It's a nice day for a white wedding

World views in conflict - I have a confession. My morning commute typically has me listening to R.C. Sproul, who I think is one of the most articulate & brilliant theologians of our century.

Sometimes, I'm almost moved to tears not only with his intelligence and the power of his lectures, but his love and heart for God. The force of his arguments and tendered with compassion have led to classic works of literature and lectures.

Although I wouldn't say that I agree with evertything that R.C, teaches (I'm in a season of exploration of TULIP as my theology has been largely Arminian in nature) but I also cannot denly that my life is actually different because of him!

Here's my confession: when Sproul finishes typically about 6:15 AM, I flip over to a classic rock station and listen to Mark & Brian. Talk about a juxtaposition of worldviews!

They were talking about weddings, and asked the question why does the bride wear white anyway? They made a reference to the tradition of purity/virginity and then laughed about the scarcity of such a woman anymore, which I thought was a sad but accurate commentary on our culture today. Not that I'm being judgmental, in my pre-marital counseling it is not unusual for issues from one or more partners pre-marriage and the difficulties that can present and I approach the topic with grace and forgiveness.

Anyway, one of them said that they thought the bride wore white because it's in the Bible. They moved on but I thought that was an interesting position and it made me wonder about the origins of wearing white dresses at weddings. Although he doesn't specifically mention the dress, even Billy Idol acknowledges the concept from his song White Wedding:

There is nothin' fair in this world

There is nothin' safe in this world

And there's nothin' sure in this world

And there's nothin' pure in this world

Look for something left in this world

Start again

Come on

It's a nice day for a white wedding

It's a nice day to start again.

It's a nice day for a white wedding

It's a nice day to start again

According to weddingmanor.com, a bride wears white because...

In Colonial times a bride often wore her "Sunday best" to her wedding. It was not until the 1840's, when Queen Victoria was married in a white wedding gown, that "white gowns" became the rage. White is also a symbol of affluence, purity, joy and virginity. Today, brides can choose many shades of white, from bright white to champagne.

A quick word study of the word "white" in the New Testament shows us references to Jesus and Angels by the gospel authors (including one reference by Luke) , and then to the people of God in Revelation in reference to their purity and holiness made possible by Jesus. But, no reference to white wedding dresses.

I wonder what kind fun Mark and Brian would have had if they had known that Jesus' first miracle was at a wedding, turning water into wine. That would have given them a field day I'm sure.

What goes up, must come down.

There was a big event today at 7:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time. A landmark that had existed ever since I moved to Portland, the Trojan nuclear power plant cooling tower in Rainier OR finally went the way of all things. Rather than a decomposition over time, a little help from 2,800 pounds of dynamite hastened its demise. Whether you considered it to be benign or malignant, there was no mistaking its presence:

What took over a year to build was destroyed in six seconds as the explosives weakened the 499 foot (why couldn't they have added just one stinking foot to make it 500?) structure causing it to implode and collapse upon itself. Allegedly this is one of the promotional photos when the Trojan nuclear plant was built in the early 1970's (I'm the one seated behind the desk):

OK, just kidding. But you have to ask - did those styles precede connection to the grid, or were they the RESULT of the radiation?!?! Well, the plant was always marred by controversy culminating with a mere 16 years of service (you can read about it here).

What I really like is this slow motion video of the explosion/implosion. Why can I watch this over and over? Look carefully. It's about the bird. That's really the reason for this whole post. Here he is, a beautiful Sunday morning after a hard week. He might have slept in, wandered north to the Kelso Starbucks to pick up a few blueberry scone crumbs, snagged a fat earthworm for the kids on the way back to his home on the tower. He's getting drowsy, maybe time for a nap when KABOOM! Surely, it's the end of the world - no tower, no nest. Well, it appears that the instinct to flight save his little bird butt, but I have to wonder if he suffered any hearing problems.

Now boarding at gate whatever...

There was an interesting article in the June edition (2006) of Wired magazine that had to do with how airlines are analyzing and strategizing the most efficient ways to board airplanes. How could you NOT read an article that leads off like this:

When Einstein first pondered the mysteries of space-time, he presumably wasn't trying to figure out how to quickly cram hundreds of cranky travelers into a 737. But the math that scientists use to explain the the master's theory of relativity actually does help. A team of Israeli researchers, armed with Lorentzian geometry, has reached the same conclusion as many others: the standard back-to-front boarding procedure sucks.

