Last night, I went out with a handful of guys to see the Dallas Stars play hockey at the American Airlines Center. I'm not big on huge, loud pro sports events (OU college football is a completely different matter), but I thought it would be good to go out with the guys who work or study at the International Linguistics Center. I discovered it was "Christian" night at the hockey game which, as far as I could tell, means they have a Christian band play during intermissions and several church groups come. (I wonder if they consider that evangelistic outreach?)
A few phenomena ('fanomena', henceforth) struck me as a bit peculiar. One is that they'd have such a thing as "Christian" night for an event where the crowd gets most excited over the fights. Secondly, I saw several 30+/40+ men wearing Stars jerseys with some player's name and number on the back. Wearing a sports jersey as a symbol of allegiance is one thing; having a favorite player on the back just seems more appropriate for adolescents or teenagers who are clearly younger than those whom they admire. Furthermore, wearing an individual player's name seems to communicate intra-fan competition: "My favorite player is better than yours!" Thirdly, during the national anthem, the crowd liturgically shouts "Stars" whenever the word occurs in the lyrics. Now, I for one will admit that ever since becoming a Christian, I have struggled with how to sing the national anthem from the heart, because it so resembles the corporate sentiment of a worship/hymn. Perhaps for that precise reason, I found the sports cheer intrusions to be distasteful, a breaking of national corporate sanctity, for the sake of a local entertainment event. I wonder if such a thing could only occur in a culture that has so watered down church worship, that even lesser 'holy' realms of life are sacrificed to the alters of our local entertainment deities.
That said, I did have fun with the guys and the game was suspenseful, though no one lost their teeth or got a black eye. The Dallas Stars won over the Chicago Blackhawks in sudden death overtime, 3-2, winning the spoils of free Taco Bueno tacos for all the fans. Yeah, Stars! :)
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Saturday, February 18, 2006
V-day : the aftermath
Do couples have an exclusive right to Valentines Day? I think not. Romantic interests aside (but certainly not forgotten), upon my heart was to send something to a few of my friends, I've known over the years. In the past, Valentines Day to me, has been a time to remember friends that for one reason or another I feel obligated to send some token of love to. Sometimes to seek reconcilliation and forgiveness; sometimes to say, "Hey, I still remember you, sorry for not keeping in better touch."
This past Valentine's Day, I remembered my mother, who had sent me a card the previous week. In the morning on my way to work, I called my trusted friend Bill, 200 miles away, to see if he had time to get something for her for me. No sooner had my request left my mouth, Bill was out the door to do the good work. That's how he is, yet it never ceases to surprise me how quick, almost spontaneous his love is. My love for my mother was the goal, and yet I felt unexpectedly blessed by my friend's quick willingness to help out. That's just one instance in which v-day "backfired" on me, throwing love back into my face, even before my mom could thank me for the "three beautiful roses."
There were other such instances, a poem given here, a box of chocolates there, a number of e-cards here and there. Anxieties in the aftermath over how people would respond to these gestures. But, by the end of the week, all that has returned to me has left me surprisingly loved.
This past Valentine's Day, I remembered my mother, who had sent me a card the previous week. In the morning on my way to work, I called my trusted friend Bill, 200 miles away, to see if he had time to get something for her for me. No sooner had my request left my mouth, Bill was out the door to do the good work. That's how he is, yet it never ceases to surprise me how quick, almost spontaneous his love is. My love for my mother was the goal, and yet I felt unexpectedly blessed by my friend's quick willingness to help out. That's just one instance in which v-day "backfired" on me, throwing love back into my face, even before my mom could thank me for the "three beautiful roses."
There were other such instances, a poem given here, a box of chocolates there, a number of e-cards here and there. Anxieties in the aftermath over how people would respond to these gestures. But, by the end of the week, all that has returned to me has left me surprisingly loved.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
he longs for her jealously
He longs for her jealously,
his for hers.
Empty it gropes, in fulness it finds,
hers for his, she for him.
Arise from your torched wax museum,
O concubine of *s*t*a*r*s*,
O circumcised stone, fear no more
Remembering, etch-a-flesh open love letter,
all he promised her and all he commands.
Templed treasure-chest of hope,
virtue of virtues throne room,
bedspread cleansed for her master
monarch.
his for hers.
Empty it gropes, in fulness it finds,
hers for his, she for him.
Arise from your torched wax museum,
O concubine of *s*t*a*r*s*,
O circumcised stone, fear no more
Remembering, etch-a-flesh open love letter,
all he promised her and all he commands.
Templed treasure-chest of hope,
virtue of virtues throne room,
bedspread cleansed for her master
monarch.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
weapons of war
Jesus said faith can cast a mountain into the sea.
