Dear Mark Driscoll

(Written 21.January.2014)

Dear Mark,

I know you and I have had some…difficulties.
Admittedly, mostly on my end…due to you being a very public personality and, well…really not knowing me at all.
I also know that I—for some time, chose to just do what I could to ignore you rather than stir up negative emotion in myself that had no outlet.

But I’ve come to realize two things about you which came to me—quite literally, out of nowhere (or is it, out of everywhere?). Two things I now realize run true through everything I’ve ever read of yours, and every word I’ve ever heard you speak. So if you’ll allow me to do so, I’d like to tell you what those two things are, and then maybe do a nice little wrap up of what I’ve gleaned from realizing them.

The first thing I’ve come to realize about you is just how much (it seems) you long to know that you are chosen, that you are loved, that you are accepted.

That you’re important.

Gosh, when it’s out there like that, it comes off…a little harsh…a little…rough around the edges. But then again, so do you.

Like, all the time.

Come out a little harsh, a little rough around the edges, but in spite of (or precisely because of and alongside) this, you still embody something I believe all of us feel—that longing to feel accepted, truly and genuinely accepted.
No matter what sort of differing semantic label we put on it: chosen, predestined, predetermined, loved, liked, favored. I believe that that is at the core of all humanity, and I believe that that hole (as Pascal would call it), that void, that…womb can only be filled (fulfilled) by God above. And we all wish it filled (whether we’re aware or not). And we’re all a wee bit…rough around the edges in regards with how we go about with that desire.
A desire for something beyond this…reality. This…age. This existence and experience.
A desire for love and acceptance that only God can satisfy.
A desire to know that we are loved and accepted and enjoyed and favored.
A desire to know that we are chosen…predestined…elect.

A desire to know that we are…important.

And we are.
And…you…are.
In all my time on this earth I don’t think I’ve ever come across anything that wasn’t important to God—anything that was deemed unimportant in any way. (God kinda does a better job emphasizing this point than I ever could in the book of Job, but at any rate it would be a truly fascinating thing indeed that somehow manages to exist in this universe without being important to the Creator of it all.)

And that brings me to the second thing I realized about you.
Despite what critics say of you, I don’t believe you think highly enough of yourself (if you actually do at all).
I know, I know, this whole…lovey dovey stuff is easy to dismiss.

Love. Bleh.

Love. Bleh.

But to me, that whole 1st John “God IS Love” business is one bomb that just isn’t easily gotten rid of.

bomb disposal

What I don’t wish to convey is that the…dark doesn’t matter.
That sin doesn’t matter.
That our fallen nature should so easily be over looked, ignored, or otherwise tossed to the side at the expense of the fact that God IS LOVE. On the contrary, I believe it’s vitally important—there is a necessity to our fallen nature, to sin, and it is something that most definitely shouldn’t be overlooked, ignored, glossed over.

It should most definitely be seen—if only through the foundational “God IS Love” lens, not in spite of it.

You know, my father once said that the closer you get to light, the bigger the shadow you cast. How true for those of us who—as Hank Williams so eloquently put it, have seen the Light! It’s this fact that leads me to truly believe that when Paul wrote that he was the “Chief of all sinners,” he was writing out of genuine emotion, not to make some statement of ratings and placement above everyone else.

The problem is, when we let our shadows define us, and not the other way around.

It is inevitable that when we interact with light we will cast a shadow, and—as Dad said, the closer we get, the bigger the shadow. But to define the shadow as anything other than a byproduct of our interaction with light is folly. It indeed stems from us, it indeed is connected to ourselves (unlike Peter Pan), it’s very existence is indeed based on ours. And it indeed is something that should not be ignored or overlooked, for we all cast shadows (all have sinned and fall short). But that shadow is still not a something, it is a no thing, a nothing, a lack of something—namely, light. And ultimately—going back to my father’s original words, it is nothing more than a byproduct of our interaction with light.

The light.

And this is where seeing through the eyes of the light—seeing through the eyes of the one who sees me, comes into play. I believe the Father sees us.
Yes, He sees the shadow too, but to the one who created all things, sustains all things and through all things were made and nothing that was not made was through him (refine), I believe that what he FOCUSES on is the thing, not the no thing.
He sees both, but what does he know, what does He focus on, what does his Gaze fall on?
The shadow?

No!

For knowing Himself, knowing He is light, and knowing the state of this world where shadows are cast because it isn’t finished, where He has not yet filled all the voids, surrounded everything and thus, leaves no room for shadows to be cast, He focuses His creation, not the byproduct of His interaction—His relationship with His creation. He focuses on the something, not the no thing.

