A New Mind (Reconceptualization #2)

Paul admonishes us in Romans 12 to be 'transformed by the renewing of your mind.' It is with this goal in mind that I have sought to understand the basic tenets of quantum physics and Einstein's relativity. It has to do with our foundation of knowing. You see, we all see things from a particular perspective. We even see the Bible and God's instructions for our lives from our own perspective. So in order to 'renew my mind' and see God's word in a fresh light, I'm checking out other foundations of knowledge from which to see things. (Although truthfully, I'm starting to figure out that perhaps the best way is to not have any foundation, or perspective, at all- a really frightening thing when you think about it!)

So anyways- back to the physics. I'll continue my foray into E=mc2, trying not to get too deep into the technical aspects, but go just enough to glean some conclusions from it that will hopefully let us all see things a little clearer. As I mentioned before (see 'C-Blog' below) Einstein's famous equation reads Energy equals Mass times the Speed of Light squared. Again, doesn't sound too revolutionary but here's where we'll start to get into some of those 'dangerous' implications.

I'm sure everyone has heard of Sir Isaac Newton. Maybe you know he is often considered the father of Physics. Pretty much any physical science that you learned in school- things like momentum and motion and attributes such as mass and stuff like that- pretty much originated in the equations and laws of Newton. They seemed to explain everything- or at least provided the means to explain everything- and his equations always seemed to work. They worked for about 400 years. Then Einstein came along. (Incidentally, Newton's equations still work for the most part, which is why we're still learning them in school.) As indicated above by the italics, Newton's laws have much to do about the Mass side of the equation. And despite the heady designation of being 'physics', it appears to be mostly common sense because Newton's laws merely describe our everyday experiences with the objects around us. But what happens when our everyday experiences are....wrong?

Let's put that on hold for a second as we consider the energy side of the equation. For the longest time there was a sense of something called energy but it was always in separate forms. There was heat, there was light, there was magnetic attraction, there were electrical charges- but nobody saw these as related; nobody had a unified concept of 'energy.' Then this guy named James Clerk Maxwell came along and discovered that Magnetic energy and Light shared similar characteristics and were essentially different forms of the same thing called 'energy.'

So far so good? Ok- here's where it gets kinda crazy. Newton's laws didn't always work out quite right- but that was because Newton's laws were theoretical and based on what scientists refer to as an 'inertial frame of reference'- basically a place that doesn't move. You see, any experiment that we do on earth- is moving. We are spinning around an axis and careening along an eliptical path around the sun, at several hundred miles per hour. If only we could find the one place in the universe that did not move- or at least find our rate of speed in relationship to that 'still' place so we can adjust our equations to take that into account and then- voila- everything will fall into place.

Well, Maxwell's equations describing the properties of energy provided hope. One of the implications was that the speed of light was constant. Cool- we measure the speed of light going with our direction of movement (thinking that it would measure slower as the measuring devices would be moving away from the light) and compare it with the speed of light going perpendicular (sideways) to our direction of movement and the difference will tell us exactly how fast our earth is moving and we'll know what we need to factor into the equations. Right? No dice. It seems light was a little too constant- when they made the two different measurements, there was no difference. So either Maxwell's equations, which were only 20 years old at the time, were wrong, or matter, that hard, immovable stuff that we hang our shirts on or rest our drinks on or, heaven forbid, walk on (multiple stories off the ground, even) moves, shrinks, or expands in ways that would crumple Newton's laws, having lasted proof positive for 400 years, like a house of cards. Hmmm.... I wonder which one could be wrong?

Enter a new mind- Albert Einstein. He had the gall or the courage or the naivety to say, well, maybe everything we've thought all along is wrong. Maybe stuff isn't as hard and as immovable as we thought. Maybe everything is moving and there is no 'inertial frame of reference'- there is no single place where Newton's laws are absolutely correct because there is no place that is absolutely at rest. So after accepting this possibility and applying a uniform change to some equations that then implied matter changes with movement, he culled it down to a simple elegant expression : E=mc2

So let's look at what this means and then I'll extrapolate on some broader philosophical implications on my next post. First, one of the proofs that made Einstein famous. Light is a form of Energy. Now, according to his equation, Energy has mass. If light has mass, then it can be affected by gravity. So picture this... or look at the picture below: Light traveling from a star will 'bend' or 'curve' around the sun because of gravity and thus will appear to us to be in a different location.



