Today I turn 34 years old. To me, the number 34 brings a couple of significant associations to my mind -- but it seems to me that they all have something to do with accomplishment, heroism, and mortality.

One of my earliest and strongest identifications with the #34 is Walter Payton, the great running back for Chicago Bears. When I was growing up, every football player wanted to wear #34 -- because of Walter Payton -- and I was certainly no different. I still treasure the memory of seeing #34 at the Bears' training camp in Platteville, Wisconsin, back in the mid-1980s. I still treasure the memory of seeing #34 dance the Superbowl Shuffle when the Bears won it all in 1985. Walter Payton was one of the classic sports icons for my generation, and that #34 is intrinsically linked to everything he represented. And yet, I'm shocked to look up Payton's bio and realize that he retired from football at the age of 33. Before he ever saw his 34th birthday, as I'm seeing it now. By the time Walter Payton was my age, he was done. Superbowl championship, multiple Pro Bowl selections, a Hall of Fame career: done before #34 ever celebrated his 34th birthday.

The other #34 that automatically leaps to my mind is my childhood baseball hero: Kirby Puckett. I probably had a dozen different posters of the Twins' #34 in my bedroom while I was growing up. Even today, I still have a collection of a couple-dozen of Puckett's baseball cards. I still have the Wilson-brand ball-glove emblazoned with Puckett's signature across the palm. Suffice to say: he was another major figure from my childhood, and another example of the greatness of the #34. Fortunately, playing a less physically-abusive sport than Walter Payton, Kirby Puckett's career made it past his 34th birthday (though he was forced into a premature retirement after a freak injury at age 35). But even so, the point remains that Puckett's greatest body of work was already completed by the time he turned 34. That is, by the time that Kirby Puckett was my age, he had already won all of the championships he was ever going to win (2), he had already wracked up the vast majority of all the Gold Gloves and Silver Slugger awards that he was ever going to get (11 of the 12), and all of his Hall of Fame credentials were secure: all wrapped up before #34 ever celebrated his 34th birthday.

So what does all this mean for me, celebrating my 34th birthday today?

Obviously, it's not fair to compare athletes to pastors (or any other types of professions) -- and even granting athletes' accomplishments on the field, the numbers don't say anything about their maturity as persons or their successes as husbands or fathers or humanitarians. Still, as my age flips over to that magical #34, I can't help myself from wondering about my legacy and my mortality. Both Payton and Puckett happened to die at the age of 45 -- just 11 years after their 34th birthdays. So by the time they were at my current stage in life, regardless of career accomplishments, they had already lived over three-quarters of their entire life span! So for me, there is a very real question about how I'm investing my time, my talents, and my treasures in the grander scheme of things, whether I end up living to be 45, 75, or 105. And when I look at the overall scenario, I feel challenged that I haven't "left my mark on the world" in any appreciable way through my first 34 years. I'm not a household name like Walter Payton or Kirby Puckett, and the truth of the matter is that I may never be known in that kind of way.

Still, I believe there's reason for encouragement. Certainly, I think about my children and the legacy that I'm daily establishing through them. I think about the ways that I've tried to live as a disciple of Jesus -- following the example of those before me (1C11:1) and passing things on to those behind me (2T2:2). But at the end of the day, what I really have to celebrate is the fact that, "I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me -- the task of testifying  to the gospel of God's grace" (Acts 20:24). "Whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ -- the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith" (Philippians 3:7-9).

Birthday #34 is as good a birthday as any to celebrate. But I also appreciate the opportunity to remember the bigger picture -- and that the bigger picture is ultimately way better than anything Payton or Puckett could have ever dreamed of accomplishing on the field.

I continue to wonder about the possibilities for integrating the Bible and Literature. Specifically, I've often thought that there are a number of Biblical elements just waiting to be used as literary allusions (though, of course it's possible that they already have been used as such, and I just haven't been exposed to them yet). In my mind, some of the Bible's relatively obscure phrases or figures are so poignant and powerful that a modern-day adaptation is just begging to be written!