Which brings me back to you.

You are a something, not a nothing.
You are a somebody, not a nobody.
You are important enough to be created, important enough to be saved.
Not from yourself, but from your shadow.

But I don’t think you’ve been able to see the difference. I don’t think you’ve been able to separate the fact that YOU ARE NOT THE SHADOW YOU CAST.
And I don’t think you’ve ever been able to accept yourself.
Love yourself.
“Choose.” Yourself.
I don’t think you’ve ever seen yourself through the eyes of the one who sees you. Yes, who sees your shadow too, but have you ever played that game where you put your hand in front of your face and rotated between focusing on it, and focusing beyond it? Which one is blurry, but still seen, and which one isn’t depends on what you’re focusing on.
And God is focusing on YOU.
Not. Your. Shadow.

See the darkness, yes.
Hate the darkness, yes.
In fact, I believe that’s why God created you as such a warrior. And with such a hatred of that dark, the darkness. Because that’s what He hates. And that is what the fight is against. Not flesh and blood, not some things, but the no things.
The nothings.
But you’ve gotta stop believing the lie that the dark shadow is you. Or that anyone’s is theirs. I mean, yes. There are those who fear the light and so hide in the darkness where their shadow cannot be seen, but that is as much them believing a lie as you believing one.
Hate the darkness.
Hate the dark.
Hate the shadow.
Fight the darkness.
Fight the dark.
Fight the shadow.
But see what the One who sees you sees. A warrior. A voice. An example of the struggle of the whole of the human race.
Don’t believe the lie that the shadow is you, or you’ll never wish to truly get close to God—who IS LOVE, out of fear of how big your shadow becomes.

Run to it.

Because I believe once you do, you will see that just as God hates your shadow, not you, he also hates everyone else’s shadow.
Not them.
And all your glorious efforts and fight can be directed toward the true enemy. The no thing that wants to be a some thing.
The void that longs to be filled…with more void.
The womb. Waiting for a child.
The empty dirty, poopy manger. Waiting for a birth.
For life.
For Jesus.

So Mark, know this:
You are important.
And it’s time you started believing it.

And, yes, that may not be an easy thing.

I Don't Believe You.

But you owe it to yourself, and you owe it to the one who gave you the ability to do so. And you know what one of the favorite things I’ve ever learned in my studies is? That “belief” in the original Greek—particularly in the case of John 3:16f is not only “belief into” (pisteuo eis) but that the definition of belief is “a willingness to be convinced of.” You don’t have to convince yourself that what I say is true, because it’s not on you to do the convincing (Scripture does say that it’s Jesus—not us, who is both the author and perfecter of our faith), but be willing to be convinced.

Believe. And See.

Cheers and Blessings til I see you on the other side of eternity (unless I happen to do so in this age.).

~(a) Christian

1 Comment

Filed under Dreams, God stuff, Uncategorized

Oh Sh*t! I May Just Be A Hipster…

(Written 21.December.2013)

Recently I’ve become more aware (or perhaps just more sensitive) to my having been given some sort of official stamp of “HIPSTER” administered by an ambiguous but clearly certified/accredited/licensed inspector—employed by the one and only nefarious and clandestine Hipster Labeling bureaucracy undoubtedly responsible for such matters and the like.

Hipster LabelMy reaction tends to go from defense— “Honestly! I have never been able to drink black coffee until I was 28 and not for lack of trying! I’ve tried my whole life to drink bitter unenjoyable beverages!”
Or, “I have two older sisters, I was raised being told how to dress!”
to calling out improper definition—

HIPSTER…
that word means“You know, there’s this sliding definition of this word “Hipster,” based solely on appearances and dress and—ignorantly, I might add, having nothing to do with the actual culture, where it REALLY lies.” And usually I’d direct their attention to an article published in the NY Times and written by a prominent assistant professor at Princeton University:
HERE
which is still a great article, but successful in enlightening people to truth, it (usually) does not.

And when those both fail, I curl up in a ball behind the coffee shop counter that I work and cry.

cryingBut here’s the thing (given my extensive thinking applied to this such topic), more and more I’ve realized that—maybe I’m alright with being a hipster.
*GASP!

As can obviously be inferred, I’ve gotten into many an exhaustive discussion over this word and have come to conclude TWO things about Hipster…coterie, not to be confused with couture, which—as it stands, apparently must be addressed first to understand what Hipster is not, in order to best understand what it is.

