I am Legend...

Last night I jumped out to catch a film with a friend after we put our kids to bed.  Many times an experience at the movies can be shallow, trivial and a disappointment. You leave feeling - why on earth did I spend time and money on this?  Last night was not one of those occasions.  For those who have not seen the new Will Smith film, I am Legend should cease reading now if you have intentions to do so.   There will be spoilers so hope off now.  To be honest, it was one of the better films I have seen in some time.

Plot Summary

The film is based on Richard Matheson's 1954 science fiction novel of the same name.  This film adaptation takes place in a post apocalyptic Manhattan where a viral 'cure for cancer' has gone horribly wrong. Most of the human population of the world has died, a small amount were immune, another portion turned into vampire like creatures known as dark-seekers.  In this world military virologist Robert Neville (Smith's character) is alone in Manhattan seeking to find a cure for what humanity has wrought upon itself.  What follows is a thick, tense ride of man's fight and hope for survival and redemption for what is a catastrophic situation.  The ending is somewhat optimistic and seems the only portion of the movie which has received some criticism.  The film was almost unbearably tense and dealt with themes much too disturbing for any kid to take in.  In fact, it will be too much for those who are sensitive at the movies. The use of sound (use of silence without much score) and visuals was fantastic and the movie is one tense moment after another for almost the entire 1:40 run time.  Surprisingly the writers and director deal with some themes which only find their sense in a biblical worldview and the religious themes are a bit penetrating.  What follows are some of the themes which I particularly found interesting and insightful.

Hubris/Pride

The film begins with an optimistic interview of a medical researcher who has harnessed the ferocity of the virus to do man's bidding and eradicate cancer.  The clinical trials were 100% effective and the interviewer asks the scientist a point blank question: So you cured cancer? The answer is hollow and clear: Yes.  There is no time for optimism as the director makes a harsh cut directly to 3 years later into an empty Manhattan island where Neville is hunting in the midst of the overgrown and desolate city.  The pride of humanity's attempt to cure one of our most horrendous diseases by using a virus, a self-replicating system prone to unpredictability and mutation comes through loud and clear.  It gives much pause to the possibility of overconfident biotechnological reaches which have unseen outcomes.  Now I don't think we are going to turn people into rabid, zombie like vampires, but there are great risks to human life and the environment in the brave new worlds of bio and nano technology.  Pride comes before a fall...true.

Despair, Guilt and Quixotic Dedication

Smith's character carries a certain guilt and responsibility to remedy the situation as we see from well timed flash backs that he was the military scientist attempting to find a cure for this pandemic.  He was unable to find it in time and the director uses the pre-apocalypse story to build his character's fixation with finishing his work.   After everyone is gone, Neville, who has an immunity to the virus, has only his dog and his work left to keep him sane.  He is frantically trying to both stay alive and find the cure he sought before  everything unraveled.  He unrelentingly says "I have to fix it" - his sense is that he simply has to redeem humanity's mistake.  He echoes that "God didn't do this, we did" and you sense that he feels the burden of a savior though his work looks hopeless.  He has almost a quixotic quest to get the job done.  So much that he sends his family away so that he can stay at ground zero and work.  Additionally, towards the end, he again wants to stay and cure the disease rather than go northward in search of a "survivor colony" he hears about.  The director relieves this tension at the end as his work is allowed to succeed - though without him making it through to that future.  Our own kicking against our mortality is felt strongly and Smith's performance only added to this hope/despair paradox of being human.

Friendship

Being one of the last people alive is a lonely affair so how Neville copes with his isolation is an interesting facet of the film.  In this movie, man's best friend is better than a volleyball.  Neville's dog actually has survived with him and they do everything together.  Eat together, work out together, hunt together, etc.  I never bought into Tom Hank's friendship with a volleyball to keep his sanity in Castaway.  Here we have the family dog as the constant companion. This is quite believable and will certainly grab the hearts of those who love their doggies.  The tragedy of the circumstances is brought home through the dog's character as well.  It was touching and real - dog owners will cry in this movie.  Do not mock them.  There is also so goofy stuff with mannequins which seems to work pretty well especially when the zombies start messing with him.

Providence/Destiny

The film also wrestles a bit with the themes of God's providence and destiny.  Did God have anything to do with this disaster or is man alone and the victim of his sins alone.  Does the hope for the future lie in some form of providence, or is it human ingenuity which must right its own wrongs alone?  The end of the movie almost becomes cheesy when another immune human (a young woman named Anna played by Alice Braga) shows up on the scene and says "God told me to come to you."  At first it was like they were going to make this character out to be a religious wacko of sorts but it quickly moves through that feeling into an intense exchange about God's existence and involvement in their nightmare.  The scene survives the early cheesy moment to the point where it can be seen as genuine.  The movie resolves a little too nicely but at least it is nicely hopeful.  The cynical would probably prefer a different ending, but the current fare--though not great, was not that bad in my opinion.

Theological Angst

There is also much angst surrounding God in Smith's character.  The director does several things throughout the film to bring his humanity and its struggle with God to the foreground. In an early flashback his family prays together as wife and daughter board a helicopter to leave the island.  Later Neville's lines about his disbelief in God, or the fact that God had allowed this to happen come strongly to the center of his personal redemption.  There is a moment where he seems to realize that the hand of providence was indeed involved in the redemption of a broken world and this gives him courage to face the end of of his own life...which though a tad full of bravado, does have a sacrificial element to it.  The man who felt so compelled to "fix it" - eventually does...and gives his life in protecting the new found cure.  Fans of Bob Marley will certainly enjoy the placement of his music and his story in the film.  In fact, towards the end Neville seems to urge action in the world in order to "light up the darkness" - something he grabs from Marley.  There are crosses which hang from a rear view mirror, signs in the city saying "God still loves us" and even a church at the center of the new human colony featured at the end of the film.  The spiritual imagery and wrestle with God is evident throughout but not obnoxious or invasive.

Conclusion 

I personally enjoyed the film and it shook me as intensely as any--especially in the first parts of the movie.  I could not help but think of the realities of the film and how it aligns so much with my own theological vision.