Just for the fun of it, I thought I would share some of the words and images which I consider to offer excellent potential for powerful story-telling. If any of you students of Literature would want to take any of these "writing prompts" and run with them, I welcome you to do so (even though I realzie that I run the risk of losing out on my own Pulitzer or Nobel prize, by giving away these gems). And if any of you students of the Bible have items to add to my little list, I would love to hear them. Here are some of the ones that stand out to me:

"My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!" This is a quote from the prophet Elisha, as cited in the story of Elisha's mentor Elijah being carried up to heaven in a firestorm (see 2 Kings chapter 2). To me, this line has a sort of inherrent power to it, much along the line of "Absalom! Absalom!" which William Faulkner used so effectively -- but, like "Absalom! Absalom!," the line also has a great story behind it, which makes the words themselves that much stronger. In the case of Elisah's quote, there are strong themes of perseverance, coming-of-age, grief, and fulfillment that can be drawn from the story around this quote. Seriously: a Nobel Prize for Literature just waiting to be won...

Mephibosheth. Mephibosheth is a minor figure from the story of King David -- but aside from just having a cool and quirky name, he also represents a beautiful story of love, loyalty, and forgiveness. You can read more of Mephibosheth's story in the 4th and 9th chapters of 2 Samuel -- though you'd also have to look into the stories of David and Jonathan, to get the full effect -- but basically, the idea is that Mephibosheth comes from the line of Saul who is supposedly in stark opposition to the line of David, Saul's royal successor. But instead of having the last, crippled remnant of Saul's line killed, David gives him a place of honor at the royal table out of loyalty to Mephibosheth's father, Jonathan. I think any story about love, loyalty, and forgiveness would be greatly enhanced by including a character named and/or modeled after Mephibosheth...

"This man declared to Ithiel, to Ithiel and to Ucal." This is a reference to Proverbs 30:1, and I think it's cool because it's basically just a "coded" reference to exhaustion. From what I understand, this quote is a direct translation of the Hebrew in the original Masoretic text -- but if a slightly different word division of the Hebrew is used, the same text can be translated "I am weary, O God; I am weary, O God, and faint." Maybe it's just me (because this is a pretty obscure reference), but I think this phrase -- and/or the names Ithiel, Ucal, and Agur (the one who is doing the declaring in this quote) -- would be great allusions in any work about exhaustion, weariness, and hopelessness...

"Skin for skin!" This is a quote from the mouth of Satan himself, as cited in the second chapter of Job. Believe it or not, there are not actually that many direct quotes from Satan in the Bible -- but this is one of them, and I think it's an interesting take on the classic, "eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth" dictum. The context of this passage shows that it's about causing someone physical harm for the sake of testing him. On a broader literary level, I believe this phrase could be used as an allusion in any situation involving temptation, testing, or suffering...

Does anyone else know of any other Biblical phrases or figures that are just waiting to be developed into a Biblical allusion? This, of course, is not the primary purpose behind our reading of the Bible -- just to gather up clever quotes and allusions -- but it is a cool peripheral benefit. Also, if anyone ends up using any of these "writing prompts" (or finds them somewhere else within the greater body of Literature), please let me know!

I've recently been reading T. David Gordon's Why Johnny Can't Preach. It was recommended highly by a good friend, and indeed it's a fascinating book about communications and ministry. One of its most significant points is that most ministers today preach ineffectively because they are poor students of written communication: literature and textual criticism in particular. In effect, Gordon argues that one's study of the Bible is considerably enhanced by one's experience with studying the sonnets of Shakespeare or other great works of literature, which must be digested slowly and deliberately (as opposed to the more immediate and more practical forms of electronic communication that are more widely used today). I don't know if I agree with everything that Gordon has to say, but it is certainly some noteworthy food for thought: namely, that a thorough understanding and appreciation of great Literature enhances our study of the Bible.