THE PROBLEM WITH DEFINING HIPSTER SIMPLY BY STYLE AND DRESS:

I get it, it’s relatively easily and of the least effort to look at someone and—based solely on their appearance, throw out the classification, “Hipster,” quick to forget that YOU aren’t in the employ of the true one and only nefarious and clandestine Hipster Labeling bureaucracy. But it’s here—on even just a basic level of language and word definition, that the problem lay therein.

If “Hipster” were something so easily defined as such, why do we have such a sliding scale when it comes to this word? If to the small town American man, someone wearing a…western shirt with nothing else matching western attire is a hipster, and to that western shirt wearing man, another wearing a scarf is hipster, and to scarf man the guy with a mustache and all of the preceding is a hipster, and to moustachioed man the guy that has all of the preceding AND a vest is a hipster, and to vest boy the guy wearing everything AND suspenders is a hipster, and to suspended boy the guy wearing all the preceding AND glasses is a hipster, and to visually challenged guy the guy wearing everything preceding AND TO TOP IT OFF, wears a tie tucked into his button down western shirt—THAT’S a Hipster, well, then…we’re screwed and will never be able to properly define Hipster.

We’d be as pigeon-holed into improper definitions as, say, I don’t know, the head of a Dynasty of Ducks defining homosexuality as something so simple and obvious as preferring men’s anuses to women’s vaginas…

THE DEFINITION OF HIPSTER.

Well, so I hope it’s evident now that a definition based solely on people’s opinions of other people’s looks makes an actual definition, does not.
So what is a Hipster? And—more importantly, what is “Hipster coterie”?
As I said above, I’ve concluded two factors that seem to define both the Hipster, and the coterie of thus. They can easily be summed up as two basic desires (that—with some self inspection, can be seen as almost inherently human desires): The desire to know that I MATTER; and the desire to convey that YOU MATTER.

I hope you had a chance to go through the NY Times article on Irony cause it not only brings up some valid points, it also helps to define an aspect of Hipster coterie that is very much at it’s heart. Why live in irony? Why pick up weird hobbies?

Self-protection and preservation? YES.

To stand out uniquely in a way so as to know—truly know, that regardless of you learning to play the tuba or perfecting your micro home brew, you ARE unique in and of yourself, and—more importantly, YOU MATTER.
MOST DEFINITELY YES.
I bring this point up first because it is indeed that vulnerable place that I’ve not only noticed, but recognize in myself.
And those that know me know I wear it on my sleeves. I’m a walking example of a desire to know I matter. And—looking back over my whole life, my style choices (even the “what the hell was I thinking wearing JNCO jeans, Nike high tops, a screen print shirt and flannel with a terrible perm, glasses and braces” choices), I can say that everything was done with a desire to be “me” (even if I didn’t know what that me was) and more at the heart, to know I matter. Me. I have value.
Just because it looks differently when it’s a grown man who chooses to look like this:
hipster
do not mistake that at the heart is the same man who—if he truly understood, accepted, and lived knowing at his core that he mattered, that he has value; well…he still may dress like that as a means of self expression, but perhaps not doing so out of a means of discovering love and value and worth.

**This should also be expressed on the flip side of those who bow and bend to style and cultural trends and looks that ebb and flow, they too are looking for the same worth, value and that they matter.

THE DESIRE TO CONVEY THAT YOU MATTER, WE ALL MATTER:

While it can be said that being a Hipster could indeed be a means of self protection and preservation, on a larger scale, perhaps this is sign and not the substance of a much more important facet. Perhaps never taking a strong opinion about anything that really is important, is not only a means of self preservation but a means of innately knowing their own desire to matter, and wishing to convey to others that they matter too. Perhaps what looks like “tolerance” and not wishing to offend is really just the means of a deeper desire to convey to the whole of humanity around them that we all matter. Perhaps to be offensive is to alienate those you wish to show acceptance to—which is ALL. Which also—should be understood that—while not right, the only people unaccepted are those who are themselves, unaccepting.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to say the means themselves are right and should be seen as such. No. Look, I’m someone well aware of their faults to a fault. You will never hear me say that there’s nothing wrong with me. But you will also never hear me say that there’s nothing wrong with everyone else either. And that’s the point itself. I’m not right. And they’re not right. And the whole world isn’t right. And so the means can never quite make the mark.

too slow   (Awww, that close.)

But perhaps there is something to be said of at least trying—even if it’s faulty.