• Man sins greatly - and feels his immense responsibility
  
• Yet providence deems redemption to be a worthy path which ultimately is controlled from a power greater than ourselves. 
  
• There is hope of new life and healing in a future yet to appear
  

In thinking of our quests in hope amidst a world of despair, the old poem The Gate of the Year by Minnie Haskins comes to mind.  The poem was made famous by King George VI's quotation in his 1939 Christmas address.

I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year 'Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.'

And he replied, 'Go into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God...That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way!'

I am Legend reminded me of our constant struggle with sin, survival, hope and despair.  In the hand of God lies redemption - even amidst our greatest sins. It is one of the most thematically spiritual movies I have seen and sets these motifs firmly in the 21st century.  Highly recommended.

Here are a few reviews and links:

• The New York Times
• Hollywood Jesus
  
• Rotten Tomatoes - 62% Fresh as of 12/19/07
  
• The Boston Globe - 3/4 stars
  
• Ebert and Roeper (video review) - Two Thumbs Up
  
• MovieGuide - 4 stars, extreme caution for children and sensitive movie goers.
• Rolling Stone (video review) - 3 of 4 stars
  

Leadership from Among...

There is much made in our culture, certainly in corporate settings, about the importance and nature of leadership. There are those who advocate coalition building, those who advocate proactive decisiveness, those who still validate hierarchy, and those for flattened non hierarchical structures. Even definitions for leadership bounce all around with the the latest gurus offering their counsel. My thoughts and experience of leadership have grown over the years, but there is one principle that I keep returning to which I find both effective and biblical.

I guess someone could have a name for this but I simply call it leading from among the people. To be honest, I have found myself in leadership roles my entire life. Whether leaders are born or made, probably a little of both, I know that it has been somewhat natural for me to find myself leading others. Whether it was quarterbacking the high school football team, leading the honor society, captaining our wrestling team, my days as a teen were filled with leadership. In college it seemed that many of my college teammates and classmates would come to me for counsel and insight into life difficulties and problems. During my life, God has has consistently placed me with and among leaders in ministry. Anyway, the leaders I have found most attractive, and the kind I pray to become, are those who “lead from among the people.” 

First, i want to describe some ways of leading which are counter to this sort of leadership. Second, I want to give a few illustrations of what I mean when I say “lead among.” Two will come from Scripture, one from history/culture, and one from the Leader of Leaders and Lord of Lords.

What it means to NOT lead from among the people

• Leading from Above This is being in charge of people, telling them what to do without embracing or experiencing their  circumstances. It is leading from positional authority and calling down from on high so to speak. I like this leadership from 3 persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I do not always enjoy it from people. It is particularly troublesome if the person leading does not have trustworthy character or is not willing to personally sacrifice with or for those she leads. Having responsibility for others is good; Having authority without character is resented. 
• Leading Insincerely Some like to fake it.  Insincere leadership may act interested, concerned, even get their hands dirty with others in their leadership. The problem can be that they do not naturally feel a place among those they lead. They do things in order to produce effects without really living it authentically. Usually this sort of leadership is short lived or seen through.  People tend to have pretty high authenticity meters today and a fake usually is exposed.
• Leading for Personal Gain I know there are some who say that this is the default motivation of every heart. Personal self-interest! Please, I do not need you to spew Ayn Rand quotes at me. I just think it is brutal to be led by someone who sees others as a means to an end and not an end themselves. There are even definitions which describe management as accomplishing accomplish predetermined goals through others. This could be good or terrible. It all depends on how “through others” actually goes down.  

A few examples of leading among

Life Reflected in Film 

One of crazy Mel Gibson’s movies demonstrated the kind of leadership with which I resonate. No it is not Passion of the Christ, but we will get to Jesus’ leadership in a moment. The movie is entitled We Were Soldiers. The 2002 film features the story of Lt. Col Hal Moore and the Battle of la Drang in during the Vietnam war. Col Moore’s leadership style was strong but very clear. I will not forget his line in the movie “Men, I will be the first one off the chopper and onto the field and I will be the last one to leave.” There was no question that he was the leader; there was no doubt he was in charge. Yet he was found with and among his men and did not bug out when things got hot. The director dramatically portrays this in the film with his boot hitting and exiting the ground of that bloody battle field. Men love to follow guys like this who lead from among.

Biblical Leadership - Old Testament

One of the most prominent example of this I find in the Scriptures. In the Old Testament Song of Deborah (Judges 5) a great battle had been won by the nation of Israel over its enemies. Deborah  sings a song of celebration after the victory where God is honored. A few things stood out to me in regards to the leaders of Israel. The song begins with stating something obvious, but the entire point of leadership:

1 Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day:2 “That the leaders took the lead in Israel, that the people offered themselves willingly,bless the Lord!

First, we see that the leaders actually led and did not abdicate or leave the people in confusion. Second, the people offered themselves willingly without which you have only coercion and not true leadership. These simple realities were enough case for rejoicing. Additionally the song says the following of the people in verse 9:

My heart goes out to the commanders of Israel who offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless the Lord.

It seems the Hal Moores of the world existed in our ancient past as well. The leader who leads at no cost to himself does not gain the level of respect as the one who fights along side of his men. The Old School kings would fight; new school leaders sit aside from the battle. I like the Old School.

Biblical Leadership - New Testament

In the book of 1 Peter, their is an exhortation given to local church elders; men called to give leadership in the local church. The “among them” principle is found here as well in chapter 5. 

5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Now I could spend way too many words here expounding on this but to be honest I think the words “among you”, willingly, not for shameful gain (TV preachers/fleecers?), not domineering, examples, humility…well, these words can just speak for themselves.

Finally, the incarnation which we celebrate at Christmas is the prime example of this principle.   And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. If anyone had the right and ability and position to lead from above it would be Jesus. Who being in the very nature God…took the form of a servant (Philippians 2:1-11). He took on human nature, walked with people, taught from among, exemplified from among, healed from among and died among the people. He gave his life for others, served others, and lived in full obedience to the Father. In my opinion he is the greatest leader in human history.  Here are his words on leadership.