No duh. I barely passed geometry, and I don't know Lorentz (it's probably not Mike Lorentz who I got a in a fight with over marijauna in high school) but it makes sense, doesn't it?

Let's see, we've got a schedule to keep and 230 people standing here with their carry on luggage and one little door leading to one skinny aisle (not including DC-10s in this illustration!) and the gate agents are trying to rush this one out because flight 317 Dallas to Cleveland has been waiting for 20 minutes for this gate to open up...and planes stack up for gates like pancakes at IHOP.

Add surly passengers and now you've got a gate agent popping prilosec like Tom Cruise on Oprah's couch (sorry, I've been waiting to use that.) Gate Agent, Gate Agent, wattcha' gonna' do when they come for you?

Well, there are interesting strategies being employed to ensure expedient boarding. Let's look at some examples (quoted from the article):

1. United Airlines: seats all of the window seats first, followed by the middles seats, then last are the aisle seats. Where it fails: Upsets clingy couples and families. When middle seaters board late, it roadblocks the aisle group.
2. Alaska Airlines: free boarding. Just get on. Where it fails: trades the frustration of the departure lounge for onboard chaos. Just one dawdler can gum up the whole process.
3. Southwest: group unassigned. Passengers are grouped and then allowed to board by their group. Where it fails: too much freedom - has kind of a weird hippie vibe. Also: Group C?!? Do you know WHO I AM?!?

Well, having goine through a stint as a frequent flyer I learned quite a few tips and had some memorable moments. Too many to share here, but one of my favorites was catching a cat on an airplane. I was seated right behind the bulkhead separating first class from steerage, and as people were getting settled I heard a commotion in the cabin. I looked back to see a very strange sight - just like people would do a wave at a sporting event, a ripple was moving around the cabin, back and forth. Quite bizarre actually. The bulkhead had a little cutout that passengers could stretch their feet or tuck a briefcase into. I had a briefcase on my lap, when suddenly a cat darted right between my feet into the cutout. Reflexively, without any thought; I put my breifcase over the cutout like a cupboard door. Hello Kitty! The very embarrassed passenger came up and retrieved her feline amidst gestures of either amusement or annoyance. As for me, for saving the cat and getting us out of the gate on time, I got a first class meal (but no upgrade though!).

Tales from work.

We went through an interesting time recently at my employer. Like many software companies, we enjoy perks such as all the coffee and soda we can consume, we can wear shorts to work (I enjoy tormenting my colleagues by wearing socks and sandals, but at least they are not black socks!), an Xbox room, once a month cake celebrations for all the birthdays that month, BFA (beer Friday afternoons), etc.

Well, the coffee isn't all that great. A few months ago we had a few new employees join our happy family, and they lamented how bad the coffee was. In mock seriousness I said "yeah, I had to stop drinking it because it was making my eyes bleed". They were incredulous! I elaborated that apparently the coffee had sufficient blood thinning qualities that if I yawned and my eyes watered up, the tears contained trace elements of blood. They were aghast. I started laughing. They no longer talk to me (not really!).

I'm trying to cut down on bad calories, specifically when they attach themselves to chocolate. I'm a simple guy, so I use the Rule of the Circle. It goes like this - inside the circle are items that I can justify such as chocolate powerbars or goo, chocolate in a mocha, maybe even Count Chocula in a pinch. My arguments may be weak but they work for me. Outside the circle are clear violators such as cake, cookies, candy. So I really try not to partake in the birthday celebrations (they buy some awesome cakes).

And further, due to the medication I'm taking I can't consume alcohol! Yup, they will bring in all of these microbrews that I used to truly enjoy sampling - lagers and ales oh my! I stand weeping and sometimes guzzle one of those nasty non-alcoholic beers with bloody tears streaming down my face.

Well, recently there was some corporate "decisions" made about our soda fountains. Apparently sufficient justification was made that removing the fountains and replacing with soda machines would save money. Some of us think it's just a plot to begin the long slide down toward purchasing our own drinks, as the machines now dispense a can at the press of a button but that little slot to put you dollar in forcing us to pay beckons a revenue stream like a CEO on stock options. But for now it's free. We used to have water dispensed by the fountain, and many of us made frequent use of this healthy opportunity. When the machines came in, one of the selections was water. Cool! I think management envisioned us becoming young, healthy, carefree and dedicated with an image like this in their minds:

What really happened though is that we ended up looking like this:

Well, even though we had water it dispensed these ridicuously tiny little bottles of water (I think they were 6 ounces). Seriously, hamsters typically have more water in their little watering devices. So, we would push the button 4-5 times and carry all these tiny bottles back to our desk. That lasted one day. Then, no water! We were up in arms, but were told that the tap water was filtered exactly the same as the water that came out of the fountain, so we can drink tap water. Mutiny almost occurred, but eventually we were wore down.

