mvisible

Rapunzel

2011-10-03T17:38:00.000-07:00

Let's start with just a physical description of the work. Julian used to have a loft bed, one corner of which was suspended by a cable from the ceiling. His bed's now on the ground but the eyelet is still attached on the ceiling. A cable (in this case, our dog-runner leash that we use to tie Bilbo up outside) is attached and extends out through the window, across the yard, and attaches to an identical eyelet installed on the floor of my studio. The cable isn't actually long enough so I've attached some rope that utilizes my two favorite knots- the bowline knot and another one that I don't know the name of (if it has one)- but it's a very simple device for tightening a rope and securing it to maintain tension. The tension is the primary point of the piece.

Years ago I became fascinated by the concept of tension as a positive force- a force that seeks resolution and thus moves one forward and driving the process of creation. And it's not just in art this occurs, but everywhere in life- our careers, our relationships. Unfortunately the feeling associated with tension is negative and leads to people trying to avoid it, which also denies them the opportunity and the reward of working through it.

So I've toyed with several ideas using tension. Then I saw a video on the artist Robert Irwin who posed this question: "If you could make an artwork that was absolutely amazing, but would only last for 20 minutes, would you still make it?" The idea goes against many people's idea that art is a precious object. The fact that museums exist to harbor and protect these special objects endows perhaps too much emphasis on the object itself. (I'm often asked, when doing something abstract, "What is it?"- a question that also reflects this emphasis on the thing).

But what Robert Irwin was getting at was that the true 'art' was the experience of viewing it. Indeed, to truly appreciate art it is more important to ask 'What is it doing?' or 'How is it making me feel?' rather than 'What is it?' This shifts the emphasis onto the art's effect on the viewer, where lies its true value.

So I've challenged myself with this notion of not creating objects that exist in perpetuity. So at times, I've brought clamps or ratcheting tie-downs when I visit someplace and do temporary tension sculptures designed to give me, and any other viewer, an experience but that, at the end of the day/trip, gets taken down- never to exist again.

Rapunzel is just such a piece. I can recreate it at any time and will do so from time to time. It can be redone in other locations and have similar effects but in this iteration it is definitely temporary as I can't shut my studio door, and the children can't shut their window, while it's installed. Furthermore, it's placement adds to the meaning. I'm particularly intrigued with the two poles in this piece- one being my studio, the other being my family. If this piece were recreated in a different location, that aspect would change or disappear entirely.

I personally don't read a whole lot into the title 'Rapunzel'- but I don't discourage its associations. I appreciate the humor of it seeing as the piece goes through an upstairs window. But the story of Rapunzel also speaks of imprisonment and redemption, and connections with the outside world around us. These themes can definitely be brought to bear on one's experience of the piece.

But my experience brings me back to the tension that holds the cable/rope in place in space. It strikes me on a visceral level (in fact, I'm for renaming 'visual art' as 'visceral art.') The tension affects me. The tension creates the meaning.

FaithQuest 2011_6

2011-09-14T21:36:00.000-07:00

Who knows what the Holy Spirit was up to? I talk to all the speakers about whatthey’ll be talking about to see what sort of ideas we can come up with. Brian was going to stress that theIsraelites had the land itself as a reminder of what God had done forthem. So I thought I’d do a‘traditional’ landscape. Then theHoly Spirit prompted him to go in a different direction so then it seemed likeI made a picture completely unrelated to what he was talking about. Perhaps that idea would be bestexpressed through the drawing and so a speaker repeating it in words wasunnecessary? Who knows?

So here’s a little art lesson for you. Atmospheric Perspective. When you look far off in the distance,because of the atmosphere, things in the distance are lighter than things upclose to you. I was actuallypretty nervous about doing this. One- charcoal is kind of tough to work with. Two- I’m pretty hard on myself in terms of quality. I often set the bar pretty high- inthis case this phenomenal drawing by the artist Claude Lorraine.

So how do I measure up? I feel I still have a LONG way to go skill-level-wise. There are times when I try to imitatean artist and I feel good about it- that I ‘know’ their work because I can do it just as well. Not here, my friends. I would love to master charcoal but I’mjust not there yet. (granted thisLorraine work looks to be in ink- scarier still!) Also- a word to the wise: if you’re going to do a landscape, don’t make it up. Go someplace and actually draw/paintwhat you see. Perhaps I would havedone better positioning myself where I could see a ways up the river and drawsomeplace real.

Regardless, here’s the really tough part for me. I got lots of compliments on this oneand garnered several ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs.’ It kills me that I could do something that I consider somewhat mediocreand get such a good response. Sohere are a couple words to myself that I hope is taken to heart by all who usetheir talents in Kingdom work: Don’t sell out to the crowd. Don’t settle for popular. Your audience is God. Bring it the way He created you to.

FaithQuest 2011_5

2011-09-14T07:42:00.000-07:00

I’m a bigfan of Minimalist art. It’s calledthat because, well, there is often very little there. Have you ever heard the phrase ‘Less is More’? It comes from Minimalist art. The ideais that you maximize the effect with as little means as possible. I think it makes it more difficult,really. It’s easy to just keepadding stuff to a painting to make it ‘work.’ But to just have one or two shapes, and/or one or twocolors- and create a powerful effect is difficult.

A lot of it has to do with placement. Think of it this way. You ever been bowling? Say you throw your bowling ball and itmakes a bee-line for the gutter. There’s no point in even watching – you just throw your hands up in theair, turn around and forget about it. But say it’s really close. It’s inching for the gutter but it also has a slight curve and it justmight hit that one pin on the side that you need. All of a sudden without realizing it you are making strangemovements with your body, awkwardly leaning over to encourage the ball to curvemore, miss the gutter, and hit the pin. The placement of the ball in relation to the gutter and the pin createsa physical sensation in you; prompting you to make ‘sympathetic’ movements toexert influence or control over the ball.

That’s what Minimal art is all about- not reallyillustrating something but trying to create an almost physical sensation withinthe viewer. That’s what I’veattempted to do here, only in a slightly illustrative mode as well.

The wall of Jericho is falling. I reduced it down- minimized it, if you will- to just blackshapes on a yellow background. Butthe proportion/size of the painting, the relationship of the wall pieces to theedge of the painting, the physical density of the yellow and the black- all areenlisted to give the sensation of this wall falling seemingly for no reason atall. There is nothing pushing,pulling, or crashing into it.

God is making the wall fall. I hope you feel it.

FaithQuest 2011_4

2011-09-13T09:12:00.000-07:00

Picasso once said, “Good artists borrow; Great artistssteal.” I admit it, I totally stole the imagery on this one(it’s ok, though, because he stole it too.) One of my former professors in graduate school, a phenomenalartist named John Millei has made a series of works using this type of imageryfor water. He stole the idea fromsome tapestries in Angers, France (the artistic term for ‘stealing’ is‘appropriation’). I love the powerof a line- waving, bending, moving through space and reacting to itsenvironment. And these lines,serving as waves, are so powerful to me; so expressive.

Maritime #10 (The Deluge) by John Millei

So I decided to use them in this painting of the water ofthe Jordan River dividing (to his credit, his paintings are much better thanmine. In my defense, it was my first time). And as Troy let us know- the Israelites had to really stepout in faith on this one. Before,when they were all kids and their parents were being led out from Egypt, Moseswent up, raised his arms and staff and the waters parted before them. Then they just had to walk through likeit was no big deal. This time, though,the priests carrying the ark had to step in the water first. It wasn’t until they placed their footin the running current that the water began to back up and split. So here you see, as the water isdividing, there are footprints already in the sand.

FaithQuest 2011_3

2011-09-09T15:49:00.000-07:00

I like art that is physical. I like different materials that must be handled differentlythan just paint. I also like theidea that words can become a material to make an image, in this case twomountains.

God told Moses that when they got to the Promised Land theyneeded to recite the blessings and curses. One group would stand on or in front of Mt. Gerazim and theother would stand on Mt. Ebbol. Inthe middle would be stones piled up in an alter, with the law written onthem. Mt. Ebbol was barren anddesolate, scorched by the sun. Mt.Gerazim, however was lush and green- both places appropriately signifying theblessings or curses that would be spoken from them.

In acknowledging the universality of God’s plan, Troy Wagnerspoke of the cross as being at the center, in place of the law that the rockaltar symbolized. So in keepingwith my artistic preferences noted above, I thought, “What better way toinclude the cross while referencing the stones of the altar than to use actualstones?”

So it’s pretty straightforward, then- desolate Ebbol is inyellows/browns/reds while lush Gerazim is in greens. The shapes of the mountains are formed by the words ofcursing and blessing found in Deuteronomy chapters 27 and 28.

There is also a detail a bit more subtle. In art- everything should be expressive- the color, the texture, even seemingly insignificant details like the brushstroke. Here, the brushstrokes on the 'blessings' side stay pretty even going and back and forth. The strokes on the 'curses' side, however, go every which direction in a more chaotic way.

Faith Quest 2011_2

2011-09-08T17:36:00.000-07:00

When I first started thinking about FaithQuest this year andthe theme of God’s people travelling, I immediately thought of an artist namedJacob Lawrence. He was an AfricanAmerican artist who came to prominence in the 1940s by painting a series ofpaintings based on the migration of African Americans from the South toindustrial centers in the North. He had a simple yet powerful style that strikes me in its forcefulnessin the way he arranges his scenes and his color combinations.

Laundress by Jacob Lawrence

SoI wanted to try to imitate that simplicity and let the colors and arrangementscarry the story. So here we haveRahab living in the city wall, the spies hiding on the roof, and city officialscoming to inquire about them. Rahab bows in submission to the authorities while pointing that they hadmoved on down the road. Herfinger, and the road, leads your eye to the horizon- a phrase that BrianSimmons repeated, “Keep your eye on the horizon, looking for Jesus.”

There’sall types of artsy things going on in this one. Just like you learn in school to arrange your essays intoparagraphs, artists have different organizational schemes. One is the ‘L’ shaped composition-which I play with here (only here the ‘L’ is turned around upside downbackwards- it follows the sky along the spies and drops down along the wall onthe right.) The trick is to relatethe ‘L’ to the resulting inset rectangle. Here I’ve used Rahab’s pointing hand to cross both areas and the wallextending up into the sky.

Coloralso plays a role. I wanted ananxious color as a backdrop to the city officials so a red-orange does thetrick. Rahab is also clothed inthat color (the ‘lady in red’) which also indicates where she’s from. But she has an underlayer of purple andskin tones to match the spies that she is aligning herself with.

Here’ssomething interesting that happened. When you paint, you have a vague idea (sometimes) of what you’re tryingto do. But you also want to beaware, and ‘watch yourself’ while you paint. Oftentimes you will see something in process that expressesmore clearly your original idea. In this case, I had started a rough outline of the spies in hiding,intending to fully color them in with colors tying them to Rahab. But I actually liked the idea of thembeing somewhat transparent- almost hiding from us, the viewers, as well. So I threw some color in to keep thecolor associations but left them primarily transparent.