I happen to agree with this particular assertion, but it also intrigues me because I've recently been considering the fact that to be an effective student (or a producer/writer) of Literature, a significant level of appreciation for the Bible is essential. In short: appreciation of the Bible and appreciation of great Literature go hand in hand.

I remember sitting in a 300-level English literature course at Bowling Green State University, examining at a cross-section of early-American literature in which repeated references were made to some place called "Pisgah." Despite the professor's leading questions -- indicatingd that these "Pisgah" references were an important key to understanding the overall message of the narrative passages -- the lecture hall sat in silent confusion as to the significance of what that word meant. Eventually, the professor revealed that "Pisgah" was a Biblical allusion, referring to Moses viewing of the Promised Land that he would never be privileged to enter, described in Deuteronomy 3:21-29. And indeed, when I went back to my dorm room and read the Biblical account for myself later, the early-American literature made so much more sense and carried a significantly greater emotional weight.

Ever since that discovery, I've been captivated by the literary power of Biblical allusion.

Some Biblical allusions have been so widely used that they now border on being clichéed: phrases such as "milk and honey" (referring to an idealistic description of the Israelites' Promised Land, as described in Exodus 3:7-8 and numerous other sections of the Old Testament of the Bible) or "loaves and fishes" (referring to the miracle in which Jesus' provided food for 5000 people from just five loaves of bread and two fishes, recorded in Mark 6:30-44). It's astonishing, really, to realize how many of our casual turns-of-language find their roots in the Bible. Still other examples of these common Biblical allusions include "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," or "turn the other cheek," or "the extra mile" (all three of which can be found in Matthew 5:38-42). These types of phrases are peppered throughout the English language (and, I would wager, also throughout other languages of the Western Hemisphere). However, the power of Biblical allusion runs much deeper than these standard references.

Consider, for example, two of the greatest American novelists of all time, who clearly understood the power of Biblical allusion: John Steinbeck and William Faulkner. John Steinbeck's East of Eden -- which the author considered to be his greatest work -- drew heavily upon the stories of deception, disobedience, hatred, and murder found in the Biblial accounts of Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel, as found in Genesis 1-4. Likewise, William Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom! -- often cited as the greatest novel ever written about the American South -- drew its title and its inspiration from the story of King David and his rebellious son Absalom, as found in 2 Samuel 15-18. Both of these works of literature are rooted in the great (though perhaps somewhat obscure) stories of the Bible, and they alone make a strong case for the serious student of Literature to also become a serious student of the Bible. But truthfully, Steinbeck and Faulkner are just two small examples of countless other great writers who have drawn heavily upon the narrative history of the Bible to provide their books with multiple layers of meaning. William Shakespeare, Leo Tolstoy, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkein, George Bernard Shaw, Toni Morrison... the list goes on and on and on. Probably half of the writers who have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature have included significant elements of Biblical allusion in their most significant and celebrated works!

So indeed, I believe that appreciation of the Bible and appreciation of great Literature go hand in hand.

What's odd, however, is that my natural impression -- from knowing people who are serious students of the Bible and knowing people who are serious students of Literature -- indicates these two realms of study are often viewed as being mutually exclusive. As I've previously noted in this space, most contemporary Christians tend to look down on fiction as being frivilous, insubstantial, and a waste of time. But it's not just the Christians who miss the boat on this one. Similarly, most contemporary enthousiasts of Literature look down on the Bible as being dogmatic, irrelevant, and boring. If you'll allow me to use yet another Biblical allusion, it's as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing (see Matthew 6:1-4). So how can these two disciplines be brought into more meaningful interaction?!? I wish I knew! I certainly feel challenged to step up both my study of the Bible and my study of great works of Literature; but until my Christian friends and literary friends take similar steps, I fear that I will always be looking down at the world from the vantagepoint of Pisgah...

Elliot played in his first basketball tournament this weekend. In this 13-second video clip, you can see that he has learned how to shoot like an American basketballer but celebrate like a European footballer.