This was proven to be the case during a solar eclipse in 1919- a full 14 years after Einstein theorized it!! The thing is, though, it is so difficult to perceive the amount of Mass for a given amount of Energy because of c-squared. With c being an astounding 187,000 miles per second and then you square that- we're looking at a HUGE number that you have to multiply with to get a relationship between Mass and Energy. So it explains why light, which is essentially pure energy, could behave like an object, a mass. But the reverse is also true- imagine how much energy would be contained in an object with a Mass great enough for us to measure. You can begin to understand how just one ounce of Uranium could cause the massive amount of destruction on Hiroshima in 1945. Yep- that was made possible through the understanding of E=mc2 and scientists figuring out how to release the enormous amount of energy contained in a lump of mass.

Art for Sale

Melinda and I would like to thank everybody who came out and supported us in the Art Sale that we held to raise money to pay down some of the legal fines and fees that we're faced with. And we want to thank you, those of you who were not able to make it but had mentioned you still wanted an opportunity to buy some of my artwork. So here it is- the remaining items that we have available for purchase. The works are priced at $75. They are all works on paper utilizing one or more of the following mediums: pencil, charcoal, pastel, oil pastel, and ink. If you are interested please shoot me an email (mvisible@gmail.com or sixbrummetts@gmail.com) and either describe the work you want (most of them don't have titles) or just copy and paste the image into your email. Also, in addition to the works below, I am available for commissioned work like portaits. Once again, thank you and.... happy shopping!!

C blog

So Reconcepualization #1 begins with E=mc2. Particularly with ‘c’. But let me back up a bit. Almost everybody, I’m sure, has heard of E=mc2 - Albert Einstein’s claim to fame (well, not entirely- in fact he won his Nobel Prize in physics for something else, not this equation.) But what is it really about? In short it means that Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light squared. Doesn’t really sound like a big deal does it? Again, sometimes it is not the idea that is disturbing but rather the implications of that idea that ruffle your tail feathers. However the full implications are for another blog. Here I want to look at ‘c’ and how a more complete picture of the nature of light and its speed has helped me better visualize the concept of faith.
The ‘c’ stands for either celeritas, the Latin word for light, or for constant because it is the peculiar fact that light travels at a constant speed that makes this equation, and its implications, so persnickety. What is so amazing about the speed of light being constant? When I’m driving down the freeway and maintaining a constant speed (the speed limit, of course) there is nothing particularly amazing about that. Ahh- but say you’re driving down a road at 30 mph and another car is driving toward you, also at 30 mph. It actually appears to you that you are being still and the other car is approaching you at 60 mph, right? Similarly, if you and another person are driving side by side, you're going 30 and the other person is going 40- it appears that the other person is pulling away from you at a rate of 10 mph. Even if you didn’t know the exact math it’s just common sense that two cars moving toward each other would appear to be approaching faster and a car going faster than you would definitely be moving ahead of you but not at the full speed as if you were standing still. Truthfully, this is what relativity really is- and it wasn’t Einstein that discovered it- I think it was Galileo who first postulated it- some 400 years ago! Everything is relative to your vantage point- Go it? Okay.
Here's the rub- the big thing with light being constant is that it appears to be the same speed no matter what your vantage point is. So let's explore this in our car analogy only instead of cars, there is a beam of light. The speed of light is approx. 187,000 miles per second- yeah, a little fast. So say it is coming toward us and we are traveling toward it (just like two cars moving toward each other) at 100,000 miles per second. According to our analogy above the light would appear (ie. measure) to be approaching us at about 287,ooo miles per second. Nope- all experiments have shown it still measures 187,000 miles per second. Turn it around- we're alongside the light, again going 100,000 miles per second, and so the light is 'slowly' moving ahead of us at a rate of 87,000 miles per second- right? Wrong again- when we look over at the light it shoots away from us at 187,000 miles per second, no matter how fast we're going!!! So this speed, then, is a defining characteristic of light- in order for us to see light, it has to be moving at that constant rate.
As a visual analogy, say you had a jump rope and you wanted to see the oval shape that it made around a person while they were jump roping (jumping rope?)- It would be impossible to actually see that oval, let alone for the jump rope to even form that shape, unless it were moving round and round in constant motion.

So here are a couple of takeaways from this conception. First, I see in this scientific proof of an absolute. Philosophically people have pointed to "Einstein's theory of relativity" as proof that 'everything is relative'- ie. there is no absolute good, there is no absolute God. That's a load of dookie. In fact, Einstein's equation supplies the link that unifies everything that is relative, rather than relativising everything that was once thought absolute. I think that is an apt description of one aspect of God- that when we are on His wavelength (pun unintended but consciously kept once realized) we are able to see everything in its proper relation and perspective. God is the great unifying constant.