35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?”37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized,40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,44 and whoever would be first among you must be slaveof all.45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

To summarize, leading among people means living out with people the goals and callings of an organization. It does not mean that a leader has to participate in every job or have his fingers in every aspect of a group. It does mean that people experience him with them in tangible ways.  How that works out will depend on the organization, its tasks, its size, and the nature of its calling etc.  People want to be appreciated, valued, have their work validated, and to know that another human being is as interested in their life. Yes, it matters what their life accomplishes for the team, but biblical leaders will also love the people involved. Such leaders I will follow; the other kind I will ignore. I am not saying I will not submit to and respect rightful authority which is placed over me.  What I am saying is that I will pursue legitimate paths to align under different leaders and will not waste my life under men and women who neither know me nor go to battle with me. Life is too short for that.

Youth Groups and Pizza

Ed Stetzer, director of Lifeway Research, recently published reasons why young folk leave church after age 18.  Here is an excerpt from the Christianity Today snippet.

Well, Lifeway Research (Southern Baptist) says they know the reasons why 70 percent of 18-year-olds who attended church regularly in high school quit by age 23: they don't like it.

The reasons cited?

• They wanted a break (27%)
• Church is too judgmental (26%)
• They moved away to college (25%)
• Busy with work (23%)

My favorite line, which is par for the Ed Stezer course was this one:

Lifeway's Ed Stetzer blames the losses on sorry youth ministry: "Too many youth groups are holding tanks with pizza," Stetzer said. "There's no life transformation taking place. People are looking for a faith that can change them and be part of changing the world."

Down with the holding tanks with Pizza! These kids wouldn't stand for it.

You don't know JACK - the most popular names in Britain

Jack is still the most popular name in Great Britain...but not for long.  It appears that the name of the Muslim prophet will soon overtake it as the top boys name in the British Isles. 

Here is the article at the London Telegraph.

(HT - Challies) 

Peace

Though I am not an absolute pacifist in this age this movie is a great reminder that Jesus is the prince of true peace in the advent season.  Though at times perhaps necessary, war sucks - this video reminds me that Jesus teaches us a different way - blessed are the peacemakers...true peace comes through Jesus who reconciles us to God and them makes us ministers of reconciliation...

Boring Materialism

Great quote today from Kairos Journal on the moribund nature of materialistic understandings of the world.  The quote is from David Hart, an Eastern Orthodox Theologian...great stuff:

Now that the initial, delirious raptures of eighteenth and nineteenth-century atheism have long since subsided, and a sober survey of the landscape left behind by God’s departure has become possible, only the most ardently self-deluding secularist could possibly fail to see how much of the moral, imaginative, creative, and speculative glory of humanity seems to have vanished from the earth. Far from draining the world of any intrinsic meaning, as many of the critics of religion are wont to claim, faith in the divine source and end of all reality had charged every moment of time with an eternal significance, with possibilities of transcendence, with a reason for moral striving and artistry and dreams of future generations. Materialism, by contrast, when its boring mechanistic reductionism takes hold of a culture, can make even the immeasurable wonders of matter seem tedious, and life seem largely pointless.

David B. Hart , “Beyond Disbelief,” review of The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World, by Alister McGrath, The New Criterion (June 2005), 80.

Blowing away with the Wind?

CNN/Money has reported on Britain's ambitious plans to push most of its domestic energy production to off shore wind farms by 2020.  Though accessing the winds off shore of the British Isles seems to be a great idea, it for some reason provoked in me a question related to defense. Now, I am 100% for wind technology for the generation of power, but it I certainly hope they are asking some hard questions.  So here is my question:

What if they were to go to war with another nation at some point in the future.  If their power generation is hinged to off shore wind turbines, are these not a prime target for missiles, submarines or aircraft attack.  It seems to me that the Luftwaffe and the u-boats past should make the Brits think about this sort of thing.  Perhaps they have, at the least, the defense of these installations must be a high priority if that much power is coming from this sort of source.  I am sure they must have considered the terrorist issue as well.  Energy independence for every nation ought to be a top priority, but if you become dependent on a source that can be knocked out and not easily replaced or repaired, you better have some pretty substantial back up infrastructure available as well.

The Compass Loses its Way

A quick look at the fantasy box office opening weekend battles...

• Hobbits - 72.6 million
• Narnia - 65.6 million
• Compass - 26.1 million

So far the compass seems to be a bit more bronze than gold...

Sola Scriptura and Pastoral Authority

I wrote this on a pastors forum, and thought it might be of interest to some here as well:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The teaching authority of elders/pastors is always derivative from their concord with the Word of God.  This was true from day one of the church.  Before the canon was established, the concern was with the authentic apostolic nature of the message brought by a elder/pastor.  Of course in the early days this was established by those who were in direct contact with the apostolic churches - those founded by and established upon the teaching of the apostles.  This version of "apostolic succession" we all should heartily agree with.  Those churches which are in accord with the teaching of Jesus and his apostles are true churches.  Those who deviate widely from this teaching are not.  This gave rise to the importance of the bishop in the early church - he would be the one to establish sound doctrine.  When there was controversy between bishops - this gave rise to councils which deliberated upon this teachers - with the debate hinging upon the teaching of the Bible.  The canonization process was of great import as to determine the apostolic witness - the inspired writings vs. heretical teachings (be they from Marcion, Valentinus, etc).  The church "recognized" the canon as what it already was - the inspired Word.  The canon did not derive its authority from the church's ruling...

During the reformation(s) of the late medieval and early renaissance periods, the concern was to return to the sources (ad fontes) of Christian faith, namely the witness of the New Testament.  Where the church was currently deviant from the teaching of the NT, it should be "reformed" - The clear teaching of the Bible should set the course for the churches as it is the authority upon which the church is established...only upon the foundation of the Scriptures can an elder/pastor "teach with authority."  The formal principle of the reformation, that of Sola Scriptura - that each persona can read and interpret Scripture, is what McGrath is calling Protestantism's Dangerous idea.  It allows all manner of goofy and sinful teaching to be put forth in "the name of being biblical" which no other authority to adjudicate.  But the fracturing of the church by heresy did not come with Protestantism, having a guy with the hat on does not guarantee anything.  There have been heretics throughout history both pre and post reformation and the church has always had to clarify biblical orthodoxy.  The reformation had to wrestle with the question. "What if the guy in the hat gets it wrong?" - Of course the rest has been history. 