About a year ago, I had the chance to be interviewed by a graduate student here in Amsterdam named Jake Brussard, who was researching the topic of using visual material within the church. When he completed his research project, he sent me the notes from our conversation -- and I had filed them away for awhile, thinking that I might eventually put it up here on the website... But I just never got around to it, and the files got figuratively buried beneath an electronic pile of documents.

Recently, the topic came up again in a different context, and it reminded me that it might be interesting to go back and post this transcript from the old interview.

As one who was formally educated in the field of Communications and who has practiced Christian ministry for the past 12 years, this is one of those rare areas in life within which I might be able to actually consider myself "knowledgeable," with a more highly developed degree of thought about this particular combination of visual materials and church ministry. So for whatever it's worth, here is the interview between myself (EA) and Jake Brussard (JB):

*     *     *     *     *

JB: Maakt u ooit gebruik van afbeeldingen van Christus tijdens de samenkomst?

EA: Ja.

JB: welke afbeeldingen gebruikt u?

EA: Geen bepaalde, meest digitaal, vanaf internet gehaald. Maar ook heel oude
schilderijen, iconen ook. Verschilt een beetje ook…ook moderne kunst.

JB: Zijn er ook echt schilderijen in de kerk, of iconen?

EA: Nee, het gaat via de beamer.
We hebben wel kunst gehad die Jezus-achtig is, maar geen echte iconen in de kerk.

JB: Is er een reden dat er geen echte iconen gebruikt worden?

EA: Nee. Het zou kunnen gebeuren.

JB: Bij welke gelegenheden worden afbeeldingen gebruikt?

EA: Het is eigenlijk altijd tijdens de preek. Dan worden er teksten geprojecteerd, maar
ook beelden, die een soort visuele re-inforcement geven van wat er gezegd wordt.
We hebben ook een eigen ruimte die we als een soort tentoonstellingsruimte
gebruiken, waar kunstenaars hun werk één of twee maanden kunnen laten zien.

JB: Zijn daar ook wel eens afbeeldingen van Christus bij?

EA: Ja, soms wel.

JB: Tijdens de zangdienst, worden daar afbeeldingen gebruikt?

EA: Nee, tijdens de zangdienst niet, dat is gewoon met teksten.

JB: Is dat een bewuste keuze geweest?

EA: Nee, het is wel een bewuste keuze, omdat het eenvoudiger is en er schoner
uitziet. Geen theologische reden daar voor.

JB: Als er afbeeldingen van Christus worden gebruikt – tijdens de preek – is er dan
een overleg met mensen voordat dat wordt gebeamed?

EA: Nee, het is vooral de verantwoordelijkheid van de preker zelf, hoe hij dat regelt
en wat hij laat zien.

JB: Hebben jullie ook vaak gastsprekers?

EA: Ja, niet heel vaak, maar ongeveer 3 a 4 keer per jaar.

JB: En daar wordt niet bij gecontroleerd wat die willen projecteren?

EA: Nee, de meeste gastsprekers hebben geen afbeeldingen, het mag wel, maar ze
zijn daar gewoon niet aan gewend en dat hebben ze dus niet.

JB: U heeft zelf dus ook afbeeldingen getoond, tijdens de preken. Waarop baseert u
uw keuze voor een bepaald beeld?

EA: Het gaat vooral om emotie, wat voor gevoel een beeld zou geven.

JB: Kunt u daar iets meer over vertellen; een voorbeeld geven?

EA: Ik wilde vorige week een verhaal vertellen over Elia en Elisa en ik wilde een
beeld hebben dat hun allebei in beeld had en dat een beetje een gevoel van mysterie,
een droomachtig gevoel, opriep. Dus geen potloodtekening van de mensen, geen
kindermateriaal. Dat wilde ik niet.
Dit was geen beeld van Christus, maar dezelfde afwegingen zouden meewegen: Wat
voor gevoel geeft het.