Second, it posits another scientific basis for the existence of something in terms of movement or action. Usually when we define something we describe things like height, weight, color, etc. Characteristics that are all static. Light's description or definition requires its movement. Here's where it hit home for me. We were in Life Group discussing a passage in Romans and Ike throws out the question "What is the difference between professing faith and having faith." Well like any good church-goer my mind immediately jumps to the passage in James where he talks about faith needing to be active- bingo: faith has to be moving to exist. So maybe you can picture it this way. Imagine a repeating wave (you math types can picture, like, a sine wave)- in order for a wave to exist you need to have a travelling upwards to the 'crest' then back down then back up to the next crest and on and on and on. But to be a wave, which light is (sort of), this has to keep going, thus its constant speed. If faith is visualized as a wave, each wave crest is an 'act of faith', and so to maintain the wave there must be a continual stream of 'acts.' Now, I see professing faith as an act of faith, but left alone it cannot sustain itself. It's like when you make a wave by snapping a rope or a garden hose; give it one snap and you have one crest of a wave that then peters out at the end. But if you continually snap it you have an ongoing wave that stays more or less 'constant.'

Now here was the big insight for me, and the one that has the broader implications that are more difficult to deal with. Light is constant regardless of the situation, regardless of the frame of reference or vantage point. If faith is to be constant as well, it must be comprised of a continual series of acts that occur irregardless of the context in which they are performed. So we profess our faith by saying "Do not judge" until someone does something we don't agree with, then maybe we hold back a little of our good cheer, or our help, or refrain from taking actions because it might appear that we approve of their behavior. We profess our faith by saying "repay evil with good" then someone maligns your spouse and suddenly grand visions of violent actions enter your brain, possible recourses from which to choose. We profess our faith by saying "let the little children come to me", until one of those little children makes fun of your child, and suddenly your "inner child" wants to take over, armed with the knowledge that you are now much larger and stronger than when you were an actual child.

My actions toward others who harm me or my loved ones should not in any way arise out of that situation, or the memory of prior situations, or the possibility of future situations. Similarly, my actions toward people I like and love should not be based on my positive feelings for them. The 'speed' of my faith should be constant whether I'm in a car traveling toward someone or alongside them. It is constant. It is unaffected by frame of reference or situation. Faith in Jesus is dependent upon His actions. Just check out Romans 12- "Therefore, in view of God's mercies...."

((( audiovita )))

I would like to take this opportunity to tell everyone (both of you) that I have a second blog site with a dedicated purpose. If you read my '100' post below you will know that I have compiled a soundtrack of my adult life. I've decided to share. Each post will contain two or three songs that you can listen to and then an accompanying anecdote about my life in relation to those songs. I call it Audiovita.

Reconceptualization

I'm a big fan of quantum physics. I'm not a math wizard (although I did well in high school, but you know, when you don't use it you lose it.) so I don't understand all the math of quantum physics, but I feel I'm beginning to get a handle on the ideas. "Why?" you ask? Because when you can wrap your brain, visually, around these 'new' ideas (new to most people but physicists have been pondering them for over a century) then I think it can change the way we act. Call it the 'Physics of Human Interaction.' Here's my premise:..... no wait. Let me back up.

"But if I go to a church that does things I don't agree with, aren't I sinning?" That question struck a death knell in my brain. It shattered my preconceptions of so-called 'conservatives' within the church. Up until then I merely 'wrote them off' as being narrow minded, sticking with tradition because 'that's the way it's always been done.' But in a church class that was discussing things such as the role of women in church- this question, asked in all sincerity, suddenly gave me a new perspective- their perspective. I saw things differently.

So here's my premise- if I want to change the way I act towards people, if I want to be more Christ-like, then I have to see things differently in my mind. And by seeing things, I'm primarily meaning seeing their implications. I think that is what is key with most 'issues'- it's not so much the issue itself, it's what the issue means in its broader implications. It's what bothered the person who posed the question above: if the church allows women to be more active, and I'm not sure that's right, but then still keep going to that church, then aren't I sinning? It's not the women (issue), it's my conscience (the implications).

At that brings me back to quantum physics. Many of the theoretical findings of this particular aspect of physics aren't too big of a deal at first thought- until you follow them through their implications. And that's what is unsettling. But that's also what makes them valuable for my purposes of seeing things differently. I figure if I can see things differently- in the quantum physics sense, and picture the implications, and wrap my brain around this new imagery, then I'll be able to see parallel aspects in the behavior of people, the effects that certain actions have and don't have. To see the implications of actions and issues in a new context, and be more comfortable with a way of behaving towards people (Christlike) even when that way doesn't seem to make sense ('foolishness to Greeks...').