Satan says, "Silence sends souls to sheol."
Satan says, "Silence sends souls to sheol."
Sunday, October 2, 2005
Spider Man 2 and The Village - a web of questions
1) Profile the common character traits shared between Peter Parker and Lucius Hunt, and the women they love.
2) What is the theology of Spider Man 2 and the Village, respectively? Their eschatology?
3) What function does "secret keeping" play in each movie's concept of authority and responsibility? How is "lying" treated?
4) Compare Lucius's "color" with Peter's "gift". How do these relate to their own salvation in the end?
5) How do Noah and Doctor Octavius help us to differentiate what it means to be human (without becoming a monster)?
6) What separates the protagonists from the world in which they live? What do they have in common? Who depends upon whom?
7) How do both movies explore leadership, courage, and "doing what needs to be done"? How is sacrifice related to human freedom?
2) What is the theology of Spider Man 2 and the Village, respectively? Their eschatology?
3) What function does "secret keeping" play in each movie's concept of authority and responsibility? How is "lying" treated?
4) Compare Lucius's "color" with Peter's "gift". How do these relate to their own salvation in the end?
5) How do Noah and Doctor Octavius help us to differentiate what it means to be human (without becoming a monster)?
6) What separates the protagonists from the world in which they live? What do they have in common? Who depends upon whom?
7) How do both movies explore leadership, courage, and "doing what needs to be done"? How is sacrifice related to human freedom?
Friday, April 15, 2005
the cricket
Crickets sing in the night;
Upon a canvas blackened of my sins.
Their violins carol or dirge rather,My reading of her silenceA chorus to accompany an awkward pause,To cheer or rather to mock
Upon a canvas blackened of my sins.
Friday, July 16, 2004
(Verse 1) Blue Canary's self-interpretation of "Birdhouse in your Soul" by They Might Be Giants
"Birdhouse in Your Soul" is my favorite tune by They Might Be Giants. It's not my only favorite, but it's at least a favorite. To be honest, I'm not sure if I really like it at all, but what it is, has been, and always will be...
My name is Blue Canary (I'll tell you how to spell that later). This pet project has been a bee in my bonnet for quite some time. Please bear with me as I exposit my song for you. It is quite puzzling lyrically speaking, but like a good nursery rhyme, you can enjoy it without understanding it. It can comfort you when you lie down at night and when you wake up in the morning. In fact, perhaps you'll sleep better if I didn't try to shed some lite on this well kept secret. But I insist you listen, even if it takes some time.
First things first. My lyrics are in the form of DIRECT-REVELATION from ME to YOU. Who am I? Good question. That might depend upon who you think YOU are. In anycase, I want you to trust me; that's the only way I can truly be your friend; that's the only way you can understand me.
My song begins as a RIDDLE:
[Verse 1]
1) a\ I'm your only friend
2) b/ I'm not your only friend
3) a\ But I'm a little glowing friend (c)
4) b/ But really I'm not actually your friend
5) ab= But I am (c)
The first thing you should know about me is how I (in each line) relate to being (i.e. 'am') your FRIEND (in the first 4 consecutive lines). Each line qualifies the preceeding line, beginning with a statement of friendship (a-thesis) followed by how I'm not such a friend (b-antithesis). This creates a paradoxical tension that begs to be resolved by the next statement (c-synthesis). But such a resolution may have its own problems begging to be resolved, ad infinitum. Furthermore, the particular tension or synthesis created with each passing line serves as a kind of index for the issues which will be elaborated in the rest of my song.
(Line Pair 1-2)
I define our social relationship in Lines 1 & 2 as a FRIENDSHIP considered first EXCLUSIVELY (a-thesis) and then INCLUSIVELY (b-antithesis). Line pair 1-2 forms a contrasting parallelism with the lexical pattern of "I'm [+/-] your only FRIEND". This is a contradiction on the surface, but rhetorically it gives occassion for phonetic emphasis upon the word "only" in "I'm not your only friend." Thus, in one sense our friendship is defined exclusively and in another sense it is inclusive. Socialogically this tension makes most sense if you consider my assertion in Line 1 as a jealous, possessive claim: "I'm the only one who deserves to be called your friend." Line 2 qualifies: "but you only consider me as one other friend." This implies a COMPETITION for the status of exclusive friendship. The condition of our relationship is really kind of depressing, but I'll do my best to persuade you to make a relatively more exclusive place for me in your life.