I both love and hate some of the realities of Protestantism.  There are a bunch of goofy interpretations and spins on the Bible, but yet basing the authority in a sinful man's ruling is no better path.  This is why someone's belief "ABOUT" the Bible is of great importance.  You cannot even debate in council - or on a forum :) - if someone who does not hold to the authority of the text.  At least we can wrestle under the text, if the text has authority.  If one does not believe in the authority of the text, one will say "it is all hermeneutics, all interpretation" - that there is no definitive meaning to the text.  This is why the issue of biblical authority AND hermenuetical outlook are so important.  If someone can make up "trajectories" to speak beyond the Bible, they will eventually err far from course.

Right authority ultimately comes only from GOD, we derive that authority from the book whose author is the same.  The early church leader's authority stood only upon the word of Jesus and the apostles - this we have preserved for us and our children in the New Testament.  Without this, there would be no rule to test doctrine...Of course Rome disagrees, for they have an oral tradition that lives through the magisterium.  They claim that the teaching ministry of the Roman church has never contradicted Scripture...I find this somewhat ridiculous and thus remain a Bible guy. 

Reid 

YWAM press release

YWAM has released a deal about the recent murders of four of their staff by a gunman on their campus in the Denver suburb of Arvada, Colorado. You can read it here. 

Police are investigating whether this shooting and the one which took place yesterday in Colorado Springs are related.  Sad stuff.

An Experiment in Existential Narcissism- A Review of The 4-Hour Work Week...

 

I just finished reading (well, listening to...over 8 hours for the unabridged audio book) Timothy's Ferriss' new best selling book The 4-Hour Workweek - Escape 9-5, Live Anywhere and Join the New Rich from Crown.  The 320 page book is a New York Times, WSJ bestseller with currently 315 five star reviews on Amazon.com...sales rank 95 overall, #1 or #2 in several amazon subcategories as of Dec 8. It has also garnered more endorsements than you can shake a stick at.

I grabbed the book on iTunes out of curiosity when I heard it mentioned on one of the geek podcasts I listen to from time to time. As I am moving to NJ in a few months I figured he would be a good guy to listen to just to see how some people think up in the land of the movers and shakers...or in more Ferrissesque parlance...the lands of lifestyle designers.

Ferriss is a Princeton graduate whose writing is intelligent, crass, witty, conversational, outrageous, irreverent and at times quite genuine.  To be honest after reading the book I can tell you that I am quite ambivalent with his ideas - some of them I sensed a deep appreciate for, others made me completely sick, others just were ridiculous, some hilarious (the story of how he won a national kick boxing tournament in China comes to mind - I won't spoil that here).  In this review I will cover a few things enjoyed, a few things that annoyed and then leave another substantial issue to another blog post forthcoming here.  So, how to work only four hours and do whatever the hell you want - or what I am calling Tim Ferriss' experiments in existential narcissism.

Summary 

The book is true to its title and fits very much in several book categories: self-help, entrepreneurship, lifestyle come to mind.  Whether or not others will admit it, Ferriss has articulated quite well some of the longings of the younger generation in western culture.  This book for some will be a resonating voice for those continuing on the post industrial cultural trajectories of America and Europe.  In some ways it just another of the long line of those promising that "You can have it all - really" - this is actually stated on the books companion web site.

The books centers around the idea that our society has some pretty goofy rules and ways of doing things and that it is insane to remain in these conventions.  Think about it, we work 60-80 hours a week in order to have some money, no time and a pile of misery.  Only the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of retirement keeps many motivated.  Ferriss, a Princeton man who was surrounded by those who work this way, found himself miserable and questioning it all.  Why do we wait till the end of life in order to try and enjoy life?  Why do we toil away in offices when we could live a more mobile lifestyle, get things done with more focus and efficiency and be freed up to enjoy life now?  So he set about to do it and this book is his story of how he did and now offers to coach you to do the same.  It is an enjoyable read so I will share a few things that brought a smile

Enjoyed

Ferriss is a guy who likes to question things and ask the question why.  I like guys like this.  Now it can be turned into rebellion against rightful authority (which is wicked) and but to be weary of the status quo is the only path to which results in change. Ferriss seemed tired of certain societal conventions which are neither based in truth or law - they are just the way we do stuff.  When you think about it we do often act like the herd animals which Nietzsche accused us of being.  One observation Ferriss makes which I felt was right on is that "Most people will choose unhappiness over uncertainty."  Sad but true.  There just are not too many risk takers out there. To be quite honest, this discontent for the way things are is found in most church planters I have met.  They are a risky bunch who would rather try to start something than to stay stuck in ruts which are based only in cultural custom. 

Ferriss also shows an immense amount of wit and creativity in thinking  through ways to generate income without a huge amount of time.  He offers suggestions for both the entrepreneur and the one who just wants to enable a bit more cash flow while shaping their current job situation.  Now one needs some intelligence and talent to do some of the things mentioned (one of the weaknesses of the book is that he acts like all 6 billion people in the world could do what he does), but they are not impossible for some people to try.

His focus on eliminating superfluous work and becoming more focused was excellent.  His practical tips on e-mail and overcoming the information overload of our days very helpful.  The practical application of the 80/20 rule and the his example of how he fired some of his less profitable, most time consuming rude and annoying customers was quite enjoyable.  Anyone who feels under the pile of e-mail, needs help in prioritizing will enjoy the chapter on elimination.  It is material that can be found in other places, but Ferriss' application of it to the world of information overload was very helpful.  A few helpful quotes:

• Doing something unimportant well still does not make it important
• Simply because a task takes a lot of time does not make it important either 

His application of "elimination" and the 80/20 rule to material possessions and simple living was something I wanted my whole family to read.  I am convinced we all have too much stuff in our lives in - I was big time on board with his "getting rid of your stuff" counsel later in the book.  I hope to lighten our load when we move in the coming year...for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions (Luke 12:15). 