So I plan on using my next few blogs working out some of the implications of quantum physics and applying them as a new conceptual model for treating people in a Christlike way. I hope you enjoy (and I hope the words Quantum Physics doesn't scare you off...)

100

It took me awhile but I finally got 100 things down that you may, or may not, know about me.

1. I consider myself pretty smart and i'm jealous of those individuals that hold the title of 'genius' amongst the general populous.

2. I have NEVER enjoyed dealing with my hair (due to the fact that I was largely unsuccessful in doing so) and so at the first indication that it was starting to thin I shaved it. It was either all or nothing- I don't want pattern baldness so I will never grow my hair out again.

3. I actually know what E=mc2 means almost to the point of being able to explain its significance to somebody.

4. I believe the Star Wars epic and the Matrix trilogy provide rather profound spiritual insights/parallels.

5. Reading Tom Peter's 'The Circle of Innovation' was a pivotal turning point in my life (pivotal...turning...point....is that redundant?)

6. My favorite music groups are U2, R.E.M., and Erasure (not necessarily in that order, but I'd be hard pressed to actually put them in an order)

7. I have compiled (and continue to do so) a soundtrack of my adult life and am collecting songs for the 'Prequel'- the soundtrack of my childhood and adolescence.

8. I am generally not a talkative person unless it's about art.

9. I believe that having an understanding and appreciation for abstract art can lead to profound insights and make you a better person.

10. The artist Chris Burden, famous for a performance art piece entitled 'Shoot' in which he had himself shot in the arm by a friend, has actually helped me understand better Christ's decision, as a man, to die for us.

11. My favorite time period in Art History is the 1960's and 70's.

12. I'm a huge Minimalism fan and feel it is one of the few art movements that I can speak about on a personal level without having to borrow art historical/critical jargon (I've even coined my own phrase in dealing with it- "Minimalists have honed the art of getting it precisely wrong.")

13. My wife says she has never encountered someone who wants to be rich more than me.

14. I decided I needed to be phenomenally wealthy because I love art so much that I would like to collect it. And the art/artists I want to collect have pieces ranging from the hundreds of thousands into the millions- so my desire to be rich is quite simply a logical deduction from something I desire.

15. At one point in high school I had pi memorized out to 44 decimal places.

16. I was on a freshman swimming relay team that beat the freshman school record (we only held that record for a year, though.)

aa/>
17. Those toys that are hinged armatures and make, essentially a ball that expands and contracts- I feel they somehow contain the secret to the universe.

18. I lied to my parents only once, when I was in second or third grade. (and it ate at me until I finally confessed to my mother about two years ago.)

19. I can point to two, specific pivotal moments in my development as an artist. One was a Picasso exhibit I saw during my sophomore year in college and the other was my first absract painting in my Painting I class my junior year. See me if you would like further details.

20. OK- maybe a third pivotal art moment- but this is in relationship to my ability to draw, not necessarily my development as an artist (Yes- there is a distinction). I owe my ability to draw (aside from God's gift...) to the purchase of "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way".

21. I don't have a problem, but I have wet the bed three times over the course of my ten year marriage (I was very, very, very, very, very, tired. And I've discovered that dreaming of going to the bathroom is usually connected with the physical act. Though I've never read it, I doubt this insight is in Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams.")

22. I arrange the keys on my key ring so that all the teeth are facing the same direction.

23. My favorite birthday/Christmas gifts that my wife has given me are: a Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), an air compressor, and a trip to New York to see the Jackson Pollock retrospective exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art.

24. I really don't like Thomas Kincaid's paintings.

25. I feel that art can play a role in a worship setting that is beyond mere illustration.

26. I'm intensely interested in Quantum Physics.

27. I have travelled abroad to the following locations: London, England; Paris, France; Prague, Czechoslovakia; Berlin, Germany; Moscow, Russia; Florence, Rome, Venice, Pisa, Sienna, San Gimignano, Lake Como, Milan- all in Italy; Salzburg & Vienna, Austria; Interlachen, Switzerland; Zagreb & Rab, Croatia.

28. Melinda & I moved cross country 3 times within our first 4 years of marriage.

29. I actually bought a Swiss Army Knife in Switzerland.

30. Despite me desire to be wealthy I actually walked away from a job (where I would have been making a pretty substantial salary within a couple of years) in part because I did not want to feel 'stuck' in a job that I didn't enjoy with a nice paycheck. Money isn't everything- in fact it's very little in most cases.