Icould probably go on with other associations and things I thought about – somepremeditated, some discovered after the fact. But the real point is the amount of thought that goes into awork of art. Maybe we would dowell to put as much thought into our own lives. Both thinking ahead of time how and who we will be. But also being aware (looking on thehorizon for Jesus) and making adjustments in the process of living.

FaithQuest 2011

2011-09-07T15:36:00.000-07:00

Every year Melinda and I help out at a youth event called Faith Quest. We help design and build the stage setup and then I do a series of paintings while the featured speakers give their talks. This year the theme was the Oregon Trail and the talks centered around the Israelites journey into the Promised Land. Troy Wagner presented the opening lecture on the relationship between Joshua, who led the Israelites, and Jesus who leads us.

What’s in a name? The Hebrew word for Joshua is Yeshua. When you translate that into Greek you get the name Jesus. Joshua led God’s people into the promised land. A land that they did not earn; a land they merely received based on God’s promise to Abraham. Jesus also leads us into a promised land. It is also a reward that we didn’t earn. I think there is significance in the name of Jesus. Literally it means ‘He Saves.’ And it was just as true for the ancient Israelites as it is for us.

So God is beyond time. There is no backwards or forwards; beginning or end. So how do you visualize that? How do you show an eternal plan with no beginning and no end? And yet there are two individuals that serve as signposts to this larger picture. Two individuals that share the same name. And it occurred to me that playing cards have this sense about them. No matter which way you turn them they are always ‘right side up.’ They never end.

So then all these things came together- I used a king’s face because Jesus is a king, and Joshua acted in a kingly role in leading Israel into the promised land. But then I made it a ‘Jack’ since their names started with ‘J.’ Throughout the NT you see references to what the “Law and the Prophets” said. Joshua carried the Law- the stone tablets- with them into the Promised Land. Jesus announced his ministry with the reading of a scroll from the Prophets- proclaiming release for prisoners and sight for the blind.

To emphasize the inclusiveness of God’s Kingdom I also thought I would represent both black cards and red cards. So Jesus has a heart (because, you know… the whole ‘Jesus loves you’ thing) and Joshua is a spade because it serves as the point of his spear as he leads the Israelites into battle. His finger is pointing to lead the charge. Jesus has two fingers pointing in blessing. I’m not sure where it came from but whenever you see pictures of Jesus from, like, the Middle Ages and in icons from Eastern Orthodox traditions you have everyone raising two fingers in blessing. I thought I’d allude to that artistic heritage as well. Also, instead of a spear, Jesus leads us by example through His death on the cross.

Hopefully this gives you a different way to think about Jesus, Joshua, and God’s plan. But here’s something else about the power of art: by taking the image of a playing card, the next time you’re playing cards you just might remember this painting, and thus think about Jesus.

Renovatus Jesus

2011-02-22T11:59:00.000-08:00

The Best Advice I Ever Received

2011-01-03T17:47:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking a lot about marriage recently.

It's something Melinda and I talk about quite a bit, actually. But we don't just talk about our marriage- we talk about marriage in general. And I think that is key. And it reflects a perspective I gained when hearing what I consider to be the best advice I've ever received.

Melinda's father performed our wedding. But living in a different state at the time, he could not have us in a full pre-marital counseling program that he usually liked to have with couples. But there were a couple of things he really wanted to say to us so one time while they were out visiting before the wedding, he gave us his 'crash course' in marriage.

The Arnolfini Wedding by Jan Van Eyck

Now, I'm all about gaining new perspectives. It's what fascinates me about and draws me towards art. Because you are able to gain new conceptions of seemingly mundane, ordinary things. We all have ideas about how things are supposed to be. Whether we're fully conscious of it or not, we have images in our head- be they abstract signs of relationships or clear pictures of people, examples that embody our ideal. I wasn't really conscious of my images of marriage at the time- most likely I had pictures of my parents' relationship. But I was about to become aware of a new vision, a new conception of marriage that continues to affect me to this day.

In this 'crash course,' my future father-in-law said that in marriage there are actually three commitments- one is to God, one is to your spouse, and one is to... marriage. Having grown up Christian, the commitment to God was a no-brainer. And the commitment to your spouse? Duh! But a commitment to marriage itself gave my brain a little twist. Marriage was a separate entity that was beyond Melinda's and my relationship to each other. But that separate-ness has made a huge difference in our relationship.

We all get mad at our spouse. We are never going to agree all the time. And sometimes it is difficult to love the other person. And for those reasons, if the marriage is only about your relationship with that person- how you're feeling towards them, or how they're feeling about you- then I fear the marriage could very easily be derailed. But when I think about the marriage- about what is required for a good marriage, then a whole new dynamic develops.

I've noticed at least two main benefits from taking this perspective. First, I've done things that I wouldn't have done just based on my moment-to-moment feelings. It has compelled me to stand back and look at what a good marriage is and given me a yardstick with which to measure my performance. If I just stayed with how I felt, I could probably come up with many things to complain about. Perhaps those complaints would develop into anger and bitterness. And, of course, I'm sure I would never be at fault because we never blame ourselves when we're just looking at our feelings. Right?

The second benefit is thankfulness. When I compare my performance with a yardstick that is not emotionally charged, I find all the ways in which I've been a poor, miserable slouch (to put it mildly) and I feel truly thankful and blessed that my wonderful wife has put up with me and still chooses me on a daily basis. But wait- what happened to all the blame and hurt and bitterness alluded to in the last paragraph? That's right, it can't be sustained when you have a clearer picture of things. And when I'm truly thankful for my wife, it's MUCH easier to love her than when I'm angry at her.

So to sustain a good marriage, I can't just look at how I'm feeling. I have to look at marriage itself- and sustain my commitment to it.

In this season of reflection and resolutions, I encourage you to take stock of your commitments- and regardless of your feelings- commit to that ideal.

FaithQuest 2010 - "Jesus is the Story"

2010-09-14T16:57:00.000-07:00

This series is regarding the paintings 'performed' during Faith Quest 2010. The weekend revolved around a movie theme and the speakers played with different characterizations of Jesus as found primarily in the Gospel of John. This painting was painted while Jeff Medders spoke on 'Jesus is the Story.'

In the beginning…

… Jesus was there.

Time is an interesting idea, especially in painting. Most forms of art are time based- music, theater, literature. They all contain the element of time- a beginning, a middle, an end. Painting is there all at once. But we’re conditioned to read paintings in terms of time- as maybe snapshots of a longer story- so we insert our own sense of time.

But what about Jesus? He seems to come into the story in the middle. Hundreds, thousands of years of the history of God’s people happens before the world hears of the name Jesus in the sense we know it today. The fact that He came at all is the result of the sins that we committed. Cause / Effect. Choice / Consequence. Before / After. Only what came ‘after’ was already there in the ‘before.’

So I picked up something from an artist named Jasper Johns. He would sometimes include writing or words in his paintings. But often he would start a word on the right side of the painting but then have the word ‘wrap around’ and finish on the left side. It was the complete opposite of what painting had been trying to do up until that point. Before you went from a picture that looked like a view out of a window. You knew the scene goes on past the edges of the painting even though everything is framed nicely within the picture. The Impressionists took it even further by actually having people and objects cropped by the edge of the painting- similar to the way a camera does (Hmmm… can you guess what period the camera was invented?)

Even abstract art had a sense of infinity- that it could go on forever and ever. But Jasper Johns thought of painting as an object all to itself. It wasn’t being or looking like something- it was something itself. So instead of going off to infinity- the words looped back around into the painting- containing it in its own reality.

Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega. There is nothing beyond Him. If He goes off to one side… He ought to loop around to the other side. He is contained by nothing else but His own reality.

So lets ‘read’ this painting. The tree lies before you. It is your choice to take or not to take. On the left is the welcoming hand of Jesus, displaying the abundance of the paradise He created. On the right is the result of taking the fruit- a dry desert that ends with Jesus hanging on the cross. Or does it end there? When His hand wraps back around you see His nail-scarred hand re-offering, through His death, the paradise that He is creating for you right now.

The choice is yours.

FaithQuest 2010 - "Jesus as Substitute"

2010-09-13T21:13:00.000-07:00

With this one the image is pretty straightforward but the process was key. Ryan actually started out trying to paint a self portrait of himself and the above picture is as far as he got. Then I came in as 'The Substitute' and transformed Ryan's 'self' into a picture of Jesus. (You can still make out some of the brown to the left of Jesus' head that are the remnants of Ryan's 'hair')

FaithQuest 2010 - "Jesus as Refugee"

2010-09-12T21:01:00.000-07:00

An inciting incident.

So there’s this figure. He’s walking-plodding- through a dense, turbulent space. The space is charged with all kinds of frenetic energy. And he looks/feels lethargic. Indeed, the paint used to depict the space around him is physically thicker than he is- he has thick matter to trudge through if he’s going to get anywhere.

The imagery is culled from a combination of two artists- Nathan Olivera and John Millei. Nathan Olivera has several paintings of figures standing in an abstract space. His figures aren’t usually walking anywhere. Even if they are they are vertical in orientation- the orientation of portraiture, of being. Horizontality is the orientation of landscape, of journeying. But the psychological aspect of his paintings are powerful, and I wanted to tap into that.

The second artist, John Millei, was one of my professors in graduate school. He spent several years artistically analyzing and internalizing a series of frescos by the Italian Pre-Renaissance master Giotto. The resulting paintings are very simple in terms of their basic elements- some ground for the ‘figures’ to walk on, the figures have been reduced to simple trapezoidal shapes, and then a colored background. But the endless variety of treatments speaks to the fact that we are all essentially the same- working and moving within an endless variety of spaces and situations, both psychological and physical.

In a couple of his paintings he incorporated either a gap in the ‘walkway’ or at least a section that had a different color. And when I saw them, I was struck by the intensity of the relationship between the figure and this little space. Most poignant for me were the times when the figures seemed to be just inching over the edge of this space. So I tried to incorporate that in my image. And the placement was important- it has to be just right. And I think I got it because it’s teaching me right now.

Author Donald Miller in his book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years talks about the ‘inciting incident.’ In story-telling, particularly for movies, there has to be an ‘inciting incident’ that propels the character into his or her story. It’s whatever happens that is the point of no return- they’re in it now. And so as I’m looking at my solitary figure who has just inched passed this yellow space on his path, it excited me. He just inched passed his inciting incident. And that’s a good thing. The space he’s in is not as threatening now. Even though he may be struggling, caught in a dense but turbulent physical and psychological environment, it is not a moment of despair. It is a moment of hope. He is still moving forward. And now that he’s past the point of no return you have this feeling that his endurance will pay off. His story is just beginning.

FaithQuest 2010 - "Jesus as Warrior"

2010-09-12T00:15:00.000-07:00

You’ve heard that a picture is worth a thousand words. You’re about to witness how true that can be. I was asked why there was a green swipe on the ‘chain’ painting. I couldn’t really answer that then, partly because it would have involved far too many words than he (or I) were prepared for at that moment. But here are all the associations that come to my mind that led to the decision to have a green brush stroke across the painting.