JB: En dat gevoel, dat is een inschatting die u maakt?

EA: Ja, het is een deel van mijn preek. Mijn woorden zijn een middel en een beeld
heeft datzelfde effect.

JB: Hebben de woorden en de beelden hetzelfde niveau qua waarde?

EA: Nee, niet helemaal, maar het beeld is wel ook erg belangrijk.
Ik denk wel eerst na over de woorden en daarna pas over de beelden.

JB: Hoe reageren mensen op het gebruik van beelden?

EA: Positief. De mensen worden echt gestimuleerd door de beelden. Ik heb het idee dat ze het leuk vinden dat er beelden gebruikt worden. Het is een soort afspiegeling van hoe onze maatschappij werkt, het visuele is heel belangrijk.

JB: Belangrijker dan vroeger?

EA: Ja, denk ik wel. Honderd jaar geleden waren we meer gericht op het afgedrukte woord. Dat is het belangrijkste in de protestantse reformatie, vanaf 1600 tot het midden van de 20e eeuw, dat het woord het belangrijkste was. Nu denk ik meer dat het beeld belangrijk is. We zitten in een overgangsperiode.

JB: Is dat een verandering binnen de maatschappij of binnen de kerk?

EA: In de westerse maatschappij. En de meeste kerken gaan daar in mee. Er zijn nog sommige kerken die het moeilijker vinden, dat snap ik ook.

JB: De reden dat u het meer gebruikt is om aan te sluiten bij de tendens van de
beeldcultuur van vandaag?

EA: Ja, ik heb geen bepaalde theologie over beelden en dat soort dingen. Maar mijn taak als spreker is het woord van God te communiceren aan mensen in mijn gemeente. En hoe ik dat doe is met woorden, met beelden, met verhalen. Ik denk dat als ik honderd jaar geleden had gepreekt dat het meer met geschreven en gesproken woord zou zijn. Nu is het meer een combinatie.

JB: U heeft zelf een opleiding in de kunst, en niet in de theologie. Is het toevallig dat u
juist nu in deze maatschappij predikant bent geworden?Was dat 150 jaar geleden
ondenkbaar geweest?

EA: Ja, dat denk ik wel dus dat is niet toevallig. Honderd jaar geleden mocht ik waarschijnlijk niet eens preken en toen waren er andere waarden belangrijk in de kerk. Je moest de juiste opleiding hebben, de juiste boeken hebben gelezen. Ik zie dat zelf niet in de bijbel, maar ik zie wel dat mensen van karakter en gevuld zijn van de Heilige Geest…in onze cultuur is het ook belangrijk dat je goed kunt communiceren en goed kunt leiden. Het gaat nu meer om leiderschap eigenlijk. Honderd jaar geleden kon dat niet zonder opleiding, nu wel.

JB: Net vroeg ik hoe uw gemeente er op reageert. Wordt dit ook geëvalueerd, of is het
een inschatting?

EA: Er is een evaluatie van de preek, wekelijks, maar niet specifiek over de beelden.

JB: Is er daar aandacht voor de beelden?

EA: Nee, geen specifieke vraag.

JB: Is daar een reden voor?

EA: Goede vraag…dat weet ik niet.

JB: Toch noemt u het wel een belangrijk onderdeel van de preek?

EA: Ja, klopt, het zou ook kunnen om het wel te evalueren, maar het zit nu niet in de evaluatie, daar is geen specifieke reden voor.  Het is wel belangrijk om te weten dat onze gemeente een jonge gemeente is, de leden zijn tussen de 20 en 30 jaar oud. Zij hebben minder met kwesties als ‘beeldenstorm’ en problemen met problemen. De mensen die die theologische problemen hebben met beelden zijn vaak ouder. Mensen vanaf de jaren ’70 zijn met Sesamstraat opgegroeid, met computers en beelden zijn een deel van hun communicatie.

JB: Is het gebruik van beelden met de beamer, is daar ooit discussie rond geweest?