31. I love the idea of blogging, but honestly I often feel guilty spending the time to do so.

32. I'm generally a brand loyalist-once I find a product/brand that I like, I stick with it.

33. With the exception of books, I'm a sucker for packaging- I like the 'Special Editions'. But with books I pride myself on concentrating on the ideas inside rather than the cover outside.

34. I often pick up on the speech and mannerisms of close friends about a year or two after we've met or spent considerable time with each other.

35. The actor Ed Harris gave me his personal home phone number.

36. I want very badly to be a wine connoiseur.

37. When I sing, I often find the notes more by the feeling in my throat rather than with my hearing.

38. Looking back I can think of only two regrets- things I would try differently were I in the same time/place again- both are from High School: for two years I participated in 'Mock Trial' where we simulated a court case and competed against other schools. The first year I played the role of a witness. The second year I had every intention of portraying a lawyer but I succumbed to praise of my role as a witness and so I played a witness, again. Should've tried being a lawyer. The second was that I never felt I tried hard enough on the swim team- I could've have been much faster.

39. There is a current ongoing debate regarding Hell- one camp views it as eternal suffering, the other camp as a 'second death'/total lack of existence. Due to a dream I had where I actually felt my existence was at stake- i.e. not just physically dying but having any trace of my existence, including your memories of me, completely gone- I side with the latter.

40. My favorite food is spaghetti.

41. I watch cooking shows because I love to watch them cut things- they're so fast yet so precise.

42. My first path toward wealth will involve real estate- most likely rental property.

43. I'm currently doing a lot of reading on investing in businesses and stocks- hoping that I'll have my strategy down and some money in my pocket by the time of the next market crash (which I believe could happen in the next 3 to 5 years), then everything will be marvelously cheap!

44. I love Sourdough bread (with butter- that's key).

45. I have the innate capacity to listen to the same music over and over and over and over again (in fact I'm probably the only person in America who did not get tired of hearing 'Closing Time' by Semisonic.)

46. I hoard images- I probably have close to 2000 pictures of paintings, drawings and sculptures saved on my computer.

47. I like cigars.

48. Jessica Rivera, who is making a name for herself on the international opera scene, sang at our wedding.

49. I worked at Ben & Jerry's briefly while in college and served ice cream to 'J.R. Ewing' (from TV's 'Dallas'), Danny Devito & Rhea Pearlman, Nick Nolte, Linda Hamilton, Larry from 'Night Court', Carey Elwes and Jon Lovitz.

50. I never wanted or intended to be a 'Macintosh snob' but apparently I can't help it. (I think it's a combination of my brand loyalty-ness and my being a sucker for packaging.)

51. I think Disney/Pixar's short 'The Game' is one of the most brilliant things I've ever seen.

52. I currently have about 800 feet of barbed wire hanging on a wall at my house. (It's Art, Man!)

53. The artist Robert Irwin has deeply affected my thinking about the nature of art.

54. The most memorable and perhaps impactful advice on art that Joe Piasentin (one of my professors at Pepperdine) said to me was in a dream (so in actuality he didn't really say it to me)

55. When I was a child I had a recurring dream that something was coming after me and the faster I tried to run, the more slowly my body moved, as if I was trudging waist deep in a thick vat of molasses.

56. When I was about four, I drank the 'paint water' with which you clean your brushes when you're watercoloring. (I just didn't know what I was supposed to do with it when I was done)

57. In high school my friends and I joined a few clubs for the sole purpose of seeing how many times we could get our picture in the yearbook.

58. I played goalie for my high school water polo team and even sat the bench for a year for Pepperdine University.

59. I used to draw the same things over and over and over again. For awhile it was the cab to a semi-truck (that looked remarkably similar to the one from the TV show 'B.J. and the Bear') and then I switched to an ATC- where I meticulously would draw each and every tire tread 'knob'.

60. My ambition in Jr. High was to be a comic book artist.

61. I consider myself to be a-political; I really could care less about who supports what issue and who's running for what office. It just does not interest me. (Though in terms of history, I enjoy watching how political people and their maneuverings affected certain events.)

62. I'm a Harry Potter fan.

63. Favorite movies: Star Wars Epic (considered as one film), Matrix trilogy (again, I make no subdivision), Good Will Hunting, Dead Poets Society, and Shawshank Redemption.

64. I used to want to be an F-16 fighter pilot.

65. I have dabbled in writing song lyrics/poetry

66. Though I have long wanted to, I have yet to read the Bible all the way through. (I'm currently working on it, though.)