Artists are constantly aware of their historical lineage. Each painting is in a dialogue, so to speak, with every painting that has come before it. And sometimes it’s in the sense of listening- artists in the past will have done something and I want to know why; I want to understand it better. And for an artist, the way to understanding is to do it yourself. So I’ll consciously put things in some of my paintings to see if I understand what it’s all about- to see if it works in my own context and my own ‘words.’

So in this case I was thinking about an artist named Gerhard Richter. This guy’s work is all over the place in the sense that he does paintings that are as accurate and ‘realistic’ as a photograph, and other paintings that are totally abstract. Most artists have a distinct style, he’s unique in that he has about a dozen distinct styles. Anyways, he has a few abstract paintings that trouble me- I don’t really like them. I don’t ‘get’ them. Which means I need to do some of those paintings and try to understand them. The green stroke is precisely that.

But there’s more. Here’s kind of what he’s doing with the abstract brushstrokes and how I’m piggy-backing off that. Way back with Picasso and people like him in the early 1900s artists started having an issue with the fact that they were trying to paint a 3-D world on a 2-D surface. It became almost a moral issue with them- if you painted an illusion of 3-D space that was essentially a lie. It was dishonest because a painting is nothing more than paint on a flat surface and a true artist had to acknowledge that fact. Abstraction arose partially to fulfill that conception- to not be something that it wasn’t, but to ‘be’ paint on a surface. So Gerhard Richter works both with representational paintings and abstract paintings in an effort to make both of those endeavors equal. Sometimes that happens in the same picture, where he has a ‘realistic’ painting with some abstract marks that lay on the surface and so the two aspects of painting lay side by side.

Yes- this is a painting.

What that means for me is a certain awareness. That even when there is the illusion of space, there should be an awareness of the physical surface of the painting. And so often we are like that in life. We get so caught up in the illusion of things and life around us that we miss what’s ‘on the surface’ right in front of our faces. So even though my ‘chain’ painting is mostly abstract, the abstract background gets subordinated somewhat to the chain. It becomes like an explosion that is breaking the chain. And since it’s an explosion, it’s no longer abstract. So the green serves as an abstract marking that has nothing to do with the chain or the ‘explosion’, but as something that lies on the surface and thus reveals that surface. It helps make us aware that there is more than the illusion. It serves as a reminder to look at things a little different, to look away from what the world sees as ‘real’ and to see the literal truth right before our eyes.

FaithQuest 2010 - "Jesus as Provider"

2010-09-11T14:11:00.000-07:00

Friendship. Jesus as the Provider… and what He provides is friendship. That was the idea behind Jeff's talk - Jesus standing with the woman caught in adultery. But how do you paint friendship? I’m not sure I know (even after painting this image). I went the route of something like a film still. The moment pictured doesn’t say a whole lot on its own, but takes on more meaning as a reminder to those who know the whole story. When you know the characters, who they are and what they’ve been through, then this benign image of a man and woman conversing in a friendly manner becomes more poignant.

Abraham sending Hagar and Ishmael away by Rembrandt

The weird thing is painting Jesus in contemporary dress. Rembrandt did that. He painted Biblical scenes but all the characters were dressed like Rembrandt and his friends. It doesn’t resonate as much with us because Rembrandt lived, like, 400 years ago. But look at yourself in the mirror and picture Jesus and his Apostles dressed like that. It makes it seem less serious to me. It’s like his holiness doesn’t work unless He’s got His beard and robe.

But I thought I’d give it a go. Jesus- short hair, t-shirt, no beard, and the woman caught in adultery- without a shawl. Laughing together like good friends.

FaithQuest 2010 - "Jesus as Alien"

2010-09-10T19:17:00.000-07:00

Alien doesn’t have to mean strange creature. Though that’s how we feel sometimes when we’re alienated. We feel like freeks. And perhaps what is worse is that we feel we are hemmed in by that thought that we’re freeks. In other words, we feel we can’t get out of it.

I wanted to show a Jesus like us. Not some dude in a robe with a stylish beard. But perhaps- more like a young person, with generic shorts (purchased cheaply at a second-hand store, of course) that don’t indicate race or nationality or time period. Because Jesus is everybody, everywhere, at everytime.

I was also thinking about Picasso. His first style that was uniquely his, before he started all the cubism stuff that became his claim to fame, was called The Blue Period. Simply because all the paintings were blue. Poor people (this was his ‘starving artist’ phase in life), destitute in their hopeless situations, are literally blue- saddened by their lot in life.

Picasso has a painting, I think it’s called the ‘Old Guitarist’ or something like that, that I was specifically thinking about. Artists sometimes use underlying grid lines to line elements up in their paintings. It’s a way of organizing the picture- just like you organize writings into paragraphs, or songs into verses and choruses. Picasso’s painting shows that organizational system very clearly. And I wanted to reference that.

So I organized it with a lot of empty space on the left. That space is broken up into a big space and a little space. The little space, then, is about the same size as the little space above the head of ‘Jesus’. And ‘Jesus’ occupies the same as the large empty space.

It organizes the space into a nice symmetry. But it also hems Jesus (or you) in. It alienates Him/you into the corner. And just like the labels of freak or alien, they keep us trapped in a (seemingly) hopeless situation.

But we know there’s a way out…

Art and Worship

2010-09-10T09:58:00.000-07:00

My good friend Ike Graul awhile back told me he's been asked to develop a 'theology of music in worship.' But he felt that was too narrow - it should be expanded to be a more inclusive 'theology of art (including musical, theatrical, visual, etc.) in worship.' It's something I've been thinking about somewhat for awhile now, but moreso the past few months. I've 'performed' drawings at PUMP for several years, and have done so at Faith Quest for the past three or four years. And honestly, I've been very concerned about certain aspects of me doing art in a church/worship context. But this past weekend, at Faith Quest 2010 I had some great conversations with Ike, Matt Tibbles, my wife, and the speakers Jeff Medders and Ryan Woods. So here are some of my musings and some of the conclusions I'm coming to.

My first issue probably has to do with illustration vs. more abstract forms of art. Despite my initial lack of understanding of abstract art I am now true believer in the efficacy of abstract forms of expression. So perhaps it was just a bit selfishness (and snooty-ness) on my part to be somewhat upset with that fact that the majority of a church-going audience does not understand abstract art. Not only did I simply prefer to do abstract works, but it began to become a moral issue. Let me explain.

I've always been able to draw well. It has always come fairly easy to me. So this created a couple of interrelated issues regarding talent. One, abstract art being more challenging, I felt almost guilty doing something as 'trite' as a simple illustration. I felt I wasn't using the talent God gave me to the fullest extent, which I feel was not bringing honor to Him. Second, to make matters worse, not only was I 'settling' for illustration, but because I was better than most people around me, I often was able to get away with a picture I thought, quite frankly, looked like crap even though it elicited 'oohs' and 'aahs' from the crowd. Double guilt.

So in speaking with Ike I came to see art as a 'tongue' - as like a foreign language. In I Corinthians Paul encourages those speaking in tongues to keep quiet if there is no interpreter as that would not edify the body. So I felt that abstraction could be utilized more if there was provided at that time a means for interpretation. Then it was pointed out to me that the Apostles spoke in tongues in Acts 2 and those who spoke those languages could understand them. So... there may be people who get abstraction and I would be speaking to them artistically in a way that a speaker (verbal) could not.

But then I had an amazing, affirming weekend at Faith Quest. The speakers were comfortable with me going a little more abstract and the response was tremendous. And I discovered a hunger. People were REALLY interested in some of the more abstract aspects - even though I had done some abstract stuff in previous years that didn't seem to garner that much attention. They seemed to crave the 'secrets' to the 'mysteries' of abstraction. And it got me thinking.

We were singing a song about Jesus being a 'marvelous mystery' - so why didn't it seem people craved the 'secrets' to the 'mystery' of Christ? My initial thought is that we often think we have Jesus figured out- He's no longer a mystery to us.

But maybe there's something else.

This might come out sounding conceited but stay with me. I think the people responded to the art because of me. I'm reminded of 2 Corinthians 4 - of 'commending ourselves to the consciences of others by the open statement of the truth'. If I hadn't been openly worshiping God in this (visual) format for the past few years, I don't think it would have had near the effect. All of my anxiety over illustrative vs. abstract had nothing to do with it. It's about relationship. Being open with my art and consistently, honestly doing my thing is what attracted people- people who seemed to crave the 'secrets to the mystery' of art but never felt compelled to darken the door of an art museum.

It's not unlike Ike's credo on musical worship: God does not call us to create beautiful music- He wants a joyful noise. It's the open and honest presentation of who we are (good singer or not) that matters.

So here is what I'm coming to: be hospitable with your gifts. Be a people of peace through your gifts. Whether people 'get it' or not, or connect with you or not, is not really your concern. God will bring the people of peace that do connect with it into your life. It's not about the gift. It's about the openness, the honesty, the relationship.

On Human Interaction - part IV

2010-06-23T14:05:00.000-07:00

I sometimes go back and read my old blogs. Usually my ideas are so 'long' that I sometimes forget where I started, but I know I need to continue a strain, or pick up a tangent, or something so that I have to do some research. What I felt was that I didn't end this series well. If you've followed it you may have felt as I did when I re-read part III- "He seems to feel that this is some big deal, but it really doesn't seem that way to me." I still think it is a big deal, but I failed to convey that convincingly. Allow me another go 'round- with a real live example.

My wife and I had a pretty major row once (well, I guess more than once, but you know…). Anyways, I threw a fit that, admittedly, was rather childish. But I was feeling extremely hurt because of how things - actions and words performed by my wife- were coming across to me. Now to protect her, I won't go into any details but let me just share what I was feeling. Generally in the midst of our 'conversations' we both end up apologizing because, let's face it, it takes two to Tango- so if there is an argument I feel there is always something that BOTH parties did that contributed. I hope we can all agree to that. (At least in theory, until the next time when you're right and someone else is wrong… right?)

Anyways, on the heels of her part of the apology came the truthful indictments of my childish behavior. Now I'm not denying them; I'm not saying that how I acted was healthy and sane- because it wasn't. But when I hear such constructive criticism in the same context as an apology- it kind of ruins the flavor of the good parts. Like trying to taste food when you have a cold- everything tastes like snot. So I tend to discount the apology somewhat because it sounds conditional. "I'm sorry,… BUT YOU yada yada yada!" I don't know about you, but that always has the effect of me feeling like I wasn't really heard and that it's all my fault, with a little apology thrown in to make it sound nicer. Have you ever felt that way?