(Line 3) What kind of friend am I that warrants such exclusive attention? Confused by the abstract dialogue in Lines 1 & 2? Let me offer a concrete solution (c-sythesis). My VISUAL FORM will help you understand where I am coming from and reaffirm my friendly character (a-thesis). My form is so central to my self-disclosure, I've made it the centerpiece of my riddle: 1-2-(3)-4-5. The adjectives give you a visual clue: "I'm a little glowing FRIEND." Expecting something bigger and brighter? something with more glitter and glamour? You might find my image childish compared to your other friends, but I hope you're not too shocked. It is important for you to know that I am physically safe, even CHILD-SAFE. The form of my SIZE and LUMINOSITY is the really safest thing for you in your environment.
(Line 4) Safety first, but why should safety be so important for you? "But really, I'm not actually your FRIEND." To tell you the truth, in a fundamental sense, I'm actually not safe or friendly at all (b-antithesis). I speak in terms of "really" and "actually" because if our relationship is to be real it must be based upon the TRUTH about me, however uncomfortable that may be to you at first. The truth is that you will not properly respect and appreciate how SAFE I am, unless you also know how DANGEROUS I am. I am quite possessive; trust me, my safety precautions are for your good.
(Line 5 ) To sum everything up: "I am" (c-synthesis). Okay, well to be honest, Line 5 is actually an ambiguous junction serving both to complete the thought of lines 1-4, while at the same time introducing the chorus (I am...Blue Canary). However, its first function is to abruptly and unexpectedly finish the paragraph of thought. Notice the shift from the "I'm" contraction (in Lines 1-4) to its more emphatic form "I am". Secondly, notice that by dropping "FRIEND" it breaks the syntax structure of lines 1-4 ("I'm + (modifiers) + FRIEND"). Shifting from the conjunction form while dropping "friend" serves to affirm both the thesis (I am) and antithesis (not your friend), respectfully, by deliberately refusing to continue that dialogue syntactically.
The 8 beat musical pause before the chorus also supports a closure in thought as does the movement in melody. Both the chord of line 5 and tone "am" in line 5 returns to the tonic of line 1 after falling through lines 2-4.
Prospectively, the shorteness of line 5 is intended to be especially jarring given that each line from 1-4 grows in length. This shortness, plus the intonation-inflection from "I" to "am" expects the resolution of the chorus. It leaves you "hanging".
While this final "I am..." serves as a good introduction for my name "Blue Canary" in the chorus, it also serves as my NAME. Thus extending the thought of line 4: "I'm not actually your friend, but I am (who I am)." If you remember the Bible, "I AM" is the primary covenant name of God. (While you're at it, keep your Bible handy.) At a crucial point of self-disclosure in Exodus, God reveals his name to Moses to be a four-letter word YHWH, "I AM (who I AM)" or "I will be (who I will be)". Signifying both God's holy self-subsistence or aseity(ie. his nature is foreign to this creation and he depends only on himself) and his faithfulness to his covenant promises to his people (i.e. that he will remain with them for their welfare, security, and future). So, if my SIMPLE name leaves you hanging, it is because it carries INFINITE and ETERNAL significance. My name says it all.
Thus, my riddle can be seen as an allegory echoing the paradox of God's own self-revelation:
1) a\ God alone deserves to be called your friend (Lord & Savior)
2) b/ However, you consider him as one among other friends (idolatry)
3) a\ But His visual form is safe indeed (incarnation)
4) b/ But God is dangerous (holiness)
5) ab= He is one. there is none like Him (holy and faithful)
(To be continued...in the chorus)
My name is Blue Canary (I'll tell you how to spell that later). This pet project has been a bee in my bonnet for quite some time. Please bear with me as I exposit my song for you. It is quite puzzling lyrically speaking, but like a good nursery rhyme, you can enjoy it without understanding it. It can comfort you when you lie down at night and when you wake up in the morning. In fact, perhaps you'll sleep better if I didn't try to shed some lite on this well kept secret. But I insist you listen, even if it takes some time.
First things first. My lyrics are in the form of DIRECT-REVELATION from ME to YOU. Who am I? Good question. That might depend upon who you think YOU are. In anycase, I want you to trust me; that's the only way I can truly be your friend; that's the only way you can understand me.
My song begins as a RIDDLE:
[Verse 1]
1) a\ I'm your only friend
2) b/ I'm not your only friend
3) a\ But I'm a little glowing friend (c)
4) b/ But really I'm not actually your friend
5) ab= But I am (c)
The first thing you should know about me is how I (in each line) relate to being (i.e. 'am') your FRIEND (in the first 4 consecutive lines). Each line qualifies the preceeding line, beginning with a statement of friendship (a-thesis) followed by how I'm not such a friend (b-antithesis). This creates a paradoxical tension that begs to be resolved by the next statement (c-synthesis). But such a resolution may have its own problems begging to be resolved, ad infinitum. Furthermore, the particular tension or synthesis created with each passing line serves as a kind of index for the issues which will be elaborated in the rest of my song.