67. Calvin and Hobbes is probably the most brillian comic strip ever written.

68. I was a very picky eater as a child but I've since grown out of it.

69. I don't like beans (but I can at least tolerate them now.)

70. On our honeymoon I called my wife from the bathroom simply because there was a phone installed by the toilet.

71. When I was little I used to pull all of my toys out of the toy box and then climb in and pretend I was either in an X-Wing Fighter from Star Wars or in one of those ships from Battlestar Galactica.

72. I'm not superstitious- except I did notice that while I was working as a furniture salesman, if I wore my red pair of underwear I wouldn't sell anything, so I stopped wearing those to work.

73. I'm only sexist about one thing: driving. Other than that I'm fine with women taking over the world.

74. I'm a closet Madonna fan.

75. Favorite smells: Wood, freshly cut grass, and [censored].

76. I used to pretend to be Wonder Woman. My brother got really worried about me.

77. I'm a sucker for Planet Hollywood and Hard Rock.

78. I was lucky enough to visit the original Hard Rock Cafe in London, England on their anniversary day (June 14)- so everything on the menu was at the original 1971 prices.

79. I had 11 girlfriends in the 1st grade (all at the same time). It is chronicled in an essay I wrote at that time called "My Life with Girlfriends" (I believe my mom still has it)

80. I love Oreos.

81. I actually have a fondness for quilts and would like to collect them someday.

82. The first concert I ever went to was in my freshman year in college. It was the U2 Zoo TV Outside Broadcast Tour at Dodger Stadium on Halloween, 1992. I had a very good seat.

83. I would like to be cremated and my remains incorporated into some form of artwork- sort of a 'postmortem self-portrait.'

84. I've only been in one real fight. In the 4th grade- I sorta lost (because I was being too nice because I didn't want to kill the guy.)

85. I was born in San Bernardino, CA- which I consider to be the armpit of California.

86. I convinced my wife to walk down to Star Wars music for our wedding.

87. When I was about 4 years old I walked around with a pillow case tied to a string pretending it to be my dog. Mom finally took pity on me, took me to the toy store and laid out an array of cute stuffed animal dogs- from which I picked an ugly, gray bulldog I named Tom.

88. If I were stranded on a desert island with only one beverage, it would probably be Cherry Coke.

89. I have Elton John's and Bernie Taupin's autographs on two CDs.

90. I had grand visions for my wedding that included a fog machine and people in tights and rollerblades rolling ('floating') around tossing roses into the crowd. My wife nixed this idea but, for a guy, I stayed unusually involved in the decision making process for our wedding.

91. I would love to have an orchestra follow me around and provide a soundtrack for my life.

92. It's not about me.
It's not about me.
It's not about me.
It's not about me.
It's not about me.
It's not about me.
It's not about me.
It's not about me.

93. I'm married to the most wonderful woman in the world.

94. During my freshman year in high school, I ate the same sandwich everyday for lunch (ham, american cheese, mustard, Thousand Island dressing, and pickles on wheat bread.)

95. I pick my nose.

96. I sleep in the nude.

97. In high school I had a recurring dream where I was half awake, so I was aware I was in my bed in my room, but dreaming that there were several people from school in my room and since I wasn't wearing anything I constantly had to keep the covers on, and I was so hot and sweating, but I had to keep the covers on... why couldn't these people leave my room?! Very frustrating.

98. I (try) to read to my wife and my children every night.

99. I actually like the taste of NyQuil.

100. Despite having skateboarded throughout jr. high and high school, I never broke a bone until I was 31 years old.

testing, testing, 1..2..3..

I'm trying to post an audio clip. I'm hoping this works. All you PC people out there- did it work for you?

Grace

Ike borrowed a book from me about contemporary artist Robert Irwin (more on him in another post) I got it back this evening and flipping through it came across my favorite definition of grace. Maybe it's not the grace I learned about in church, but I feel the truth of this statement has profound spiritual implications. Thought I would share...

Grace: you work and you work and you work at something that then happens of its own accord. It would not have happened without all that work, but the result cannot be accounted for as the product of the work in the sense that an effect is said to be the product of its causes. There is all that preparation- preparation for receptivity- and then there is something else beyond that which is gratis, for free.

...

As usual I've been reading quite a bit recently- however my catalogue of readings to the left have failed to keep pace. Most of my reading had been involved with school, where for awhile I was pursuing a teaching cert and masters in teaching through George Fox. I learned a ton about education but perhaps more importantly, learned that this time in my life is not suited to pursuing higher education. So that has been postponed indefinitely. However, came across some great books which is prompting this post.