It was frustrating me because such interactions always seem conditional. "I'll apologize only if you say you're wrong about your behavior." But here's the crux of the matter- I discovered I am just as conditional- "I'll only accept your apology as long as you don't criticize my actions." And isn't that what it's really about- the conditions? There is a multi-billion dollar industry on self-help and communication- how to talk to yourself, how to talk to others, how to express your feelings, how to set your boundaries, etc., etc. Now, I'm all for learning phrases and techniques to aid in communication. But when you reach a point where you realize that you need someone to speak to you a certain way for you to take them seriously- then you've just seen the presence of your platform. And most of the time we don't realize it because we are following the advice of all the trained psychologists and counselors who are 'experts.' They are experts- but only in a different context. They're of this world; I'm trying to get at Kingdom stuff. Their platform doesn't fit what I'm coming to understand as the 'non-platformness' of Kingdom existence.

Because your platform is your identity. And if you are needing to be spoken to in a certain way, or if you only speak to others in certain ways, then that is your platform interacting with your communication style. It is what you need to maintain your identity. So, again, what does this look like- when we're not operating from our platforms? What if our actions had nothing to do with what we need? What first needs to happen, though, partially to underscore it's overarching significance, is to raise our awareness of our 'platforms' - similar to what happened to me in the argument with my wife. I'll try to flesh this out more in future posts…

Mark Nine

2010-06-19T22:40:00.000-07:00

So I read to my kids from the Bible every night. Tonight's reading du jour was from Mark 9 - the Transfiguration story followed by the Healing of a Demon-Possessed Boy. Reading it made me think of this painting by Raphael.

Now, I personally am more of a fan of Michelangelo and Leonardo, on whose gigantic shoulders Raphael stands. But he was no slouch either, particularly when it came to composition- arranging the elements of his paintings into a cohesive whole. One thing artists always do is lead the viewer's eye around the whole picture. So the way things line up and where they point to are little devices to leave a trail for your eye to follow. One device Raphael liked to use was a figure eight. Here the top half of the eight is the Transfiguration scene, the bottom half is the crowd having a fit about the demon-possessed boy. Now it's easy to focus on Jesus- He takes center stage and is encircled by the billowing clouds that echo the 'lines' made by Moses, Elijah, and Peter, James, and John. Below, however, the scene is more chaotic, and the 'star' of the show, the demon-possessed boy, is off to the right. But here Raphael helps us out by splitting the crowd of people in two, the black expanse between the two groups is punctured by a pointing hand that leads our eyes directly to the boy's face. More subtly is the looping of the bottom half of the eight (which, perhaps not incidentally, is an infinity symbol). If you look at the disciple in blue and yellow in the center of the painting, follow his left foot, point to the right, across the black expanse to the upraised hand, down the arm of the demon-possessed boy, along the edge of the garment that crosses the kneeling woman's back which leads to the outstretched hand of the man in the lower left corner of the painting. Follow his arm up to the man behind him, up his arm and along the back and arm of the man in red, which follows a direct path along the disciple in yellow's (where we started) bent right leg, and on up around Moses, Jesus, and Elijah, and back down and around again.

These formal devices make for a nicely constructed painting. But perhaps my favorite connection is more conceptual in nature- it has to do less with holding the picture together than it does in conveying meaning. With all the activity going on it's helpful to look at the people's eyes- what are they focused on? It's telling that the little boy, the one who's having a rough time and needs, seemingly, the most help, is the only one whose eyes are focused on Jesus.

Phone Art

2009-10-11T23:29:00.000-07:00

So for awhile now I've engaged myself in an ongoing 'art project'- I take pictures that 'strike' me with my camera phone and set them as the wallpaper background to my phone. I keep it there until I come across another random 'work of art.' Then I take another picture and set up a new wallpaper. Thought I'd start sharing what my eye finds.

Chris Burden- Part III

2009-09-26T09:58:00.000-07:00

“After Newsweek and all the publicity came out, I had to stop doing those things because I couldn’t keep doing them in the light of that kind of publicity.” –Chris Burden

I mentioned in the last post the idea of power- the power one would need over their mental and emotional responses to situations. In this case Chris Burden had to exert extreme measures of will power to deal with his self-imposed ‘stress tests.’ Power over self. Power over situations. Power over others. By and large, this is what Chris Burden’s work centers around- although now he does it by less violent means. So to wrap up my discourse on him I’ll share with you a couple of generally ‘non-participatory’ pieces. I say generally because many of them still contain some element of an action that needs to be performed, or the pieces are somewhat kinetic. But they’re not ‘Performance Art’ in the classical sense.

The first piece is called ‘Big Wheel.’ It has this huge wheel (probably about 6’ in diameter). Next to it is a motorcycle.

Somebody (it could be the artist, a museum guard, somebody) starts the motorcycle and backs it up to where the back wheel (the ‘drive’ wheel) is placed against the Big Wheel and sets it spinning. Then the ‘natural powers’ of momentum and friction take over (who ever said science and art are opposites?). The weight and speed of the wheel are such that it will spin for about two-and-a-half hours before the friction in the bearings slowly bring it to a stop. At which point the motorcycle can be started up again…

Another piece is titled ‘Samson.’ Named after the Biblical Judge whose last act was to push down the supporting columns of a building killing himself and all of the Philistines within the structure, this sculpture aims to bring that scenario to life.

Massive beams are placed against the load bearing walls of the museum space. The beams are connected with a device that is in turn connected to a turn-style. Visitors to the museum must walk through the turn-style to view the rest of the exhibition. With each rotation a gear is notched in the jacking-device, pushing the beams further apart and putting more pressure on the walls, purporting to tear the museum down- with you in it…

The final piece is called ‘The Flying Steamroller’ and it is Art-meets-Engineering at it’s finest. There is just an odd sensation that occurs when you see a 12-Ton hunk of machinery ‘effortlessly’ gliding through the air. Check it out…

This kind of bare bones presentation of the facts (the facts here being a wheel that turns until it slowly comes to a stop or a steam roller flying) is the kind of stuff that often brings the comments “this is art?” or “I can make something like that!” The answer to both of those questions is ‘Yes!’- yes, it is art and yes, you can make something like that. The real question is, then, why haven’t you? Let’s explore that a bit.

As an artist I look at things differently. Often, this different viewpoint is appreciated by others who ‘would have never thought of that.’ Yet- despite that appreciation, validation of me as an artist still predominantly rests on my ability to draw or paint a picture that ‘looks real.’ Most people’s focus on art is on the mechanical aspects eye-hand coordination. Don’t get me wrong- I’ve come to appreciate that as a very special, unique skill. But the value of art is so much more. I’ve seen some people who can draw circles around everybody else, but I don’t feel they are very artistic. And others who I feel are extremely talented artists who couldn’t draw worth beans.

To me, art is thought made visible- and by thought I mean both the rational, cognitive logic and the seemingly illogical processes of emotion that nonetheless play a considerable role in our ‘thinking.’ Good art is the ability to display a certain point of view with a powerful resonance. The natural ‘powers’ of friction, weight/gravity, force, etc. are extremely powerful when you stop to really think about them. And I think there is no doubt that Chris Burden’s presentation of them carries a very palpable resonance, a presence that is as much (if not more) felt than seen. Symbolically speaking these physical forces are no different in action than other forces in our lives- the role that values and beliefs play in how we interact with the world. What moves us or slows us down. The pressures and the frictions in our lives. The things we value and how we are drawn to or repelled from people, places, or things because of those values.

So as you go about your day, I encourage you to look around you and try not to get caught up in what things are. But rather, look for what has presence; what has resonance? What affects you? What are these things doing? That is art.

“Whatever it is that Burden thinks he is trying to do, he has forced me to rethink the values by which I live, and for that I am deeply grateful.” -Robert Horvitz

Chris Burden - Part II

2009-09-25T09:22:00.000-07:00

So I was doing some ‘research’ and looking back at some of my past blogs and realized that I left all (three) of you hanging. When I introduced the artist Chris Burden I promised a part II and a part III. Then I got sidetracked by other pursuits. You can stop holding your breath now.

When I come across an artist that really strikes me- for good or for bad- I usually throw myself into their life and work to try and get a handle on what they’re all about. Especially if they have garnered a considerable amount of critical acclaim- which Mr. Burden has. So first here’s a quick re-hash of some of his performance pieces:

5 Day Locker Piece- “University of California, Irvine, April 26-30, 1971: I was locked in Locker Number 5 for five consecutive days and did not leave the locker during this time. The locker measured two feet high, two feet wide, and three feet deep. I stopped eating several days prior to entry. The locker directly above me contained five gallons of bottled water; the locker below me contained an empty five gallon bottle.”

Shoot- Probably his most famous piece where he had a friend shoot him in the arm with a .22 rifle. Want to see it? It was filmed. The video starts out with just a black screen while the artist talks about the piece (very quietly)- then all the action happens in the final 8 seconds.

Through the Night Softly- “Main Street, Los Angeles, September 12,1973: Holding my hands behind my back , I crawled through fifty feet of broken glass.”

Kunst Kick- During an Art Fair in Basel, Switzerland, Burden was kicked down a flight of stairs.

Doorway to Heaven-“November 15, 1973: At 6 pm I stood in the doorway of my studio facing the Venice Boardwalk, a few spectators watched as I pushed two live electric wires into my chest. The wires crossed and exploded, burning me but saving me from electrocution.”

Proponents of modern and contemporary art- including the artists themselves- often shy away from saying what artworks ‘mean’, insisting that the important thing is what it means to the viewer- a very relativistic stance befitting our pluralistic society. And while that approach has merit, I am particularly interested in the artist’s ‘platform’ - what was the perspective and the process of thinking that led to this ‘artistic conclusion’ that is the work of art? Certainly certain works have a special meaning to me regardless of the artist’s intent, but I usually like to qualify my own feelings with the artist’s intent. Chris Burden’s work is a case in point. I’m certain that he had no thought of Christian parallels in his work, which are some of the meanings they hold to me, but I couldn’t arrive at my own meanings without first delving into what he thought and was attempting to achieve.
So here are some things that Chris Burden said in relation to his work:

“I don’t think I’m trying to commit suicide. I think my art is an inquiry, which is what all art is about. “

“One thing that sort of bothers me is that a lot of people remember the Shoot piece and some of the violent pieces, and then ignore the reason for it all, the whole thing that ties it all together. They get carried away with ‘There’s this guy who had himself shot!’ They don’t go to the next step and wonder why I would want to do that, or what my reasons are.”

“I never feel like I’m taking risks. What the pieces are about is what is going to happen. Danger and pain are a catalyst- to hype things up. That’s important. The object is to see how I can deal with them. The fear is a lot worse than the actual deed.“

“It was more like a kind of mental experience for me- to see how I would deal with the mental aspect- like knowing that at 7:30 you’re going to stand in a room and a guy’s going to shoot you. I’d set it up by telling a bunch of people, and that would make it happen. It was almost like setting up fate or something, in a real controlled way. The violence part really wasn’t that important, it was just a crux to make all the mental stuff happen… The anticipation, how you dealt with the anticipation.”

The clincher was his resolution to do it- and how that dictated his actions until that decision reached its culmination. At the time I read that quote I was going through a study of the book of Luke. In Luke 9:51 it states that Jesus ‘resolutely set out for Jerusalem.’ And it hit me- Jesus made the decision and it dictated His actions throughout his life and ministry.