Perhaps the deeper substance behind the flash and mustache should be given a second look and a second thought. That we all desire to know that we are loved and accepted. And if you (even innately) know that about yourself, you desire to show that to and for others. And that may be conveyed with words like “tolerance” and “coexist” and never wishing to call out any one’s faults, or it may come across as an underlying recognition of EVERYONE BEING NOT RIGHT. That we’re all not good, but that’s whyit’s good. Because you cannot truly convey love and acceptance, you cannot truly know yourself that you matter, that others matter if you were perfect, or if your faults were overlooked. It’s in the faults that we know we are truly loved. It’s in falling short that I know I matter.
And it’s he who has been forgiven much that loves much.
Yes. Even to the ones that make big deals out of nothing on Facebook. Yes. Even to the guy that makes it a point that you’re ordering anything but a black coffee and never smiles while serving you your beverage (I’m looking at YOU, *not so* Happy Coffee). Yes. Even the Wal-Mart shoppers. Yes. Even the people that call you Hipster.
Yes. Even the people that preach love and grace but their actions convey anything but.

If being a Hipster means that I not only struggle with mattering myself, but desire to show that others matter. If it means that I know my own faults and that I will always fall short and never make the mark, then I am sensitive that perhaps others are of themselves as well, and I don’t need to draw attention to their shortcomings and so on.
Look, my dad always said that the closer you get to light, the bigger the shadow you cast.
What are you gonna focus on, the shadow? The not thing? Or are you going to recognize that that not thing, that no-thing, that nothing, is simply a by product of YOUR interaction with the light? And perhaps when the light sees YOU, it SEES YOU. And it knows that the shadow you cast ISN’T YOU.

Why continually focus on the things that aren’t people, the things that don’t matter when what’s truer is focusing on the person, on the things that do.

And if that makes me a hipster, then, well, shit.
Consider this my “coming out of the Hipster closet” moment.

I’m a hipster.

And if we’re still simply relying on the appearance of a person to define them as a hipster…
then, well, I do enjoy being stylish. I mean, this doesn’t put itself together…

wink
So stamp away, label this Hipster what he is…
a Hipster.

Hipster Label

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dane Cook and Our Funny Problem with the Word “All”

(Written 1.October.2013)

Today I find myself here—ruefully admitting something that pains me every time I’m forced to acknowledge it:
There was a time I once enjoyed Dane Cook.

Yes.

There it is.
Shocking, I know.

Paul rudd double take

I mean, maybe I’m alone in this, or maybe there are a few of you that are still in the closet about it. You used to have a cd or two of his as well at one point, but then you laced up your boots, moved into adulthood and stopped hanging out with(or even acknowledging)…well, those who might still say they like and enjoy Dane Cook.
If you still like him, I’m sorry.
If you at some point in your life enjoyed him, and have since moved forward but refuse to admit that you even once liked him, I’m sorry.
But if you’re like me in that you can openly—to a welcoming group of fellow individuals, admit that even though you harbor disdain for him now, you once were on that Band Wagon, you once liked Dane Cook, then you’ll understand what I’m going to be getting at.

In the bathroom of where I work is a framed copy of an old newspaper cover page from 1898. Every time I go in there and…well, do what I do, I stare at it and read the main story.
Over and over and over again this happens, as can be deduced…and every time I stand there, with a bit more than just time in my hands, I read through the Headline and I always find myself frustrated with how it’s written.
Here it is below:

Dewey's Victory

And here’s why I get frustrated, because when I read it, my thoughts usually flow something like this:

DEWEY’S VICTORY
Not a serious casualty sustained in destroying the spanish fleet.
(Okay, other than that word “destroying,” there wasn’t any serious casualties. Must’ve been a peaceful resolution…)

And then I get down to the forth sub-line:

Spanish lost eleven ships and 300 men killed and 600 men wounded.
(GAH! Those are what I would call “SERIOUS CASUALTIES!”)

If you’re going to say there wasn’t a serious casualty sustained, then I’m gonna assume that means across the board. If you wish to convey that you mean specifically, “our side,” then include that. “Not a serious AMERICAN casualty sustained in destroying the Spanish fleet.”
Makes more sense to me reading it.
The meaning is clear, and right there, conveyed in the text.

Now I know what you might say, “Christian, it’s implied in it sayingdestroying the Spanish fleet. See, the Spanish fleet is destroyed, which obviously means casualties on their side.”
But then, that means you and I have differing opinions about grammar articles and the use of “definite” over “indefinite” articles. And we can debate back and forth and get all muddled up in the rules, and use the text to help affirm the rule we stand by, rather than simply looking at the text, and using it to formulate the rule…

Hopefully by now you’re guessing that I’m probably talking about more than just this old newspaper article that I—in the long run could care less about, but find useful in outlining a deeper problem.