Steve Jobs, of Apple computer fame, once said, "Expose yourself to the best things humans have done and try to bring those things into what you are doing." So in that light I would like to share with you a fantastic bit of writing that I came across in the book 'Kite Runner' by Khaled Hosseini. Get it. Read it. You'll be blessed. Here are a couple of passages that I thought profoundly well written:

'I looked at the photo. Your father was a man torn between two halves, Rahim Khan had said in his letter. I had been the entitled half, the society-approved, legitimate half, the unwitting embodiment of Baba’s guilt. I looked at Hassan, showing those two missing front teeth, sunlight slanting on his face. Baba’s other half. The unentitled, unprivileged half. The half who had inherited what had been pure and noble in Baba. The half that, maybe, in the most secret recesses of his heart, Baba had thought of as his true son.
I slipped the picture back where I found it. Then I realized something: That last thought had brought no sting with it. Closing Sohrab’s door, I wondered if that was how forgiveness budded, not with the fanfare of epiphany, but with pain gathering its things, packing up, and slipping away unannounced in the middle of the night.'

---and---

'He didn't so much live with us as occupy space. And precious little of it. Sometimes, at the market, or in the park, I'd notice how other people hardly seemed to even see him, like he wasn't there at all. I'd look up form a book and realize Sohrab had entered the room, had sat across from me, and I hadn't noticed. He walked like he was afraid to leave behind footprints. He moved as if not to stir the air around him.'

I'm the ruler of ruler land...Other kings they love their treasure, I'm the king who loves to MEASURE!

I was thankful to have a chance to preach this past Sunday at PUMP while Ike was speaking at a retreat. Thought I'd share what I said.

(The sermon begins with a clip from 'Dead Poets Society' in which Mr. Keating (Robin Williams) proclaims a certain plotting and graphing approach by a J. Evans Pritchard, PhD for measuring the greatness of a poem as 'excrement'- and proceeds to prompt the students to tear out the entire introductory essay right out of their textbooks.)

The problem is, having taught a subject similar to poetry, the subject of art, is that it is difficult to measure. Much easier to apply some numerical value because then you have a continuum where the higher number is easily the better product than the lower number. But for something like art or poetry- or more to the point- life, which art and poetry try to express- what do you use as the standard of measure?

I've recently taken a delightful trip into a field that is defined by measurements- economics. Not your ordinary economics, but a book that distinguishes its role by being titled 'Freakonomics'- "where the dependability of data meets the randomness of life." Just listen to some of the titles of the chapters and I think you'll get a feel that this is no ordinary, dry form of measurement- 'What do school teachers and sumo-wrestlers have in common?' - 'How is the Ku Klux Klan like a group of real estate agents' - 'Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?'- that's good stuff. In the books introduction it lays out 4- or 5 premises- assumptions that the book is based on and/or seeks to prove. One of them is that 'Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world much less so. If you learn how to look at data in the right way, you can explain riddles that otherwise might have seemed impossible. Because there is nothing like the sheer power of numbers to scrub away layers of confusion and contradiction."

Have you realized that over the past few weeks we've been looking at standards of measure? (note: this sermon is part of a series that is progressing through the Sermon on the Mount beginning in chapter 5 of the Gospel According to Matthew) In it's own way, we've been seeing the reduction of a life of faith down to the 'sheer power of numbers.' Consider this:

Measure #1: How much do you give? Are you a tither? Do you tithe on your gross or your net? Does your tithe go just to church, while extra giving goes toward additional charities and ministries? Or do you factor in all the charities, ministries, missionaries, churches, etc. and split your 10% among them? Maybe we don't flaunt our giving like Matthew 6:1ff, where the very act of giving was the measure- but we have our own standards to appease our conscience, to justify our identity as Christians.

Measure #2: How's your prayer life? My lovely wife's got me beat on this one for sure. She is such a prayer warrior and desires to be even moreso. I'll be downright honest, I have a horrible prayer life. How often do you pray? Each morning when you wake up? Certain times during the day? Only at meals? Only at meals at home but not necessarily out in public, at restaurants or at work? And, again, it most likely isn't about 'showing' our prayers in public as in Matt 6:5, but we all have our own habits and our own justifications for why our prayer life is OK, why it is acceptable.

Measure #3: How do you fast? Boy the bar has really lowered since Jesus' day on this one! He spoke of how one should fast in Matt 6:16- our question today, though, would probably be do you fast? I think those that do, are ahead in the ball game, so to speak.