I also enjoyed Ferriss as a writer.  Some will see him as a bit cocky and arrogant -- this is perhaps true.  Some will take too offense at his choice of language - this would be warranted.  Yet the fact is he seemed genuine - genuinely full of it, but somewhat authentic nonetheless.  The fact is that - I wanted to hear him. It did not hurt that Ray Porter, the audio book reader, did a fantastic job with Ferriss' prose.  He wrote conversationally with passion which I think many people will enjoy.

One other thing which was interesting was one of the later chapters wrestling with finding a meaningful life.  I will blog more late about his dealing with ultimate questions and meaning, but he did land that service and learning seem to be central to any meaningful existence.  I find many younger people today wrestling with finding meaning.  I do not agree with Ferriss' relativism and create meaning however you want philosophy, but I do commend that he is asking the questions. 

Finally, I learned much from Ferriss about how some people think today.  I found him consistently embracing the contradictions of contemporary thought.  I found him to be thoroughly what I am calling "most western" - an existential narcissist.  Ferriss states openly that he is living life for excitement and self-fulfillment.  His whole life is dedicated to the accrual of experiences which will keep him from self-doubt and boredom.  His goals are freedom of time and movement with finances as a means to these ends.  Gone are the desires to live a life according to virtue, or according to truth, or in order to find peace.  What remains in western culture, among the educated elite - is the end of the post enlightenment narrative.  Freedom to do what you want, when you want and how you want.  It is the last phase of the autonomy project of western culture.  If you get lonely, empty, bored, miserable...don't find a real solution to your problems - just hop a plane to Berlin, or Beunos Aries or Thailand.  There you can rent out big tables at clubs and have experiences.  All while your Indian assistants and two thirds world outsourcers make money for the new western prince.  On to my annoyances.

Annoyed

The first thing I noticed is that Ferriss presents all his counsel as if any person on earth could do it.  Those who have been around a bit longer will realize that all of his counsel requires something of people in order to pull off.  The advice is for the motivated, smart, winsome person who can actually, to use his words, "bend the world to themselves."  I think some people who try his systems are just going to get fired...or pour some money down a hole in creating their muse.  I'm not saying his business advice was not good - I may end of trying something myself some day - but it does require a person with some talent.

Second, Ferriss rebellion against the Jones was a bit strange.  He acts fed up with the elite of America, slaving away at hedge funds, saving for retirement.  The ironic thing is that Ferriss has traded old elitism for a new flavor - he is still running to keep up with the Jones...his path is just more passport stamps, languages and combat sports rather than a house in the Hamptons...the New Rich (NR as he states it) still want to be rich, just in a slightly different way. 

Additionally, the ethical considerations in the book were a bit vacuous.  Ferriss did not seem concerned with doing the right thing - it didn't even seem to be his question.  It seemed his counsel was "do whatever you can to get what you want...but don't break the law."  By this he means the laws of government, not the moral law.  If you have to tell some little lies to your boss to create some good rhetoric in order to convince her to give you a remote work agreement...well, just do what you have to do. Interestingly enough he offered two examples of how to research the market for a potential product - one from a guy selling shirts from France and the other a woman doing DVDs on Yoga for rock climbers.  One business used some market research practices which were legal, but perhaps a bit dishonest.  The other did not use these techniques because they thought it unethical.  Ferriss offers both methods as options without much of a blink.  At times some of the advice seemed so slick that it felt a bit greasy.  Some may also find less than appealing his "outsourcing" of everything from manufacturing, order fulfillment, and personal assistants to people making 4 bucks an hour in the far east.

Though he goes out of his way to tell stories of single mom's and families living the NR lifestyle, it is obvious that he has no kids.  Anyone leading a family of more than three would just chuckle at some of his suggestions.  So the recommendations for mini retirements and living in multiple locations fit a 29 year old single guy, but would be a hard fit for most of the families I know.  Of course Ferriss might just think they were lame and part of the herd.  All that to say that his "this is for families with kids too" schtick falls a bit flat.

Finally, the biggest issue I had with the work was Ferriss' worldview which I described briefly above.  If you look at how post enlightenment western ideals have shifted, the old goals of pursuing truth, virtue and peace of mind are gone and the new goals of hyper autonomy, excitement as the highest virtue are on full display in Ferriss.  There is nothing worse for him than being bored.  At the end of the book I felt some honesty when he counseled other potential lifestyle designers of the new rich in how to deal with self-doubt even after you have made it (having income with little work, 3-16 month min retirements anywhere on earth). Yet when faced with ultimate questions - why are we here, what does my life mean, the nature of reality etc. his only advice was to do something to keep your mind off of such things.  Do something else to distract yourself - I believe sex and sports were recommended.  It seemed that such parables of autonomy will eventually lead to loneliness and a longing for something more.  For we have been made by God for community and relationship with our maker.  Yet when loneliness and doubt come to Ferriss he is likely to just learn another language and how to fight in another style (he is a avid learning of both foreign languages and fighting techniques).  I don't think he would have it any other way.   For he seems to be in flight from God and filling his days with pizazz to keep him from facing his creator.

Conclusion 

I enjoyed the book and found some useful ideas in its pages for breaking out of the ruts of society to attempt different things.  Anyone who desires to live differently will find something to like in the book.  Personally, I liked Tim Ferriss - he sounds like a guy I would greatly enjoy.  Being an ex college wrestler his expertise in many combat sports was of interest for sure.  At the risk of sounding cheesy, I am going to pray for him.  Maybe we'll hang out some day when he is lecturing at Princeton - I'll be just a few miles away.  He is just 29 years old and has many discoveries before him. Perhaps he will bump into Jesus one day who might just tell him "To find your life, you must lose it." 