Pause for a little art history background. In the mid to late ‘60s there were a group of artists, often referred to as ‘Post-Minimalists,’ who were engaged in making ‘Process Art.’ Jackson Pollock had somewhat initiated the idea of ‘acting’ upon the canvas- with his splashes, drips, and splatters- rather than just painting a picture. So these ‘Process Artists’ extended that line of thinking into sculpture by taking materials and subjecting them to some sort of ‘process’ or action and the resulting change in the appearance or nature of the material would be the final product. So instead of trying to make something, artists – in the activist spirit of the ‘60s- did something, and the artwork was a result of that action or activity. Now let’s extend the concept of material a bit- from a physical substance to something that is mental or emotional. The human figure has all the physical properties of any other material- density, mass, texture, color, etc. But it also has a psychological aspect to it that a piece of metal or wood does not have. So I think what Chris Burden was doing was an extension of this concept- what process or activity could he do that would bear upon the psychological and emotional aspects of the ‘material’ of the human figure?

So with that thought in mind I think of verses like Luke 12:50 – “But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed.” Similarly, in Matt. 26:38 Jesus exclaims, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.” In contemplating Chris Burden’s ‘experiment’ on the properties of his ‘psychical material,’ I was actually given more insight into these statements by Jesus.

If you suspend your judgment that Chris Burden is insane, and instead look at the weight these actions he performed would place on him, mentally and emotionally, you can get a different sense of things. What would it take to go through with the things he went through? And what sort of resolve, control, or sense of power would one need to submit to these physical and mental tortures?

And now think of Jesus.

What would it take to be able to make the decision He made, and go through the things that He did? For me, it makes His sacrifice all the more profound. And God revealed that to me…through Chris Burden’s art.

Encouraging Words

2009-09-22T20:59:00.000-07:00

So I read to my boys every night as they're going to bed. Wanting to expose them to 'the best' (and giving myself an excuse to read them) I've decided to hit on some 'classics.' So our first entry in this endeavor is 'Robinson Crusoe' by Daniel Defoe.

I'm blown away by the depth of insight in this book into the nature of faith in God. So I decided to post an example. To fill you in, Robinson Crusoe's been stranded on this island for about 24 years now and he's made contact with a group of cannibals. One he is able to, in a sense, capture and make him his servant. His name is Friday. So he is trying to teach Friday about God. And here were words I found enlightening and encouraging.

"Here I was run down again by him to the last degree, and it was a testimony to me how the mere notions of nature, though they will guide reasonable creatures to the knowledge of a God, and of a worship or homage due to the supreme being of God, as the consequence of our nature; yet nothing but Divine revelation can form the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and of a redemption purchased for us, of a Mediator of the new covenant, and of an Intercessor at the footstool of God's throne; I say, nothing but a revelation from Heaven can form these in the soul; and that therefore the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I mean, the Word of God and the Spirit of God, promised for the guide and sanctifier of His people, are the absolutely necessary instructors of the souls of men, in the saving knowledge of God, and the means of salvation...
I had, God knows, more sincerity than knowledge in all the methods I took for this poor creature's instruction, and must acknowledge what I believe all that act upon the same principle will find, that in laying things open to him, I really informed and instructed myself in many things that either I did not know or had not fully considered before, but which occurred naturally to my mind upon my searching into them for the information of this poor savage;... and when I reflected that in this solitary life which I had been confined to, I had not only been moved myself to look up to Heaven and to seek to the Hand that had brought me there, but was now to be made an instrument under Providence to save the life and, for aught I knew, the soul of a poor savage, and bring him to the true knowldedge of religion, and of the Christian doctrine, that he might know Christ Jesus, to know whom is life eternal; I say, when I reflected upon all these things, a secret joy ran through every part of my soul, and I frequently rejoiced that ever I was brought to this place, which I had so often thought the most dreadful of all afflictions that could possibly have befallen me."

After I read this Trevor was confused about what exactly gave him the the joy and it was great to share a verse he is well familiar with- our previous Dwelling in the Word passage from 2 Corinthians- "Therefore, since it is through God's mercy that we are engaged in this ministry we do not lose heart." Robinson Crusoe felt this mercy, to be engaged in the ministry of sharing Christ, and in the midst of his 'dreadful' predicament on his island, it gave him hope.

May God bless you on your 'island.'

Lesson from Finances: Part III - Fatherhood Strategic Plan

2009-01-09T08:32:00.000-08:00

I like threes. There is a fundamental drawing principle called ‘triangulation’- where you’re always comparing one part of the drawing to two other parts, thus creating a triangle of reference. So I figured a Part III was in order.

I love my children... and sometimes I want to ‘strangle them.’ Not literally but you parent types know the feeling. In their search for limits my repeated ‘No’s’ have the unfortunate corollary in me discovering my limits. I have yet to witness that as being a pretty sight.

But for some reason, very early on I was blessed with the idea that the ‘solution’ was not to yell less, or punish less severely, or remove whatever behavior I was exhibiting. Partially because I noticed that the more I concentrated on removing that behavior- the more I did it! So I made a decision to consciously create positive experiences with my kids. I needed to initiate play times. I needed to learn about their toys and become interested in what they liked. I needed to engage them in conversation and share things with them. I had hit upon the ‘Balance Sheet’ idea long before I even knew what a Balance Sheet was (which, on a side note, seems true of many ‘Big Ideas’- the break throughs are often when someone was able to codify and articulate something they had been doing intuitively all along.).

What I’ve found is that often the best (or most convenient) times to initiate those interactions are in place of the previously listed negative behaviors. If I find myself frustrated with my kids and the anxiety is rising- I try to take a quick stock of how often I’ve initiated positive contact with them. I often find a correlation, and I’m getting better at substituting positive behavior rather than reacting with negative behavior. Or at the very least I try to follow up negative behavior with positive interaction.

[HEY!!! WILL YOU CUT THAT OUT! BE QUIET!!!! CALM DOWN!!!! KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF EACH OTHER!!! BEHAVE- CAN’T YOU SEE I’M TRYING TO WRITE A BLOG, HERE?!!!!!!!]

.....*sigh*

Lesson from Finances: Part II- the Spirtual Side

2008-12-29T11:22:00.000-08:00

I’ve always been struck by Luke 11:24-26. An evil spirit leaves a person, searches around but can’t find any place to go so it decides to go back to the original person and finds him/her like a ‘house swept clean’- so the spirit grabs its buddies (seven of them) and make the person worse off than before. Not exactly a happy picture- especially if you’re trying to rid yourself of your personal demons.

But if you’re in the business of helping people rid themselves of their demons- what an opportunity! To wit: the $11 Billion Self-Help Industry. (Just think about it- based on the above parable you can help someone oust a demon...and expect your business to increase seven-fold!!)

I mean- it’s the American Way, right? We want to have a better, smarter, slimmer, more beautiful, less stressful, happy-happy-joy-joy life so we identify what’s in our way, name it, formulate an action plan designed to rid ourselves of it, execute our plan- and voila!- seven more demons! (with seven more names, seven more action plans,...)

I don’t think it’s working- and this saying by Jesus alerted me to it. And it got me thinking that maybe the issue isn’t getting rid of sin but something else...

So I like the financial approach that I alluded to in Part I of this little mental exercise. Again, I’ll turn to the example of Warren Buffett, a man who doesn’t like debt per se, but doesn’t focus all his efforts on getting debt out of the way- in fact it appears as one of his last resorts: “So our main capital allocation moves in 1986 were to pay off debt and stockpile funds. Neither is a fate worse than death, but they do not inspire us to do handsprings either. If Charlie [Munger- Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway] and I were to draw blanks for a few years in our capital-allocation endeavors, Berkshire’s rate of growth would slow significantly.” In other words, only when he had no other ideas of what to do with is money to generate wealth did he turn to paying down debt. I’ve heard many financial advisors claim that the fastest way to wealth is to pay down debt. Though they include investing in their wealth building plans their holy grail seems to be the ‘get-rid-of-debt solution.’

The problem is- getting rid of debt doesn’t necessarily get rid of the ‘debt-accumulating’ tendencies that got someone in debt in the first place. Like the poor sap in Jesus’ parable, getting rid of the demon did nothing to prevent its return (in fact in seemed to make the return even more attractive!)

If, in financial terms, the trick is in buying assets rather than eliminating liabilities perhaps the spiritual trick is spending less time ousting demons and more time ‘investing’ in ‘spiritual assets.’ I figure that if I increase spiritual activities that produce positive, spiritual income, my liabilities will eventually erode, or at least have a diminished effect relative to my enlarged 'spiritual capital.'

As a general guide I’ve been taking the Spiritual Disciplines as the assets I’m targeting to acquire. I’ve been most successful with daily time in the Word, and am looking, in particular, to increase my ‘stakes’ in Prayer and Fasting. In effect I want a “Spiritual Statement” to read like so:

Instead of spending my time ousting my demons (or even trying to ‘work harder’ to be more loving, forgiving, self-controlled, etc- the spiritual equivalent to trying to get more income from your job), I’m wanting to focus more of my time on building up spiritual assets that will naturally make me more loving, forgiving, self-controlled, etc. In other words, the Fruits of the Spirit will be exactly that- the fruits/income from my time in the Spirit (via the spiritual assets).

So now I’ve thrown the gauntlet, publicly, to making this activity, which I’ve been kicking around in the back of my head for a couple of years now, a more intentional activity. And though I didn’t originally think of this as a New Year’s resolution- the timing fits. So here’s to your efforts to increase your spiritual investments.

Lesson from Finances: Part I- Money, Money, Money

2008-12-29T11:11:00.000-08:00

So I’ve done a fair share of reading over the past three years on financial matters- economics, personal finance, investing and the like. And though I’m hoping such time and energy investment will pan out into some successful financial investments, I’m already beginning to see some corollary benefits in other areas of life- particularly our relationships to God and to each other.

So I hope to lay out a ‘plan’ of action that I’ve somewhat intuitively begun to follow, but hope to step up into a more disciplined and intentional endeavor. But first, the background knowledge.

Most of this basic knowledge I picked up from the book Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. I HIGHLY recommend it for the content (but stylistically, Kiyosaki is not a very good writer). In short, he essentially had ‘two Dads’- one who was his real, biological father (the ‘Poor Dad’) and his best friend’s father (who became phenomenally wealthy). In having these two powerful influences he was able to clearly see differences in thoughts and actions that are the true distinctions between the rich and the poor (that ultimately lead to the obvious distinctions of net worth.)

The biggest misconception is that wealth is a product of one’s income- “If only I could get a higher paying job, I could be rich!” And while that couldn’t hurt, income is not really the issue. Consider the “richest” man in the world- currently tagged as Warren Buffett. His annual income, from his job, is only $100,000 a year. And yet his net worth is far in excess than execs who ‘earn’ 10 times that amount.