EA: Nee, dat is nooit gebeurd. Het zou wel kunnen, want mensen kunnen over alles klagen.

JB: Hoe zou dat gebeuren?

EA: Stel dat we een provocerend beeld zouden gebruiken, bijvoorbeeld een heel grafisch beeld van de kruisiging zouden gebruiken. Het kan het me vrij moeilijk voorstellen dat mensen zouden zeggen “het is theologisch niet correct”, maar meer “het is te bloederig, dat wil ik niet zien, ik wil niet dat mijn kinderen het niet zien”.  Ik kan me ook voorstellen dat iemand een soort godslasterlijk beeld zou gebruiken; Jezus met horens of een duivelsstaart…dat zou wel discussie geven.

JB: Dan gaat het over de associatie die beelden oproepen?

EA: Ja, het is een gevoelskwestie.

JB: Het zal nooit een theologische discussie worden?

EA: Misschien als er iemand van buiten zou zijn, die er discussie over zou maken.

JB: En als er een echt icoon zou staan, zou dat verkeerde associaties op kunnen roepen?

EA: Het hangt er vanaf hoe het gepresenteerd wordt. Als het een deel van de expositie zou zijn, zou het wel kunnen. Of als het een voorbeeld is, dan kan het ook. Maar als we zouden zeggen dat het icoon zou helpen met aanbidding, zou het wel raar overkomen.

JB: Wat is dan het rare? Is het alleen ‘vreemd’?

EA: Nou, onze boodschap aan onze mensen is: Je hoeft niets te hebben om een relatie met God te hebben, behalve Jezus. Je eigen persoonlijke verbinding met God is het belangrijkst. Dus als dat moet door een priester, als dat moet door een bepaald icoon, of een bepaald woordgebruik, dan is dat niet bijbels volgens mij, dus vandaar. Als het beeld een middel wordt om God te gebruiken, dan is het een probleem.

JB: En als hulpmiddel?

EA Het hangt er heel erg vanaf hoe het gepresenteerd wordt.

JB: Over de argumenten. Heeft u argumenten voor het gebruik van afbeeldingen binnen de kerkdienst? Waarom vind u dat het kan?

EA: Ik heb geen argumenten in mijn hoofd. Mijn grootste vraag is: Waarom niet? Ik snap niet zo goed waarom sommige protestanten er een probleem mee hebben. Ik denk dat het meer historisch is dan theologisch.

JB: Hoe ziet u uw gemeente in die historische lijn?

EA: Ik zou zeggen dat zeker we een protestantse gemeente zijn. We zijn ook een beetje Vergadering van Gelovigen. Een beetje Jesus People van de jaren ’70 en een beetje postmodern wat richting betreft.

JB: U zou wel zeggen dat u voortkomt uit de reformatorische/protestantse traditie?

EA: Ja, zeker.

JB: Hoe ziet u daar binnen de strijd tegen de beelden?

EA: Mijn theorie is dat het vooral ging om een uiterlijk aangeven van “wij zijn anders dan de katholieken” dan dat het ging om de kwestie zelf.

JB: De verschillende tradities die u net noemde, weet u hoe binnen die stromingen is omgegaan met beelden?

EA: Ik denk dat de Jesus People het wel van belang vonden. Dat is geen officieel deel van de geschiedenis. Maar ik denk dat de meeste mensen daar wel dachten: “deze cultuur spreekt de taal van Rock & Roll-muziek. Wij moeten die taal dus ook kennen, als we willen communiceren met mensen over Jezus.

JB: Dus het gaat er om dat jullie willen communiceren in de taal die de maatschappij spreekt, in jullie geval dus de beeldcultuur?

EA: Ja, dat bedoel ik ja.

JB: Zijn er ook dingen in de maatschappij/cultuur waarin je als kerk niet mee kan gaan?