Atonement Theories and the Gospel

The subject of the atonement of Christ, what his death accomplished for human beings and the world, has been one of theological debate throughout church history.  The word atonement is defined by Wayne Grudem as the work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation.¹ Discussions of the atonement explore what it means when we confess, Christ died for us.   There have been many theories throughout history and in contemporary discussion.  The debate about the atonement within evangelicalism has reemerged in the past few decades as it has become a subject of controversy in both theological and popular circles.  In theological circles Joel Green and Mark Baker's Recovering the Scandal of the Cross brought criticism to the view of substitutionary atonement that many consider central to the gospel.  Emergent authors such as Steve Chalke and Brian McLaren have openly questioned the same.  What follows is a tiny sketch of some of the views of atonement offered over time.

Example Theory

Demonstrates how we too can suffer well and do good in standing against injustice.  His meek, submissive and non violent stand against imperial power is to inspire us, as humans like him, to do the same. Typically the divine nature of Jesus is minimized or denied with those who hold this view.  The view usually holds that God is not angry against sin and will not mete out justice to the sinner.  This is the view of today's universalists-those who believe all are saved.  It is sort of a salvation by being alive and having Jesus as your role model.  This view has a grain of truth, but for the most part misses the point of the cross of Christ.

Moral Influence Theory

The effect of the atonement is upon human beings and their moral choices, the cross does not do anything before God.  This theory was made popular by Peter Abelard a French scholastic theologian who lived from AD 1079-1142. The theory is that we would see that Jesus became one of us and died for us.  This act should make our fear of God dissolve.  Seeing that Jesus would do this demonstrates to us the love of God so that we might change morally. We need to feel bad about sin and have the moral inspiration to live for and obey God.  Jesus' influences us towards making a change, but the atonement doesn't remove God's wrath or pay a penalty.  Unfortunately, if taken alone, this view leads to a salvation by morality which again is an adventure in missing the point.  Some have wondered what influence it actually had on Abelard...but that is another discussion.

Ransom Theory

This view has a long history dating back to Origen (AD 185-254) and refined by Gregory of Nyssa in late 4th century AD. This view holds that the universe and human beings are currently under the power and control of Satan due to the sin of our first parents.  God's goal then was to righteously win back his people from this bondage.  The view notes that Jesus himself taught that he came to offer himself as a "ransom" for many (See Mark 10:45).  Naturally, they asked, to whom is this ransom paid?  Satan of course.  This brought up much discussion and debate as to why God had to "pay off the devil" to win back his people, whether God "tricked" Satan by offering him Jesus only to "take him back" by raising him from death.  This theory had many difficulties and has not been in favor for some time, though some see the ransom view in the work of CS Lewis' The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.  In this work Aslan has to offer himself to the evil witch to ransom Edmund from bondage to her due to his chosen treason.  The Ransom view has a problem.  The Scriptures teach that the death of Christ paid a ransom, it does not however say it is paid to Satan.  Yet you can still love Narnia-I sure do.  Prince Caspian is coming to theaters May 16, 2008.  Check out the trailer here.

Satisfaction View

The medieval philosopher and theologian Anselm of Canterbury  (AD 1033-1109) put forth this theory in his classic work Cur Deus Homo - Why God Became Man? In this work he explores the incarnation and the reasons God became a human being.  He made a break with the Ransom theory in claiming that people belong to God, not Satan.  Anselm defined sin in terms of denying God the honor he is due.  Jesus became human, to take punishment for sin, to repair the dishonor brought to God by our rebellion.  We can be condemned for our sin or God's honor can be satisfied.  There is much more to be said of Anselm's view, but it would take us into all matter of discussions of Anselm's view of the necessity of the incarnation...that it had to be GOD to satisfy the problem of sin.  One weakness of the view is that it seems a bit tied to the social/legal structures of the day where dishonor towards a feudal lord would demand reparation.²

Penal Substitutionary Atonement

One of my friends articulated the central theme of the atonement, both Old and New Testaments as God's Self-Satisfaction through Self-Substitution.  In other words, sin is an offense against God, a violation of his law and a turning aside to worship that which is not God.  Our sin deserves his just condemnation but he chose to satisfy his own wrath by a cooperative effort between Father and Son.  The Son willfully and joyfully goes to the cross where the wrath of the Father is satisfied.  Hence-God's Self-Satisfaction.   Secondly, the death that we deserved-the death for sin-was willfully and joyfully accepted by the Son as our substituted.  He quite literally, dies for us; for the wages of sin is death.  God himself bore the penalty and punishment (hence the word-penal which refers to penalty/punishment) for our sins so that we would receive redemption, the forgiveness for our sins.  There is simply no explanation as to the question why.  God did not have to do this.  Yet in love and mercy for human beings he freely chose this plan.  It is a free gift of Grace from God to forgive the guilty by accepting their punishment.  God is just and will punish sin, yet he provides a sacrifice for our sins which satisfies the wrath of God (propitiation) and removes our sins (expiation).  This is the witness of the Bible.  Let me briefly demonstrate this.

Atonement in the Old Testament

The concept of atonement for sin is most on display in the sacrificial system of worship set up by God in the law of Moses.  Atonement in the Old Testament is the dealing with of sin by the offering of various sacrifices or payments and is seen in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.  Payment for sin must be made as part of the covenant God established with Israel.  To worship God they did not need to bring sacrifices to pay off God as if he were an angry King Kong.   Rather, the sacrificial system was a gift of grace by which worship and relationship were maintained.  God was holy and sin was an offense to him-in his love he set up a system of priests and offerings by which they might be forgiven and he would freely forgive.   This system of sacrifice was a "type" or foreshadowing of the redemption which would be brought by Jesus the great high priest who would give himself, once for all, as a sacrifice for the sins of God's people.  Most of the book of Hebrews treats this very topic.  In Leviticus particularly the sacrificial system and atonement is described in detail.  On the day of atonement, once a year, two goats would be brought which were without defect.  One would be killed for the sins of the people.  The other would have the sins of the people conveyed upon it by the hands of the priest.  This goat, the "scapegoat" would be sent away from the people, in effect taking away their sins (see Leviticus 16).  Additionally, the great prophet Isaiah recounts a savior who would suffer and bear the punishment for our sins (See Isaiah 53).  So the idea of penal substitution is not a recent theological construct of western Christianity, it is found in the ancient writings of the Hebrew scriptures. 