But notice I qualified his income as being ‘from his job’ (his job, by the way, is Chairman and CEO of Berkshire-Hathaway). I’m sure he has other income- but it is income that comes from holding certain assets like stocks and such (although, even with that, his largest holding is in Berkshire-Hathaway stock, which he probably doesn’t actually receive money from as Berkshire doesn’t pay out dividends). You see, the secret to wealth is not in the income, but in the assets that one owns.

Rich people, essentially, operate like businesses. When you evaluate businesses you look at their financial statements which include an income statement (which includes expenses they pay) and a balance sheet that lists the company’s assets and liabilities.

Robert Kiyosaki breaks it down like this:

The Poor and Middle Class primarily have financial statements that look like this:

Money comes in as income from their job(s) and then gets filtered through a lengthy list of liabilities (auto loans, mortgages, school loans, credit card debt, etc.) and so gets sent out of their possessions through all the expenses that these liabilities generate.

Rich people, however, have financial statements that go more like this:

As much as their income as possible goes into purchasing assets- in particular for our case, earning assets. And this is an important distinction. Some things are considered assets because they are ‘worth’ a certain amount. That’s why many people include their cars and boats and homes in their asset column. However, to utilize those assets in a financial sense you would have to sell them, which then means you no longer have that asset. Plus, you can rarely sell them for the amount that you can list them in your ‘Asset’ column. Another, very unfortunate plus, is that the ownership of these ‘assets’ often comes with a substantial addition to the liabilities side: car payments and mortgages. Which is why middle-class folks have most of their money filtering through the liabilities side and out through the monthly expenses even though they may be ‘wealthy’ enough to own the big screen TV’s, Bimmers, Hummers, and large homes in the ‘right’ neighborhood.

True wealth (and healthy businesses) results from assets that earn income- adding to what the ‘job’ brings in rather than siphoning it all out.

Some debt may be unavoidable, and may even be advantageous- IF you receive more than you pay out. For example the return you get on a rental property- in terms of actual profit above the monthly debt payments, may make a mortgage more justifiable. As the income stream widens, the debt becomes less and less significant.

That’s the secret to wealth in a nutshell. But always the generalist- I like principles that have more than one application- and life isn’t all about money...

...to be continued.

Cultivating Boredom - Part II

2008-11-19T13:26:00.000-08:00

Given my fascination with new connections, new thoughts, new conceptualizations I noticed myself getting almost giddy at the thought that something as boring as boredom could actually be a tool to gaining new insights. Before I go on with my own analysis, however, I want to continue a quote from Robert Irwin that I started in Part I, where he was talking about taking several catnaps while engaging in the rather boring activity of sitting and looking at rather minimal paintings for several hours/days at a time. He continues by saying:

“Boredom is a very good tool. Because whenever you play creative games, what you normally do is you bring to the situation all your aspirations, all your assumptions, all your ambitions- all your stuff. And then you pile it up on your painting, reading into the painting all the things you want it to be. I’m sure it’s the same with writing; you load it up with all your illusions about what it is. Boredom’s a great way to break that. You do the same thing over and over and over again, until you’re bored stiff with it. Then all your illusions, aspirations, everything just drains off. And now what you see is what you get. Nothing more. A is A and B is B. A is not plus plus plus all these other things. It’s just A.”

Now, Robert Irwin was after a kind of ultimate objectivity. He was fascinated with pure perception and was troubled with, for example, abstract paintings that people could ‘see’ things in- much the same way that we look at clouds and see shapes that resemble bunnies, or ice cream cones, or whatever. He wanted a pure experience prompted from some thing (the artwork) that was nothing else but what it was.

However, I’ve always felt that the most valuable aspect of art was as an aid to self-reflection. So I also want to point out a side benefit to the process Robert Irwin described above. In seeing ‘A’ for ‘A’ and ‘B’ for ‘B’, I think we’ll also get a clearer picture of all of our ‘stuff’ that previously got in the way. To couch it in my earlier terminology- we’ll be able to see more clearly our Platforms that we’re ‘standing’ on. But we’ll see them not as the veritable truth that we previously hung our hat on but as something that distorted our perceptions- something that could actually be wrong... or even... expendable. Our perspective shifts a little because something as inane as boredom resensitizes us to see truth more clearly- a truth that doesn’t rely on our previous assumptions and aspirations.

So, to all my fellow ‘Dwellers’- I urge you to actively cultivate boredom. When you’re bored with the passage, read it again. If nothing new is coming to you DO NOT make something up- that just loads more ‘stuff’ onto it that obscures insights into truth. Just sit with it, accept ‘nothingness’ if nothing is coming to you, and allow boredom the time it needs to peel the subjective from the objective.

And for any other situation you may face, especially one of uncertainty, unless it is absolutely necessary to make a decision regarding something, you might try just letting the uncertainty float for awhile, until you’re bored stiff with looking at the same options, the same data, the same ‘unclarity’. I’m positive that boredom will prove fruitful, that you will see A and B more clearly, that you will see yourself more clearly, and that you’ll ultimately be better off for it.

To close, ponder one more quote from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:
“He’s interested. ‘What’s it going to be like?’

But there’s a slight ego gleam in his eyes as he asks this and the answer as a result comes out masked.”

Experience Forgiveness

2008-11-18T13:45:00.001-08:00

I want to make you feel bad. I know, that’s probably not the ‘right’ thing to say but to a large extent it’s true. I would love for you to feel absolutely horrible about yourself. We’re all pretty adept at denying, so I’m searching for ways to throw your sin up in your face so that there is no room for denial. So you are faced with the fact that you’re a wretched person- to the point where you don’t know how to deal with it or what you’re going to do with yourself.

Sound a little harsh? Do I sound vindictive? Judgmental? Probably- which is why I haven’t pursued this as a course of action... yet. But the desire is still there. It’s just a question of getting across my motives.

You see, I’ve had a few moments like that- where my foundation was shattered. I couldn’t believe I had done what I did- yet there was no way I could deny it. When my ‘platform’ consisted a great deal of me being a ‘good person’- I mean, I grew up in the church, I was a leader in my youth group, I had never done drugs, never gotten drunk, etc., etc.- then when I was faced with the undeniable fact that I had caused someone I cared deeply for a tremendous amount of pain, I could not justify myself as a ‘good person.’ I had kicked myself off the Good Person Platform. And the question that haunted me was: If I’m not a Good Person, what am I?

The answer was: I’m forgiven.

Oh sure, intellectually we know that we are sinners and that we’re forgiven. But try pointing out a specific sin to someone and watch the justifications, denials, and counter-accusations fly! It’s like a fireworks show! (And from a social sciences perspective it is a fascinating show to watch.) Because existing side by side with the ‘confession’ of being a ‘sinner’ is the conviction that “I’m a ‘Good Person’.” I’m Ok. I can point out any number of good things I do and the (generally longer) list of bad things I don’t do. I can point out all those character traits in other people that I don’t share.

And so we build up our platform. Our Good Person Platform. And it’s so well crafted and sturdily constructed. And it becomes like an office, with a large, wooden desk and a plush leather chair. There are plants and a bookshelf with a fine collection of books. There are pictures of our loved ones on the desk. Everything is nice and neat and orderly. And on the wall, in a cheap frame, is a piece of paper saying “I’m a sinner and I was forgiven,” displayed like a certificate showing that you ‘graduated’ from a two-day class on how to use Microsoft Excel. There it is. There is our ‘confession.’

The difference between that kind of confession, and a brutally honest facing-of-the-facts is like the difference between experiencing a beautiful sunset by yourself and someone telling you the colors they saw in a sunset- the experience just doesn’t translate.

The experience I want you to have is the experience of being forgiven. But you can’t have that experience until you really feel you have something to be forgiven- and for a brief while, that experience is horrible.

So I want you to feel horrible. I want you to see yourself (and your sin) clearly for the first time, so that you are utterly speechless, and utterly terrified. And I want you to close your eyes as the tears well up and you’re flooded with the realization that all your justifications fall short; terrified with the thought of what others might think of you. Wondering what all this means, feeling the free-fall sensation of not being who you thought you were. Then I want you to open your eyes... and see that I’m still there with you.

Experience forgiveness.

Cultivating Boredom - Part I

2008-11-14T13:26:00.001-08:00

Note: For this two-part blog I want to first propose some instructions for reading. First, find some rather mindless, repetitive, and/or boring task. Some examples may be mowing the lawn, doing the dishes, folding clothes-while NOT watching TV, or... painting a gazillion dots on dominoes that have been painted on canvas (I can supply you with ample opportunity for this last item, if you’re interested.). Read over the quotes on this first part right before performing that task, using the freed up mental space to reflect on the quotes. Then, read my comments on Part II (to be posted tomorrow). Finally, apply these thoughts by reviewing the ‘facts’ of any situation you feel needs to be worked through before engaging in any of the tasks mentioned above, again using the available mental activity to reflect on your situation. Repeat that last step as necessary until something materializes.

I’m borderline obsessive on connections. What I mean is, I tend to read a ton of (often) different material, and the things I live for are those moments when some idea presented in one book, seems to sound an awful lot like an idea put forth in another book, which, in turn, corresponds to something going on in my life. The resultant web of connections brings new understanding, greater insight, and (hopefully) an increase in the effectiveness in my daily actions/interactions. There have been several such connections made in the past few months that have set me on new levels of hope and faith so I thought I’d share a specific example. So for Part I we’ll just look at the raw data. Consider the following quotes/situations:

Book I: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig.
“She seems so depressed sometimes by the monotony and boredom of her city life, I thought maybe in this endless grass and wind she would see a thing that sometimes comes when monotony and boredom are accepted.”

“The engine consists of a housing containing a power train, a fuel-air system, an ignition system, a feedback system and a lubrication system.
The power train consists of cylinders, pistons, connecting rods, a crankshaft and a flywheel.
The fuel-air system components, which are part of the engine, consist of a gas tank and filter, an air cleaner, a carburetor, valves, and exhaust pipes.
The ignition system consists of an alternator, a rectifier, a battery, a high voltage coil and spark plugs.
The feedback system consists of a cam chain, a camshaft, tappets and a distributor.
The lubrication system consists of…
The first thing to be observed about this description is so obvious you have to hold it down or it will drown out every other observation. This is: it’s just duller than ditchwater. Yah-da, yah-da, yah-da, yah-da, yah, carburetor, gear ratio, compression, yah-da-yah, pistons, plugs, intake, yah-da-yah, on and on and on… Dull, awkward and ugly…But if you can hold down that most obvious observation, some other things can be noticed that do not at first appear.”

“When cleaning I do it the way people go to church- not so much to discover anything new, although I’m alert for new things, but mainly to reacquaint myself with the familiar. It’s nice sometimes to go over familiar paths.
Zen has something to say about boredom. Its main practice of “just sitting” has got to be the world’s most boring activity…Yet in the center of all this boredom is the very thing Zen Buddhism seeks to teach. What is it? What is it at the very center of boredom that you’re not seeing?”