Well, one day as I went into the break room there were 3-4 of our QA (Quality Assurance) engineers standing around the machine. On top of the machine were several cans of different brands of soda. I started laughing and asked them if they were running test cases - pushing the button and seeing if the can that was returned met the 'specification' that the button provided. We all got a good chuckle and then I asked if they were actually opening the cans to ensure that not only the proper can was returned but the liquid inside matched the can that matched the button. Even more laughter ensued when when of the engineers responded that what's inside the can is the responsibility of product engineering, not QA!

We all shared a hearty laugh and then filled up our plastic bottles from the tap.

DrOwning in Da Vinci

I tried. I really, honestly tried. In the end however, I could just NOT resist posting about the Da Vinci code! I therefore join the legions of people posting and pondering a preposterous plot. So there. Well, if I had been more prepared I probably could have joined the ranks of books, seminars, essays, DVDs, etc and made a small fortune. But I did not. What I will give you though is a list of my 'coulda woulda shoulda' Da Vinci rebuttal headings. You've see similar, but to my knowledge these are all mine and I'm gonna run out and trademark them:

1. DeRiding the Da Vinci Code
2. DeNying the Da Vinci Code
3. DeSecrating the Da Vinci Code
4. DeStroying the Da Vinci Code
5. DoUbting the Da Vinci Code
6. DeEp Frying the Da Vinci Code
7. The DoOfus and the Da Vinci Code
8. DoCtoring the Da Vinci Code
9. DaMning the Da Vinci Code
10. The Da Vinci DeLusion
    

Poor Leonardo. He's got to be spinning like a helicopter over all this (hey, the edits are necessary as this is a family blog):

This is going to be a fun post. Even though it was panned at Cannes, the criticism had little to do with the book's actual message than it did taking a difficult book and attempting to make a movie out of it. So, the question is why DoEs it DeServe such heaping criticism? I'll admit that I DoWnloaded and read the book. I'll also admit that I couldn't put it down. It took me two days to read in between work and sleep. Will I see the movie? Probably not, only for the reason that some books are just going to be better than any screen adaptation. Should you read the book or see the movie?

For a while I was on a kick reading novels about Jesus and His disciples. Not anything that was blatantly blasphemous, but curious and interesting. I was not moved to rend my garmens and throw ashes over my head, or to burn stock shares in a public demonstration on the steps of the publisher. What I would respond if someone asked is: Why do you want to? I look at like I look at TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network). For the most part, it is a ghastly representation of what Christianity truly is. However, even in saying that I recognize and admit that not all of TBN is wrong. When people ask me about TBN I respond that only a mature believer should watch TBN, but then if you are mature why would you want to?

It's kind of like that with the Da Vinci code. DoEs it DeServe the criticism and media attention? In some ways, yes! It's DePiction of Christian history is DeVestatingly untrue. False. Riddled with inaccuracy. Let's DeConstruct the Da Vinci code to it's elementary underpinnings. It's a work of fiction. DaVe's DiCtionary DeFines fiction as: stuff that is made up. It's not true! But, DanBrown's interesting DiSclaimer warrants a moment of thought:

"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"

It is important to notice, even intriguing; that Brown did not mention history. Was Brown implying then, by omission of history; that people would know that there is not a historical basis for the novel?

David Reinhold uses the word "truthiness", as coined by Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert; as the best way to describe the Da Vinci code. Truthiness is the appearance of truth that will not stand up when presented with facts. Now we all know (or you should!) what really happened at Nicea in 325 A.D. Brown takes such great liberties though twist the truth into truthiness that there is a danger that a non-Christian will take the book as fact and be led into a heretical view of Christianity.

I think there has actually been one very good result of the book. Many Christians are being introduced to the importance of church history and development of the canon. Many people who had not been able to previously defend their faith when confronted with concepts such as Brown purports are now able to converse with conviction founded on historical accuracy. And that's a good thing!

So, should you read the book? Well, I suppose ultimately I can't say! What I can say though is that if you do, be prepared for a great reading, historically innacurate presentation of facts. And if you really want to know about Christianity, the Bible is a better source than Brown!