Atonement in the New Testament

It should not surprise us that all the theories of atonement has some biblical moorings and are indeed a portion of the truth.  The Cross of Christ is a multidimensional act which has many effects on behalf of God and people.  Substitution is central, yet the other theories also describe a part of what Christ accomplished.  1 Peter 2:23 tells us that Jesus is indeed our example of suffering under injustice.  The entire book of 1 John will show us that if we claim to know the crucified one that it ought to affect the way we live.  Our lives ought to reflect to love of God expressed in the cross (John 3:16).  There has been a ransom paid but it has been paid by Jesus on our behalf to the Father thereby redeeming us from sin, death and hell.  Christ did not trick and pay off Satan, but he triumphed over him at the cross (Colossians 2:15).  Yet if any of these are presented without the central teaching of Old and New Testament that Christ died for us, we have removed the crux of the Cross of Christ.

The substitutionary nature of the atonement is reflected in Mark's gospel (10:33-45; 15:33-34), John's gospel (3:14-18,36; 6:50-58; 11:47-52;), Romans (3:21-26; 4:25;5:1-10; 8:1-3), Galatians (3:10-13) and 1 Peter (2:21-25 and 3:18).  For those who want to read a delightful treatment of these passages see Pierced for our Transgressions from Jeffery, Ovey and Sachs.³

The cross of Christ is the center point of our faith, the turning point of history and the place where justice and mercy meet.  Indeed, Paul, an early Christian leader and apostle said of the cross that it would be his only boast.  I will give him the last words:

But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Notes 

1. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 568.
2. Millard Erikson, Christian Theology-2nd Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 814.
3. See the excellent work Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the glory of penal substitution by Jeffery, Ovey and Sach (Notingham, England: Intervarsity Press) 67-99.  This work just out in the US from Crossway books.  If you are building a theological library-buy this book!  Another excellent work on the cross is John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1986).

Mohler on the Golden Compass

 

Many of you have asked me about the books in the His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman.  As some of you know the first book, The Golden Compass has been made into a full length feature film set to debut nation wide on December 7th.  Many Christians have called for boycott's etc. Many people are asking what the stories are about. 

I think Al Mohler wrote a decent piece today that avoids boycott reactionism yet is pretty clear about the message and agenda of Pullman and his works. You can read it here. It was good to hear a baptist telling folks NOT to boycott something in culture...even a story which has no hidden agenda...this trilogy is about killing God.

I would encourage Mr. Pullman to write his next fantasy story about Islam...wait, he probably wouldn't do that.     

The Possibility of Arguments for Biblical Veracity

Tim Dees, my good friend and a partner in crime with Jacob's Well recently wrote an interesting commentary on the recent republican debate and the question asked about the candidates beliefs about the Bible.  Tim's essay was entitled THERE IS NO 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION and for some reason has yet to make it up to his The FotD web site (Tim, please remedy).  In the post he made an interesting statement that I want to unpack a bit further - here it is:

I cannot argue, without religious presuppositions, that every word of the Bible is literally true; I can only argue that no part of it is false, but that would require going through every possible objection and offering rebuttals. In that sense, the question is logical quicksand.

First of all, I would like to say that I agree with Tim's statement, though that may be shocking for some of you to read.  Second, I would like to say that such manner of argumentation would be a fiction so the point is somewhat moot.  Reid, what do you mean?

Well, if one is forced to argue without religious presuppositions (beliefs) one would be doing an impossible task.  Human beings are simply unable to argue from such neutral ground.  Now, I do think we can successfully perform thought experiments...such as the following.

I just want to use my reason, along with taking on purely secular presuppositions and then try to prove that no part of the Bible is false...this indeed would be a task of herding cats.  You would need to demonstrate that every falsifiable statement in the good book is in fact not falsified when all the facts are known.  

Yet, this sort of process is a fiction and assumes way to much.  First, it assumes that secular presuppostions give one good reason to trust our reasoning.  Second, it assumes secular presuppositions are "religiously neutral" which they are not.  Someone who wants to act or play as if there is no God is operating in a profoundly religious world.  She has answered some ultimate questions and is now going about her business in light of these answers.  These answers are in no way rational inferences, but rather faith commitments about ultimate reality. She is acting on beliefs.

So, if I want to talk about the Bible being the word of God, or being always true and never false, one would not want to place religious presuppositions aside, but rather keep them central.  The Bible being always true is connected to what we believe it to be...the Word of God.  Yet this is connected to there being a God...and not simply any God, but one who speaks and gives revelation through prophets and apostles - writers inspired to write his words.  Now, I am not saying that one should not give arguments to why the Bible gives credence to the claim that it is the Word of God which never falsifies.  We should appeal to fulfilled prophecy, we should build inductive cases from archeology (Did you realize we may have just dug up Nehemiah's wall?) and science which reinforce biblical truth claims etc. We can and should provide arguments for the text of Scripture being the Word of God.  But these arguments do not stand alone away from Christian presuppositions, they live within them. 

So how should we proceed with friends who have questions about the nature of the Bible?  I offer the following:

• Do not eliminate the claims the Bible makes for itself - that it is God's Word - 2 Tim 3:16
• Do help resolve tensions for your friends of different beliefs (secular non religious faith adherents included) through good arguments for Scripture's authority.
• Do ask them to do thought experiments with you to take on Christian presuppositions and then ask their questions of the Bible.  For instance consider the following:
  

You: Joe, you think there isn't a god, but for a moment let me ask you a question.  If there were a God, do you think he would want to communicate with us?
Joe: Sure, why not
You: What ways would you choose to talk to us mortal ants?
Joe: Maybe he would have us google "God" and get some clear answers! Laughing...I suppose he could talk to us
You: Good. What if we misunderstood him?
Joe: He could put it in writing!
You: Good point...even more so, he could become one of us...then we can share that God spoke through apostles and prophets and in these last days he has spoke to us through Jesus - then allow him to consider Jesus and the gospel.