You see, there’s this little word that pops up throughout the Bible that’s been quite a problem for many. And that word—as the title of this post might suggest, is ALL. Now, I never really took grammar in High School (as much of my writing more than likely suggests), but I’ve done a decent go-round looking up everything from grammatical articles to indefinite pronouns to quantifiers, all in hopes of really coming to some sort of well rounded understanding of that word…
all.
And–if you fancy, HERE is just one of the great sites I found that helps both in understanding the usage, and solidifying my point.

The thing is, I’m not really wishing to argue that my point is right, or that my way of viewing the text, or my rules are the right ones.
And while I may know a lot more than I did before about all those things—while I may have gleaned some ability to aptly argue my point that many people see the use of “all” in certain Scripture passages as a partitive article, or a mere Universal indefinite pronoun that doesn’t really mean all just like when you say “everybody had some pie” you don’t really mean everybody in existence; what’s clear is that it seems we’re all just arguing the choice of rule rather than the text. You’re not arguing that the Bible’s use of the word ALL doesn’t mean all, you’re arguing that your chosen rule of definition is right in defining the Bible’s use of the word all.

So I don’t want to do that.

Because that’s not what I’m arguing.
That’s not even what I’m saying.

Because I think the problem isn’t whether or not which one of us takes the Bible literally, but that I don’t think any of us take the Bible literally enough.

Because I’m not arguing that my rule for understanding the Bible’s use of the word “all” is the right way of understanding/interpreting the text, but that I think maybe we should let the text define our rules.

I’m saying that I believe the story should dictate what we think and how we formulate our thoughts and our very existence, not used as proof that how we’re already thinking, how we’ve already formulated our thoughts, and how we already believe to be our existence is right.

Which brings me back to Dane Cook.

And this bit:

See the thing is, when it comes to stories that are outside ourselves, we don’t really have any way of knowing whether or not what is said is what is. We believe there can’t have been 1000 firefighters in one street, or someone took a hundred hour nap because our logic and our experience and our philosophies and our theologies and dogmas and rules say that it just isn’t feasible—it’s just not possible.
So passages like Isaiah 45:22-23 (and it’s parallels: Rom. 14:11, Phil. 2:10) are read, where it says things like EVERY tongue will swear allegiance, or John 12:32 where Jesus says that on the Cross is where He will draw ALL to himself, or Rom. 5:18, Rom. 11:32, 1 Cor. 15:22, Col. 1:20, and so on, (For more on this subject and all the references, here’s some reading) and then argue how–like 1000 firefighters or a hundred hour nap or not a [single] serious casualty sustained in destruction, it’s just not possible to mean ALL.
And you argue about context and implication, and when and what and why and how “all” literally means “ALL” and when it means “some things” or “only the new things, the saved things, the things that have chosen…wisely.”
Decision Monk

But then…you’re not arguing the text.
You’re arguing your rules.

You’re not arguing THE LOGOS (The Logic—the Word, made Flesh and dwelt among us).
You’re arguing YOUR logos, your logic.

It’s impossible to have 1000 firefighters on one street or take a 100 hour nap or for God to restore, redeem, reconcile ALL things, ALL men, ALL. Everyone.
But.

With God, ALL THINGS are possible.

And now you have to further ask yourself, what’s your definition and rule about this use of ALL? Matt. 19: 26, Luke 1: 38, Cause this–like your definition and rule of the other uses of ALL will make or break your definition and rule about God.
And now you see that how you “choose” what the definition of ALL (in the Bible) means, shapes just what kind of God you may “choose” to follow.

Does “ALL THINGS are possible for Godnot really mean ALL THINGS?
Well then God isn’t Sovereign.

Does the redemption of ALL THINGS, the restoration of ALL THINGS, the reconciliation of ALL THINGS (Yes, even Dane Cook) not really mean that ALL THINGS will be redeemed, restored, reconciled?
Well then God isn’t Love.

But if we take the Bible more literally than it seems we do, if the story means–literally, ALL THINGS; then God IS Sovereign, for *literally* ALL THINGS are possible for God. And God IS Love. For *literally*, God WILL (and–by Jesus, HAS) redeem ALL THINGS, restore ALL THINGS, reconcile ALL THINGS.

And while Dewey’s Victory may contain the implication that the Spanish fleet looses 11 ships and 900 men are either dead or seriously injured, God’s Victory is not the same as any of man’s victories.

And so then the question is this:

What does it look like when God is Victorious?

UPDATE (20.February.2020): You can now find my official book proposal and finalized introduction (as well as a free chapter, by visiting the valuable resources, links, reads, and views link)

Leave a comment

Filed under Beauty Tips From a Seminary Washout, Book