EA: Het gaat om de boodschap, niet om de media zelf. Ik zou nooit zeggen dat het visuele zelf verdacht is om te gebruiken. Maar ik zou wel problemen hebben met bepaalde vormen van het gebruik er van. Kijk bijvoorbeeld naar reclames. De Axe-reclame bijvoorbeeld, die gebruikt vieze beelden, als christen en als consument vind ik dat walgelijk. Zij gebruiken beelden om een vies gevoel over te geven wat mij betreft. Het beeld is dus niet het probleem, maar de boodschap.

JB: Wat is daar het criterium voor?

EA: De bijbel. Het gaat om je hart, hoe je mensen behandelt. Beelden hebben hetzelfde criterium als woorden. Het gaat er niet om of je het wel of niet mag doen, maar om de boodschap.Het beeld moet mensen dichterbij God brengen.

JB: Is daar een objectieve maatstaf voor?

EA: Het gaat er om de dialoog te blijven voeren. Binnen de cultuur is de boodschap die je overbrengt vaak wel duidelijk.  Er is geen algemeen antwoord dat alles dekt.

From time to time, I've thought about changing the name of my website. Basically, it all comes back to the fact that only a small fraction of the stuff that I write here in this space is actually about Amsterdam. In reality, the blog is actually more about seeing the entire world (or at least whatever parts of the world that I may visit) through my eyes.

Previously, I've considered the name "Aspirations" -- but more recently, I've been considering a variation on the theme: using the name "(C) Aspire." It's an anagram of my name (and thus, also the name for the website); and the idea with using this title for my web presence is that it could be accompanied by a tag-line something like: "There are three basic options when it comes to life, love, and faith: (A) Doubt, (B) Dogmatize, or (C) Aspire."

But be honest with me: Does that sound dumb? What's your reaction when you hear this idea?

I didn't even know that my children would be aware that today was Valentine's Day -- but within the first fifteen minutes of waking up, my Olivia had covered herself in hearts from head to toe and was practically radiating Valentine's cheer:

A heart-themed headband... a heart-themed shirt... heart-themed tights... and everything in varying shades of red and pink.

It was pretty impressive. Neither Marci nor I are typically that big into the celebration of this particular holiday -- but apparently my daughter is.   Funny, huh?

Jim Henson was a genius when it came to depicting grumpy guys. There were Waldorf and Statler, the two old guys on the Muppet Show who sat up in the balcony and heckled the cast. There was also Sam the Eagle. There was Bert, the surly counterpart to affable Ernie. And naturally, what conversation about Jim Henson's grumpy guys would be complete without an acknowledgement of Oscar the Grouch?

Henson had a way of depicting these grumpy characters that was not only spot-on and eerily-reminiscent of real-world, human grouches... But he did it in a way that allowed them to actually be laughable and loveable, too. Even when Oscar is at his grouchiest, he's not necessarily "the Bad Guy." He's just being a grouch -- in the same way that I can be a grouch sometimes, or that my children can be grouches sometimes.

Have you ever heard the Grouch Anthem, from the film "Follow That Bird?" It's Henson's grumpy guys at their best.

Grouches of the world, unite.
Stand up for your grouchly rights.
Don't let the sunshine spoil your rain:
Just stand up and complain!

Let this be the grouches' cause:
Point out everybody's flaws.
Something is wrong with everything
(Except the way I sing).

Don't let the sunshine spoil your rain:
Just stand up and complain!

 

A few weeks ago, someone sent me a link to an article sharing how absurd and idiotic it is for a person to put two spaces between type-written sentences.  << two spaces >> Apparently, it's just one of those things that someone should never, ever, ever do. << two spaces >> And then again this week, my attention was drawn to a separate article that listed the double-space between sentences as the number one sin in typography! << two spaces >> I guess it's pretty serious business that typographers are pretty serious about.