So close...

..but I managed to refrain. Went to the gym this afternoon, and no one was at the front desk so I scanned my card and went about my workout. As I was leaving, the counter staff was there and looking at the computer and reader and I thought perhaps I had messed something up.

I was about to confess, "hey I checked myself in - do you want to check me out?" and then thought a little bit about how that would sound. And refrained!

Life don't mean a thing unless you also got the bling

The Portland Oregonian (4/19) quotes Mary J. Blige from an interview in Blender Magazine, apparently finding religion but making no apologies for earthly materialism. The quote attributed to Blige has her saying that:

My God is a God who wants me to have things. He wants me to bling. He wants me to be the hottest thing on the block.

Wow! Me too, me too! I want a God like that! Pick me! Pick me! Well, I'm not sure which God Blige found, but if there is one thing we know it is how much materialism affects our lives. Consider this bedtime prayer (not sure where I came across it but i've udpated it a bit) that is probably offered multiple times each night in Lake Oswego (a very affluent suburb of Portland), OR:

Now I lay me down to sleep
I pray my Cuisinart to keep
I pray my stocks are on the rise
And that my analyst is wise
That all the wine I sip is white
And that my hot tub is watertight
That lacrosse won’t get too tough
That all my sushi’s fresh enough
I pray my razr cell phone works
That my career won’t lose its perks
My microwave won’t radiate
My condo won’t depreciate
I pray my health club doesn’t close
And that my iPod songlist grows and grows
If I go broke before I wake
I pray my Hummer they won’t take

It is said that Jesus spoke of the dangers of materialism more than any other subject. As I write this my wife is holding a garage sale (which in and of itself is symptomatic of too much stuff), and she told me that a lady in a Lexus SUV drove up, looked around; picked up a .50 cent trinket and counted her pocket change and said "will you take .39 cents?" For cryin' out loud! She's driving a car that she probably paid more than $40,000.00 for! And as soon as a Ron Sider authors a book called "Rich Christians in an age of hunger" you get a Gary North responding with a book called "Productive Christians in an age of guilt-manipulators".

Well, if you have taken the time to read this post, may I ask you to do this one thing for me? Please, PLEASE add just a little more time - 5-7 minutes - and read this post by RLP. His dramatized scripture readings touch me deeply, and I hope that as you read this you too will think about Jesus' words about materialism. And say a prayer for Mary J. Blige too.

Rethinking the rapture

This cartoon appeared in the Portland, Oregonian today:

The guy looking at the "remains of the rapture" (the newspaper stand says "the end times" brought to mind a bumper sticker seen by Tom Austin:

In case of the Rapture, this car will be pulled to the side of the road while I rapidly reconsider my formerly postmillenial eschatology.

When the reformed speak in tongues

Ha! Gotcha with the classic "bait and switch" tactic. You may have thought this was a post on cessation, but this was so funny (to me) that I had to acknowledge it here. Doug Wilson, who writes a most excellent blog called (appropriately enough); Blog and Mablog - gives us this cartoon. Anyone who knows me would recognize my predilection to segue into unintelligible dialogue leading only to obfuscation - hence the name of my blog, "blah blah blahg".

Doug, you are a master at the trade!

He's big, he's bad and he's very, very mad...

Saw this cartoon and was reminded of the popular notion that the God of the Old Testament is an angry old man on a cloud hurling bolts of lightning:

This illustrates a point made recently by Sproul who was discussing worldviews, and made the assertion that the word "university" has its etymology in combing the words "universal" and "diversity". Sproul notes that these seem to be conflicting terms and to munge them into one word seems at odds, but he goes on to explain that in the academy the separation of facts and philosophy has produced distorted views of life.

I think that happens with our view of God as well. The cartoon illustrates what most of us (myself included) want to believe about God - that he is loving, merciful and that my most egregious sin will always fall one footstep short of the extent of his forgiveness. But God cannot be compartmentalized, although the Shema proclaims His unity, His diversity (just like ours) is clearly revealed as well. Consider Eze 33:11 & Hosea 11:8-9:

1. I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.
2. How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused. I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man - the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.

Yes, God does punish sin - and yes, God does forgive sin. If we take either side in too much liberty, imbalance is sure to result in the way that we perceive God. The bottom line? We never want to take God's grace for granted, but bend our knee to the knowledge of what we (me too) truly deserve...