Anyway, I agree with Tim - but I challenge the whole project and think there is another way than appeals to lonely, autonomous, human reason  in such discussions.  And if you have not done so, you need to subscribe to Tim's Fact of the Day.

Ring the Bells

The worship ministry here at Fellowship Nashville and several artists from the church have put together a Christmas Album entitled Ring the Bells - A Christmas Offering.  The unique thing about the album is that ALL proceeds are going directly to our church's mission partnerships in Africa.  You can see a video about the project here (wmv format).

The CD features the following tracks:

track	name (click to preview)	artist
1.	Ring The Bells	Ronnie Freeman & Cindy Morgan
2.	Angels, from the Realms of Glory	Three Strand
3.	Angels' Lullaby	Christy Nockels
4.	O Come All Ye Faithful	Jason Ingram
5.	Little Drummer Boy with Savior Glorious	Laura Licata, Cheri Keaggy, Denise Jones & Christy Nockels
6.	Gladdest Noel	Evelyn Brush
7.	What Wondrous Love Is This with What Child Is This?	Heidi French
8.	Some Children See Him	Amy Stroup
9.	Glorious Impossible	Carl Cartee
10.	One Small Child	Tofer Brown
11.	O Come, O Come, Emmanuel	Erin O’Donnell featuring Ronnie Freeman
12.	Emmanuel	Geoff Moor

The CDs make great Christmas gifts and are just $15.00. They can be purchased directly here. Do some good along with your gift giving this year.

Dancing Darwinists...

Apparently, the guys over at ExpelledTheMovie.com have utilized some tools from JibJab to produce a fun little movie of prominent dancing Darwinists.  So if you ever wanted to see Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Eugenie Scott dance with Sir Charles..well, here ya go.

Renewable Energy News...

BusinessWeek has a couple of interesting articles on renewable energy sources.  The first is about China's investment in wind and other technologies which are growing at a massive rate. The second is about processes to create biodiesel from certain types of algae...the title is pretty pithy as well - Here comes pond scum power.

In the same vein I saw a new wind turbine design that looks pretty interesting if it actually works.  It is called the Maglev wind turbine - see graphic below and click here for a description  of a company who is actually working on this.

There will be a day where we will not be a world dependent on petroleum resources for energy.  Some people will also get rich in the process of developing and deploying new technologies...economic opportunity and environmentally friendly sources of energy sound like a good marriage to me. 

As one who is moving to NJ next year, this one sounds cool, but perhaps a bit far fetched. 

Will Dr. Wise Consider me Mr. Foolish?

This coming January I will have the wonderful privilege of studying with a very unique scholar with a unique name.  January 14-18 I will be in Louisville, KY to take a class simply entitled "Origins" taught by Dr. Kurt Wise.  This is a class I have looked forward to for several reasons.  '

First, I did my undergraduate studies in Applied Science and Physics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  I became a follower of Jesus during my sophomore year at UNC in the middle of my studies in the hard sciences.  The questions surrounding the Scriptures view of history, science and the nature of the cosmos became important for me at this juncture as well as my interests in Christian Apologetics. During my studies at UNC I immersed myself in some young earth creationist literature for a brief season but over time evolved to more of an old earth, recent Adam creationist yet firmly maintaining that the first 11 chapters of Genesis were a trusted, though not comprehensive, view of human creation, sin and early migrations.  I would say I have stayed somewhat abreast on the discussions between theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, intelligent design theorists and literary framework views.  The interesting thing about my upcoming class is that Dr. Wise is in fact a young earth creationist...and one of considerable intellectual talent.

Dr. Wise did his undergraduate studies in geology at the University of Chicago, a masters in geology at Harvard along with a Ph.D. in Invertebrate Paleontology, also at Harvard University.  His doctoral work was actually supervised by the late Stephen J. Gould, quite the proponent of various evolutionary explanations of life.  Wise has even drawn the attention and disdain of the high priest of the new atheism Richard Dawkins who said the following of Dr. Wise:

Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity.

And then of course the following: 

Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that [that he is a six day, young earth creationist who believes the Bible), even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.

So I have the upcoming privilege of spending 8 hours a day for five days with this highly credentialed scientist and young earth creationist.  My biggest question is whether Dr. Wise will consider me Mr. Foolish if I do not accept the 6 day creationist conclusion...and will I care.  I look forward to the reading and discussion ahead and will enjoy engaging all of these issues in the coming weeks as I do the reading...and he did just assign some reading.  He did go to Harvard after all. 

For those interested here are the books on the list for my class in Origins:

• Miller, Keith B., editor, 2003, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 528 p.
• Ross, Hugh, 2006, Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars, NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO, 291 p.
• Wise, Kurt P., 2002, Faith, Form, and Time, B&H, Nashville, TN, 287 p.

Guitar Hero - Will it Blend?

For the original wide screen version - see here Classic line - "Wow, Purple Haze"

POCBlog heading towards 1000

I am by no means what someone might call a prolific blogger.  I have a day job, a wife and three kids, am in Seminary, working on planting a church...and I enjoy writing when time affords.  Yet I just noticed something fun on my Movable Type Control Panel today...[for those who want to know - POCBlog is powered by Sixapart's Movable Type Software - Word Pressers I know you guys are cool]

I don't share too much the metrics of this site (for instance, how many page views a month we see) but I thought this was a bit different.  After being at this for a bit, the POCBlog is at 995 entries and 957 comments which means two fun milestones are just ahead.  First, the 1000 entry mark and second, the point at which comments eclipse the number of posts.  It has been fun to see a community form here with common interests and friends old and new.  I even love all those Mac people who always comment when I praise or mock the Apple cult. 

Anyway, what began as a way to put my thoughts down has turned into something I really enjoy.  I like thinking with you, hearing from you and keeping in touch with friends all over the world.  Thanks for walking these paths over the past few years and we look forward to the continued exchange of thoughts, laughs and Zune information in the days ahead.