(Line Pair 1-2)
I define our social relationship in Lines 1 & 2 as a FRIENDSHIP considered first EXCLUSIVELY (a-thesis) and then INCLUSIVELY (b-antithesis). Line pair 1-2 forms a contrasting parallelism with the lexical pattern of "I'm [+/-] your only FRIEND". This is a contradiction on the surface, but rhetorically it gives occassion for phonetic emphasis upon the word "only" in "I'm not your only friend." Thus, in one sense our friendship is defined exclusively and in another sense it is inclusive. Socialogically this tension makes most sense if you consider my assertion in Line 1 as a jealous, possessive claim: "I'm the only one who deserves to be called your friend." Line 2 qualifies: "but you only consider me as one other friend." This implies a COMPETITION for the status of exclusive friendship. The condition of our relationship is really kind of depressing, but I'll do my best to persuade you to make a relatively more exclusive place for me in your life.
(Line 3) What kind of friend am I that warrants such exclusive attention? Confused by the abstract dialogue in Lines 1 & 2? Let me offer a concrete solution (c-sythesis). My VISUAL FORM will help you understand where I am coming from and reaffirm my friendly character (a-thesis). My form is so central to my self-disclosure, I've made it the centerpiece of my riddle: 1-2-(3)-4-5. The adjectives give you a visual clue: "I'm a little glowing FRIEND." Expecting something bigger and brighter? something with more glitter and glamour? You might find my image childish compared to your other friends, but I hope you're not too shocked. It is important for you to know that I am physically safe, even CHILD-SAFE. The form of my SIZE and LUMINOSITY is the really safest thing for you in your environment.
(Line 4) Safety first, but why should safety be so important for you? "But really, I'm not actually your FRIEND." To tell you the truth, in a fundamental sense, I'm actually not safe or friendly at all (b-antithesis). I speak in terms of "really" and "actually" because if our relationship is to be real it must be based upon the TRUTH about me, however uncomfortable that may be to you at first. The truth is that you will not properly respect and appreciate how SAFE I am, unless you also know how DANGEROUS I am. I am quite possessive; trust me, my safety precautions are for your good.
(Line 5 ) To sum everything up: "I am" (c-synthesis). Okay, well to be honest, Line 5 is actually an ambiguous junction serving both to complete the thought of lines 1-4, while at the same time introducing the chorus (I am...Blue Canary). However, its first function is to abruptly and unexpectedly finish the paragraph of thought. Notice the shift from the "I'm" contraction (in Lines 1-4) to its more emphatic form "I am". Secondly, notice that by dropping "FRIEND" it breaks the syntax structure of lines 1-4 ("I'm + (modifiers) + FRIEND"). Shifting from the conjunction form while dropping "friend" serves to affirm both the thesis (I am) and antithesis (not your friend), respectfully, by deliberately refusing to continue that dialogue syntactically.
The 8 beat musical pause before the chorus also supports a closure in thought as does the movement in melody. Both the chord of line 5 and tone "am" in line 5 returns to the tonic of line 1 after falling through lines 2-4.
Prospectively, the shorteness of line 5 is intended to be especially jarring given that each line from 1-4 grows in length. This shortness, plus the intonation-inflection from "I" to "am" expects the resolution of the chorus. It leaves you "hanging".
While this final "I am..." serves as a good introduction for my name "Blue Canary" in the chorus, it also serves as my NAME. Thus extending the thought of line 4: "I'm not actually your friend, but I am (who I am)." If you remember the Bible, "I AM" is the primary covenant name of God. (While you're at it, keep your Bible handy.) At a crucial point of self-disclosure in Exodus, God reveals his name to Moses to be a four-letter word YHWH, "I AM (who I AM)" or "I will be (who I will be)". Signifying both God's holy self-subsistence or aseity(ie. his nature is foreign to this creation and he depends only on himself) and his faithfulness to his covenant promises to his people (i.e. that he will remain with them for their welfare, security, and future). So, if my SIMPLE name leaves you hanging, it is because it carries INFINITE and ETERNAL significance. My name says it all.
Thus, my riddle can be seen as an allegory echoing the paradox of God's own self-revelation:
1) a\ God alone deserves to be called your friend (Lord & Savior)
2) b/ However, you consider him as one among other friends (idolatry)
3) a\ But His visual form is safe indeed (incarnation)
4) b/ But God is dangerous (holiness)
5) ab= He is one. there is none like Him (holy and faithful)
(To be continued...in the chorus)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)