Book II: Seeing is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees: A Life of Contemporary Artist Robert Irwin by Lawrence Weschler.
“I started spending the time just sitting there looking. I would look for about fifteen minutes and just nod off, go to sleep. I’d wake up after about five minutes, and I’d concentrate and look,… and I’d nock off again. It was a strange period. I’d go through days on end during which I’d be taking these little half-hour, fifteen-, twenty-minute catnaps about every half hour- I mean, all day long… It was a pretty hilarious sort of activity… I put myself in that disciplined position, and one of the tools I used was boredom.”

Personal Life Situation:
Dwelling in the Word. There may be a couple of you who read this that may not be familiar with this term. There are several churches in the area (and throughout the U.S./world(?)) that are going through a process called Partnership for Missional Church through an organization called Church Innovations. One of the core practices in this process (a process that lasts about 3 years) is called ‘Dwelling in the Word.’ We take a passage, and every time we meet together as a church, we spend time in that one passage for an entire year. It’s a practice that will often make you...bored with the particular passage.

Hhhhmmmmmmm.......

Jackson Pollock

2008-10-20T23:12:00.000-07:00

Once I started to ‘get’ abstract art, I became a fan of Jackson Pollock- even though I probably couldn’t come close to explaining why at the time. I just thought they looked cool. And while that is still part of it, I think I can come closer to explaining something that might be of interest or value. Incidentally, Jackson Pollock currently holds the record for the most amount of money ever paid for a painting. Entertainment mogul David Geffen sold a Pollock painting for about $148 Million to a collector in Mexico (I think). Not a bad haul.

Ok- so what’s the big deal about this guy who slings paint around much like a 2 or 3 year old? (And, subsequently, why can’t you sell your child’s ‘masterpieces’ for $148M?) Well, it’s kind of like something funny that comes up in the course of a situation or conversation that is only funny to the participants, in other words, “you had to be there.” You kind of have to really ‘be there’ to get his works. And here’s some of what it means to ‘be there’ with regard to art: it’s not about what it is but what it is doing.

So let’s take a Still Life, for example, like a picture of flowers. Those who ‘don’t understand art’ see it for what it (apparently) is- a bunch of flowers. Artists will look at the same picture and see how the flowers are placed within the picture and what the placement does in terms of movement or balance. And/or they’ll look at the colors and see what they are doing- harmonizing with each other? Clashing with each other? Describing the colors we see? Evoking emotions?

And here’s another crucial difference- artist’s see things that way when they are looking at ‘ordinary’ objects- not just paintings of those objects. So let’s follow that. An artist looks at an arrangement of flowers and it ‘affects’ him or her. So the artist illustrates the flowers in an attempt to record those feelings and convey that to someone else. The problem is- what if the person viewing the painting doesn’t have the same emotional response because they’re not into flowers (they like sunsets)? Then the artist has failed to communicate his or her experience. So, instead of depicting the source of his or her emotional response- the flowers- the artist attempts to depict in some way the experience itself. Then the viewer can take that experience and connect with it- “oh yeah, I once saw a sunset that made me feel the same way!” And it’s when you try to depict an experience – which in itself is abstract- that you start getting abstract art.

In Jackson Pollock’s case, we have a troubled individual- an alcoholic (though I’m always quick to point out his best paintings came from the 2 or 3 years when he was not drinking)- living in troubled times- think of World War II and the Atom Bomb. Often troubled feelings like this are buried deep in people’s subconscious- we react to someone doing something relatively insignificant, but it’s not really what they did that made us so mad but the fact that it happened at a time when so much other stuff was troubling us, even though we weren’t actually conscious of it. So with that in mind, consider this quote from the artist himself:

“When I am in a painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fears about making changes, destroying the image, etc, because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well.”

There was a group of artists originating around the 1920’s called the Surrealists who would use a technique called ‘automatic drawing’ to bring up images buried in their subconscious. In essence it could be like doodling- only they felt that if you weren’t controlling the line to depict something, the shapes that would naturally flow through your arm and hand would be dictated by your subconscious thoughts and feelings. Jackson Pollock would begin his paintings that way and then study them- often for weeks or months at a time- so ‘see what I have been about.’ As recognition of those thoughts and feelings surfaced he would then make revisions and fine tune the lines and colors until the resulting painting matched his impressions. So the ‘beauty’ comes through in the harmony of the feelings and the means of depicting those feelings- not through illustrations, but through psychological associations with lines, shapes, colors, etc.

When this really hit home for me was when my lovely wife took me to New York to see his retrospective exhibition as a Christmas present. Being able to see almost all of his works, laid out chronologically, I was able to witness firsthand the fact that his splatter paintings actually got better. How can one splatter be ‘better’ than another? There was a greater degree of harmony once you became attuned to what the paint and the lines and the colors were doing rather than just looking at them as what they were- ‘messy splatters of paint that my three year old could do.’ As Jackson Pollock became more attuned to this in the process of painting he was able to depict his feelings with greater clarity.

I’ll admit- I’ve seen my kids make some cool things. But they are often just small sections of a larger ‘painting’ that on the whole is just a messy mess of paint or crayons or marker. The child lacks the intellectual skills to recognize a good thing when they see it (in the art world we call those ‘happy accidents’) and bring the rest of the disorderly picture in harmony with the good parts- the parts that strike a chord between color, shape, and line and the emotions that they convey. Jackson Pollock had that capacity, and he developed it further when he was not clouded by his addictions. And the results, once you’re ‘there’ in the ‘conversation,’ are breathtaking even far beyond what I’ve intimated here. (But we’ll just chew this elephant one bite at a time, shall we?)

And if you don’t believe me, consider this: every single time I had an art student attempt to do a ‘splatter’ painting like Jackson Pollock, they were astounded at how difficult it was and realized how horrible theirs looked in comparison with his. (Maybe you should try it sometime.)

On Human Interaction- part III

2008-09-13T15:54:00.000-07:00

I hesitate to write this post. It’s taken me awhile to write partially due to lack of time (I mean, it takes me longer to write them than it takes you to read them!) but also because when I stated my ‘main idea’ to myself, it seemed horribly self-evident. It sounded like many other ideas I have heard. On the surface it didn’t seem to be anything new. With regards to it’s self-evidence, the artist Robert Irwin has something to say: "If all of this seems a bit familiar, it should. This process...something we already do at every moment in simply coming to know the nature of our presence, and we almost always do so without giving the wonder of it a second thought... this 'oversight' speaks not of its insignificance; on the contrary, it speaks of its extraordinary sophistication." Sometimes, when things are so familiar, we don't give them a second thought- but it can be striking when we finally realize how sneaky they have been, sneaking under the radar and affecting everything we do, say, or think without us even being aware of it.

So here it goes: It’s all about relationship.

Actually, it’s all about GOD, and that is borne out solely through relationship. But we’re going to start with it being all about relationship and try to carry it to its logical end, and then we’ll see that it’s all about GOD.

I feel I’ve heard this before. So why do I get that ‘tingly’ sensation when I start to picture this in my mind? After much thinking and reading, I think I’m beginning to put my finger on it. Remember when I said that often ideas themselves don’t seem like a big deal, but rather it’s their implications? I get a shiver up my spine because now when I say ‘it’s all about relationship’ I have a whole new set of implications that comes to mind. With regard to the above statement- that it doesn’t seem like anything new- it’s true... as far as surface appearances go.

But you have to watch out with regard to surface appearances. I’ve long considered the conundrum posed by surface appearances. I think of people who are "rebels." In my own upbringing in the Church of Christ, I grew up in the context of my parents becoming progressively more 'liberal' than the generation before them. There were often arguments made by the ‘old guard’ that certain new behaviors in church ‘looked like’ what the Baptists, or the Evangelicals, or more charismatic movements did. So it got me thinking: what happens, or how do you deal with, the possibility that after spiritual growth and seeking and studying you arrive at the conclusion that your behavior should look like the very behaviors you’ve been fighting against? I think some people would have a serious problem with that. Some people are hooked on the externals. So even though there may be vast differences in theology and understanding, the resulting behaviors may appear remarkably similar and thus presumed to be from the same motives.

But again, there’s a lesson for this from Einstein. One of the ‘dangerous implications’ of E=mc2 is that everything we see around us is closer to a surface appearance than it is to cold, hard, unyielding physical matter. Mass changes- which doesn’t seem to jive with our day to day experience. For example, when you are exercising, technically you are heavier because there is more energy being utilized and energy has mass, or weight*. (Now if that isn’t a reason not to exercise, I don’t know what is! ha ha.) But the ‘weight’ gained is so infinitesimally small that we can’t detect it by normal means. It’s only when one approaches the speed of light that you really start to see a difference. Also, when I spoke earlier about light, I talked about the effect gravity had on it, curving it around a planet so that it appears to be coming from one direction, when in fact its source is someplace different. That’s another visualization of the surface appearance differing drastically from underlying reality.

But it just goes to show that things can be drastically different underneath the surface- and that’s what I’m experiencing here. As an artist I’ve been trained to look beneath the surface of things- and it seems like it is all starting to sink in. Do not be deceived by appearances. What I’m advocating regarding relationships has a different underlying ‘structure.’ One is the 'Self' (with its attendant platform) behaving toward someone as if their ‘platform' was Jesus. This is what I think most people envision with regards to relationship. That it is all about relationship but it is still taken for granted that it is our SELVES relating. What I’m seeing now is a 'behaving entity'- pure behavior, if you will- devoid of any identity other than that behavior. Just like in E=mc2- 'light's' 'identity' is 'movement'- which is why it's speed is constant- it is not an object that is moving and can move faster or slower, it is 'pure movement' of 187,000 miles per second. What happens to our identity when we get rid of our ‘platforms’? We don’t fall off the edge into the abyss, which I implied with my illustration in my last post. Rather, we occupy the ‘space between’- we become characterized in the same way light is- as something that illumines, that is movement (relationship), that is not inherent in any particular object (not tied to an identity crutch). It may help to remember, God created light before any objects (sun, moon, stars, etc.).

I still have left undone postings on some of my favorite artists that I began with my look at Chris Burden. And I’ve had in mind to write some thoughts on Freedom and Christianity that I’ve gained from listening to and examining some songs by R.E.M. That will tie in pretty soon with my soundtrack blog. But regardless, pretty much every post I write from now on will have something to do with the implications of my thoughts stated here. (I think part of the ‘twinge’ I’ve been feeling is resulting from the fact that my ‘new’ idea is providing an over-arching context that connects several things I’ve been thinking about in different areas of my life) Here’s to the journey!

* If you really want to get technical about it, there is a difference between ‘mass’ and ‘weight’- but we’re probably more attuned to the term ‘weight’ so it will suffice.

on human interaction- part II

2008-08-27T06:50:00.000-07:00

Here’s how I began my earlier post about E=mc2:

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!)

When I went back to read it I surprised myself. I had forgotten some of the things I said- in particular the idea about having no foundation, no perspective. Back then the thought was scary. I had a tremor, a vague notion, half-formed but with enough shape to discern its most essential characteristic. But the uncertainty it engendered, coupled with the certainty that this was a radically different way of viewing things, made me anxious.

