then how come many (or most) secular creators better acknowledged as great than Christian creators?

Anyways, I'll probably end up posting more thoughts like these as I read through this book. Tata for now!

Saturday, October 25, 2008


This is an interesting blog post partly because it confuses me.

I'm preparing to see if I can have laser eye surgery, and in order to do that I need to go off of the contacts I had been wearing. For a couple days everything was blurry, then when I put on contacts yesterday, everything was super clear.

Then I got to thinking, would we know what blurry is if we didn't know what clear was?

To make this bigger, can we say that there would be no good if there were no evil? How can we believe that there is good, if we believe that there is no evil?

I don't even know, so I'll have to do research.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Yesterday, I told my brother what I was going to post, but I think I'm going to lie to him, and change my decision

My topic today is: The memories we cherish indicates what we value in life.

The word cherish conveys the idea of treasuring some object, person or idea. Whether money, a wife, or a memory, it shows what we value. I think that this idea I'm trying to bring across is based on the passage in the Bible "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

So, I take this idea and look at my "treasure box" of memories and see what I find. Memories I cherish are:
1. Long talks with Nate about philosophy and life.
2. Long talk with my dad about looking for a mate
3. Walking on a hill behind Borders, looking over Eau Claire late at night with friends B and C
4. Etc.

What does this say about me? I like friends and philosophy. The problem is not that I like those things, they are morally neutral and can even be positive. The problem I see is none of my memories are related to Christ. I think I need to approach my devotions and Sunday worship services with a mindset that what I'm reading, what I'm hearing, is worthy of cherishing to the same degree that I cherish memories of my friends. I don't think automatically I'm going to start to have a life-changing attitude and automatically become a super-Christian. I'm not expecting that, but I think after 10 years of approaching church, God's word and prayer in a "treasure hunting" mindset, I will see dramatic improvement in my relationship with God. I hope so anyways.

And no, I didn't get this idea from my hero, C. S. Lewis.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Christians in Culture

I believe there is in our world an untapped potential for Christians. In our world, people spend more time on YouTube, in the theatres, listening to music, reading fiction or graphic novels and chatting on the internet. I think that Christians have missed the chance to use culture to influence people for the good and spread the news of the Perfect One who died on a tree.

Music: Of all the parts of culture, this is where Christian's have prevailed. I'm not exactly sure why but I believe it probable has to do with the use of music during church services. Some bands (Switchfoot and Anberlin) have really been able to use music to touch the world, and I think that this will increase as the years go on.

Art: Long long time ago, art seemed to be much more infused with Christianity. Recently its been differentiated, and I think its the world's loss. I do believe (personally) the modern art era has really diminished the effectiveness of Christians in art, and I think that modern art has caused Christians to put art at a distance. I think we need Christians to be able to bring morality back into art. We also need Christians to write Graphic Novels. The comic industry has boomed in recent past, and I think we have Manga to thank for that. ;) We need Christians to "invade" the graphic novel scene with, not overtly Christian themes, but character who show the Christian ethical system and a belief in God.

Movies: Ah yes, the prime area for liberal thought to permeate our culture. The makers of Fireproof and Facing the Giants did well, but according to standards of excellence by secular reviewers, it was poor. We need Christians to permeate the movie industry with Christian ideas and morality.

The list can go on and on, but I point to one greater than myself, C. S. Lewis, who talks of Christians in Culture in his book Christian Reflections. I think what we need is people who are able to gain secular acclaim while having a Christian foundation, like C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia and the like.

Peace out.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Friends A, B, and C

Reading C. S. Lewis is one of the wisest decisions any person can make. Recently, a passage in his book The Four Loves struck a chord. In the chapter on friendship C. S. Lewis makes the point that most of the people we call friends are actually "companions" or "allies" and that true friends are those who "see the same truth," whether that truth is ethical, philosophical or the belief that oak leaves are better and more beautiful than maple leaves (ok, that was a ridiculous example). Whatever it is, you get a connection with that person on a deeper level than you would with anyone else. The difference between "Friendship" and "Eros" (love between lovers) is that friendship is not primarily interested in the other person per se, but more interested in the truth that the other person also believes, and the fact he or she likes a certain band that you despise means nothing because you both see the beauty in a certain artist's work.

Now I know myself well enough to know that all I just wrote probably left you more confused than when you dove into the text, so I'll try to simplify what I attempted to say. When two (or more) individuals see the same truth that their companions don't, they form this pseudo-bond where they are now separated from the other companions. As friends, they are pictured side-by-side looking at a landscape, a painting or whatever truth they see, as opposed to lovers pictured looking into each other's eyes.

The main difference between lovers and friends is, lovers exclude others from their relationship. They do not welcome intrusion. Friends, if an individual meets their criteria ("do you see the same truth?") are welcomed into their circle.

Finally, after that intro, I come to my main point. Take friends A, B, and C for example. When A and B are together, A doesn't have the part of B that C draws out, when B and C are together, C doesn't have the part of B that A draws out. This is why friends welcome others who see the same truth. Many people think that if A dies, then B will have more of C than he or she had before, but the opposite is quite true. B has less of C than when A is alive. This draws out the differences of "Friendship" and "Eros" even more plainly.

Anyways, I hope you read and appreciate my rambling...all info comes from The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis and I encourage you to read it.
I also have to say, I do have two friends, B and C (they know who they are) and I can see the truth in C. S. Lewis' belief.