But I just don't know what to do about this information. << two spaces >> I vaguely remember having heard this debate previously -- and I'm willing to intellectually assent to the preference of today's professionals. << two spaces >> However, the larger, more consistent, more thoroughly-ingrained voice in this conversation for me is the voice of Mr. Hardesty (who we'd sometimes call Mr. Hard 'n Nasty, even though he was actually a very sweet guy). << two spaces >> He was my high school typing instructor. <<two spaces >> And because I grew up in the era when high school typing classes were conducted on electric typewriters, which had monospaced type, I was deliberately and repeatedly instructed to put two spaces between sentences. << two spaces >> And if I didn't put two spaces between sentences, my grade was docked for it. << two spaces >> So I learned the lesson early, and I learned it well. << two spaces >> And, well, you know how it is. << two spaces >> Old habits die, well, hard and nasty.

I suppose I'm going to ultimately have to break this habit if I'm ever going to be a serious writer. << two spaces >> Still, there's a part of me that can't help but wish that I could maintain this little generational tic of mine. << two spaces >> Something about it seems outdated to the point of being endearing: like the old (1985) Chevette that I drove around into the first couple years of the 21st Century... or like a turntable that plays vinyl records... or like my grandparents' fondness for the King James Version of the Bible. << two spaces >> A part of me likes the idea that these things tie me to a fixed point in the flow of history. << two spaces >> And until I can figure out some way to break the old habits drilled into me by Mr. Hard 'n Nasty, I'm just going to claim that I'm doing it to be retro and true to my generation.

My friend J.R. Woodward recently posted a notice that had been posted by his friend J.R. Briggs, who lives in the suburbs of Philadelphia.  The basic idea had apparently been percolating for awhile, but it's only recently taken shape:  to host a conference where pastors can talk about their failures, their identity and their mistakes. The title of the conference is Epic Fail.

I, for one, think it's an absolutely brilliant idea.

I personally will not be able to participate in the conference (as I've already registered for a different conference, during those same dates), but here are the details for those who might:

As Woodward posted on his site, the idea is:

No glossy fliers.  No big marketing budget.  No rental of a large arena –- just a gritty bar that used to be a church (but failed).

Just purposeful space to tell stories, reflect, pray (a lot), eat meals slowly, connect with other pastors (and former pastors), listen to others and take communion. The goal isn’t to host a conference to celebrate ‘success’ – and we aren’t looking to host a conference that celebrates failure either. Our goal is to celebrate faithfulness in ministry, regardless of what the outcome looks like. We’ll have experts on failure telling stories of their own mistakes, sin, gaffes and screw-ups – and they’ll share how God showed up despite the failure. And space to process our own stories and how the gospel intersects at our brokenness.

We anticipate it being hopeful. Rich. Meaningful. Significant.

I don't know how such an event might strike the average "parishioner," but as a pastor I have to say that it sounds like a beautiful initiative.  A refreshingly honest initiative.  I hope it ends up being a great conference for anyone who manages to be there.

If you want more information about the conference, the conference organizers have set up an excellent website which is worth visiting just for the scrolling quotes on the front page.

I've recently been reading a series of books by Frederick Buechner, all about a fictional itinerant-evangelist named Leo Bebb.  It's got some really beautiful, insightful stuff, and some really funny stuff.  Today, I especially enjoyed the description of how Bebb filled out his tax form for the IRS:

"He's filled out his tax form this year like he wasn't filling it out for himself but he was filling it out for Jesus.  Right down the line, that's how he's done it.  Like where it says put down your first name, he's put down the first name Jesus, and where it says last name, he's put down, 'I am the first and the last, says the Lord'...  The place where it says wages, he's put down 'The wages of sin is death.'  He's filled out that whole thing with words out of Scripture like it was Jesus filling it out, 'Render unto Caesar' and all that stuff.  He says all his income, it's going out for Jesus, so why not send it in like it was Jesus's income."

The whole thing is very tongue-in-cheek -- so it may be hard to fully appreciate the quote unless you're reading the book.  But I thought it was amusing, especially in this season of preparing to file for taxes.  How do you think the IRS would respond if I did the same thing with my taxes this year?