But then we get to this financial stuff- about where your treasure is, and that you can't serve two Gods- you can't serve both the Lord and money. And then our present text beginning in Matt. 6:25- (read) "But, Michael," you say, "this isn't about measuring. These are legitimate concerns for one's well being- we need food and we need clothing and we need shelter." And I agree, we need those things, and it is distressing when we don't have those things. But here's the problem- how much is enough and when is it too little or too much? I don't think it would be difficult for anyone here to think of Christians that run the gamut of worldly success and affluence. We know God fearing individuals that are living in their vehicles to Christians that earn millions. So where do you draw the line? How little can you live on without being anxious or worried about your physical and financial well being? And conversely, how much do you have to make before you go from feeling blessed to feeling obsessed? At what annual salary do you become a lover of money, a worshipper of the 'almighty dollar'? It is impossible to draw lines that way. Impossible in and of itself (what if you got a raise?- all of the sudden you're greedy!) and made all the more complex when you consider the fact that those lines would be different for each person.
No, I can't find any way of making that interpretation a viable option. So I began to think- if this follows other standards of measure, could this also be a standard of measure? Consider the following verses:

Gen. 26:12-13
Deuteronomy 29:9
Joshua 1:8
Job 1:1-3
Proverbs 10:22

Material wealth was for them, a sign of the Lord's blessing. If you were in right with God, you had abundant means to provide for yourself and your family. So the more I read this passage, the more I become convinced that it isn't anxiety so much over material goods, whether they be excessive wealth or necessary food, clothing, and shelter- it's about where you are in relationship with God. If you don't have food, then you don't have God's blessing, then you don't have salvation, then you don't have hope. Can you imagine the effect that this is having on Jesus' listeners? First, He starts this sermon out by saying that tons of people who formerly were not highly esteemed now have access to the Kingdom of God. Then he paints pictures of Kingdom life- and those pictures are more 'extreme' versions of commands that they are probably having a hard time dealing with anyway- or if they aren't having trouble, He's at least taken away their checklist status. Now He's telling them, "Hey, you know all these things that you hang your hat on? All these supports that you base your religious status on? I'm just going to pull this rug right out from underneath your feet! This can't be what you stand on in Kingdom life." Yikes! I mean, C'mon! What have we got left?! What assurance do we have?

What assurance do we have? Baptism? The fact that you go to church on a regular, or semi-regular basis? I used to think so. And then I started reading verses like Colossians 1:21-23 : " Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation- IF you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard..." That's a pretty crucial 'if.' Or consider these words from Galations 3 and 4: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ...But now that you know God- or rather are known by God- how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? ... I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you." Is there anything to fear if baptism was the sole measure? I don't think so- and keep in mind that these were not people who stopped going to church. They were still meeting regularly. Finally, Jesus himself says in Matthew 7:21- 'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven.' It is by grace that we are saved, and it is from grace that we can fall. I'm afraid to say it, but churchgoing and baptism don't always mean that much.
But it seems evident that they do by our efforts. We try so hard to get people to... come to church. We focus so much on people....getting baptised. Because, I think, that is easy to measure. Like rating a poem by a graph, or an economist comparing numbers- it's black and white, plain to see.
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." - Jesus tells us. Notice he does not say "Get first, the kingdom", or "have first his righteousness." Our assurance is not in the having, but rather in the continuing. It's in the searching, not the finding, or the getting.

It's kind of like being in it for 'love of the game.' I've heard people say that if they were a pro sports player and got a multimillion dollar contract that they'd retire early. Their focus is on the having- of getting that money. Unfortunately, those that concern themselves with having end up getting nothing but the fear and anxiety of losing what they have. And that's what Jesus is trying to tell us. But when we focus on the game, on playing, on seeking- it doesn't matter how much we get paid, or how much security we acquire, or how much or how fine our clothing is, or what and how much we are eating- because those aren't the issues- those aren't even on the radar. In fact, there is no longer any need to measure or be measured. As long as we are 'in the game'- we win.

I want to close by adapting Galatians 6:3-4: "If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing...

If anyone thinks he is something because of what he wears...
If anyone thinks he is something because of what he eats...
If anyone thinks he is something because of how he prays....
If anyone thinks he is something because of how much he gives...
If anyone thinks he is something because he has been baptized...
If anyone thinks he is something because he is sitting here today in church...
If anyone things he is something, when he is indeed nothing...

He deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions (-am I still acting? Am I still in the game? Am I still... seeking?). Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, ... without measuring himself to somebody else... without measuring others to himself."

"But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you as well."