Because our platforms are our identities. Are you shy or outgoing? Optimistic or pessimistic? Are you a Teacher? Preacher? Lawyer? Doctor? 20-Something? 30-Something? Father? Mother? Are you kind? Do you have a bubbly personality? Are you intellectual? Are you artistic? Are you Republican? Democrat? Communist? Are you an Oregonian? Californian? Yankee? Southerner? Homebody? World Traveller? Do you like Hip Hop? Rock? Pop? Jazz? Prefer Spicy Foods? Meat and Potatoes? Vegetarian? Are you Organized? Are you a slob? Are you poor? Rich? Middle Class? Are you American? Are you...a Christian?

Can you imagine who you would be....without any of these?????????

on human interaction- part I

2008-08-22T06:47:00.000-07:00

Ok, so we’re back to E=mc2 (Groooaaaaannnnnnn!- stay with me here, I think I’m on to something.) If you remember my talk before I used the phrase ‘inertial frame of reference.’ Think of it this way. Imagine two platforms placed at different angles to each other. (Ok- don’t imagine it- look at the picture below)

See how the lines indicating height, width, and depth (x, y, z) are all pointing in different directions? The ‘x’ of one platform doesn’t line up with the ‘x’ on the other platform. Each platform is a different ‘frame of reference.’ So, a scientist sits on the first platform, doing his little experiments and writing down his little math. Everything works pretty well- good enough for government work. He jumps over to the other platform, does the same experiments, writes down the same math, the numbers are a touch off but on the average they work about like they did on the first platform. BUT- while he’s on the second platform he looks across to his experiment on the first platform and notices that it doesn’t seem to work right all of a sudden- the math doesn’t work out. “Crap,” he says. “It’s different over here. When I’m on Platform 2 looking over at Platform 1 things don’t work out right. I bet there must be a platform where everything works out perfect and then that will give me the clue as to why the others don’t work out.” So off he goes looking for that perfect platform- the place where everything is ‘right’- the ‘inertial frame of reference.’ Long story short: he’s going to be looking for that ‘platform’ forever, ‘cause there ain’t one.

Along comes another scientist. We’ll call him...uhm...Einstein. “Hey, buddy,” Einstein says, “Let me show you something.” He points to a dotted line that was formed when the first scientist looked from Platform 2 to Platform 1 (and from Platform 3 to Platform 1 and so on and so forth- to and from every Platform he occupied in his search for THE Platform.) Einstein continued, “Those lines are a relationship between all those platforms. Now I’ve discovered this little equation that shows that all those relationships, those dotted lines connecting the platforms, are the same. So that leads me to conclude that there is no ‘One Platform’ that everything is based off of- the base is the relationship.”

When I looked at it this way I was blown away by the concept that the only constant was a relationship. You see, we all operate from our separate platforms- our own way of viewing the world that is the sum total of our genetics, our raising, our education, our memories, etc. And I’ve noticed that many problems between people arise not because one person is right or wrong but because there has been a misunderstanding from the fact that things look and sound differently when viewed from different platforms. Or problems arise because people’s sense of identity and security is wrapped up in the ‘orientation’ of their ‘platform.’ Therefore, any other viewpoint/platform is seen as a threat- defensive posturing and/or tense relations ensue. It’s my experience that human interaction is a result of ‘my platform’ vs. ‘your platform.’- we try to defend our platform or change other people’s platforms or we align with those whose platforms are the most similar to ours. Yes, even positive, healthy relationships result from this thinking- it’s just that the two platforms correlate enough to cause a minimal amount of friction (witness the plethora of online dating sites that attempt to match your ‘platform’ with someone else’s!).

What’s needed is an ‘E=mc2’ of human interaction - something that takes the focus off of ‘platforms’ and on to ‘relationships’. I feel the implications of this are huge (as evidenced by the physical ‘shudder’ I experienced coursing up and down my spine and throughout my entire body when I hit upon it.)- we’ll explore this further in my next post.

Thoughts on a Merger...A Merger of Thoughts

2008-08-11T11:40:00.000-07:00

“Yeah, I might lose my job!” Words you don’t usually here. Yet, as odd as it sounds that’s kind of how I’m feeling at the moment. Let me explain. My employer, Mt. Hood Beverage, is merging with its cross town rival Columbia Distributing (and Gold River Distributing, a downstate “cousin” of Mt. Hood Beverage.) Naturally there are many, if not all, employees a little anxious regarding their job status. My status is in no way secure...yet I fail to share in the anxiety. Why, you ask? The short answer: because of ten years of reading books most people don’t care to read and learning things most people don’t take the time to learn. Allow me to expand...

Ten years ago I was working at a business leadership seminar company in Lexington, Kentucky. I was exposed to the ideas of a man named Tom Peters- in fact, I can say in full confidence that his book “Circle of Innovation” literally changed my life. One of his stock-in-trade ideas is that the ‘new worker’ is basically on her/his own. Mergers and buy-outs and reorganizations and what have you have taken away the idea of job security. The worker’s only ‘security’ is in the strength of her/his own resume of (hopefully) stellar work history and job performance. In this brand-laden society, each individual is her/his own ‘brand’ – ‘Me, Inc.’ In essence you are your own business entity, regardless of your status as self-employed or W-2 wage earner. As long as you are constantly striving to improve yourself, to learn new skills and/or to hone your current skills through a stream of successful, impactful projects then you can have the best form of security- the choice of employers from your ever expanding list of job offers. Being the independent type I was enthralled with the idea- with that image. However, he’s even come up to an endpoint in that idea. On page 315 of his latest book, Re-imagine, he ponders the question of what happens when the need for your skill set has been completely eliminated due to changes in technology or market trends or competition. At the time of his writing, he had no answer. I feel I do...

Enter life-changing idea/book number 2: Rich Dad, Poor Dad. I first saw this book in Abilene, TX when my manager at Oak Express (where I served for a short stint as a salesman) was reading it. I was intrigued and read a couple of pages, hoping to get my hands on it some time in the future. When I moved to Portland and hooked up with the world of investment real estate through the mortgage industry, I encountered the book again as it was one of the bedrocks of investors, especially real estate investors. (short disclaimer: to avoid being labeled as one who just jumped on the ‘Rich Dad’ bandwagon, I want to note here for the record that long before I read his thoughts on investing in general and real estate in particular, my wife and I had looked at our rent check going out and said, “We need to find out how to get on the ‘other side’ of this check. Because our landlords haven’t had to do anything, and every month they get a check from us!”) One of his ideas in that book is ‘Mind your own Business.’ Again, regardless of whether you are self-employed or other-employed, you are your own business entity. And your ‘business’ is building up investment income to give you security for when the employment income gets turned off (by disability, retirement, lay-offs...mergers... you get the idea). Businesses seek to obtain assets that keep them a viable business- a hedge against the down swings of an unpredictable market. Individuals-as-businesses should seek to obtain no less than the same.

And so, in the midst of this merger I ponder a merger of these ideas. Your job security does not rest in your employee name badge, but rather in your ongoing creation and re-creation of your resume of job performance. That way instead of being thankful that you’ve been hired (“Yeah, I got a job!”) you can trust in your abilities to get hired, and re-hired, and hired again, over-and-over (“Yeah, I have my choice amongst all these job offers!”). But ultimately, those incomes are merely the start- for in turn you, as owner of ‘Me, Inc.’ are also continually working to build up your assets to the point where your bills are covered whether you get a paycheck or not (“Yeah, I don’t need a job!”) That way, if and when your skills are no longer needed/wanted, you have an answer.

So I’m enjoying being part of a ‘history-making’ event (this merger is a pretty big deal). I’m enjoying witnessing the growth of an investment (bummer I’m not a shareholder). In artistic terms, seeing a company rise from $270 million in annual sales to an estimated $1.2 Billion in estimated sales is aesthetically pleasing- I am enjoying the beauty of it. And because I don’t place all my bets in the traditional ‘job security’ mindset, I’m enjoying the freedom of an educated mind- and look forward to what God brings from the education He’s provided me with (and regardless of what books I read or what things I relentlessly study, I believe they are things God is teaching me... but that would be a different post.)

And so in the immortal words of Michael Stipe: “It’s the End of the World as we know it... and I feel fine.”

Minotauromachy

2008-03-14T12:50:00.000-07:00

Started reading a book called "The Power of Myth." It's an interview of a guy named Joseph Campbell conducted in the late 80s by Bill Moyer. Came across this passage, looked up the picture, and voila- a blog was born!

Moyers: I saw a photograph of this latest cult figure from Hollywood, Rambo, the Vietnam veteran who returns to rescue prisoners of war, and through violent swaths of death and destruction he brings them back. I understand it is the most popular movie in Beirut. The photograph showed the new Rambo doll that has been created and is being sold by the same company that produces the Cabbage Patch dolls. In the foreground is the image of a sweet, lovable Cabbage Patch doll, and behind it, the brute force, Rambo.

Campbell: Those are two mythic figures. The image that comes to my mind now is of Picasso's Minotauromachy, an engraving that shows a great monster bull approaching. The philosopher is climbing up a ladder in terror to get away. In the bullring there is a horse, which has been killed, and on the sacrificed horse lies a female matador who has also been killed. The only creature facing this terrific monster is a little girl with a flower. Those are the two figures you have just spoken of- the simple, innocent, childlike one, and the terrific threat. You see the problems of the modern day.

Lessons in Seeing....and Thinking

2008-03-08T14:50:00.000-08:00

If you want a valuable lesson in art, get ye down to the Littman Gallery on Portland State University's campus. Until March 26 they are displaying preparatory sketches that Picasso did for his famous Guernica painting.

These are the fascinating shows to see because they reveal how artists use art to think. You can witness his ideas take shape as he plays around with variations on several themes within the painting. You can also see alternate possibilities for how he chose to organize the painting into a unified whole. And, invaluable to the novice, you can witness the fact that even though it is not 'realistic.' the artist meant it to be that way. It was a lesson I learned while in college- also seeing a similar show of Picasso's work. I noticed a drawing, very similar to this one:

The thing I noticed the most were the erased lines- the ghosts of paths not taken. In particular, the paths that were more 'realistic.' You see, when I looked at a strange looking abstract painting and some critic or teacher said the artist meant it to look that way, I thought they were full of crap. Until I noticed Picasso- taking a picture that was 'right', erasing it and making it abstract- or even if his original version was abstract- there was still the conscious choice to make it different. It was an eye opening experience. Unfortunately the gallery is closed on weekends but they stay open until 7pm on Thursday evenings. I'd be happy to join anyone who wanted to go see it (but you'd probably have to bribe my wife to give me up for an evening away from the kids.)

Here is some stuff about me

2008-02-26T22:18:00.000-08:00

Here is some stuff about me

My good friend Logan
tagged me with this one. So here goes...

Four jobs I have had in my life:
1. Pizza maker/delivery driver for Little Caesar's and Round Table
2. Newpaper Delivery Man
3.'"Telemarketer' for fundraising campaign for a ministry
4. Custom Framer at Michaels Arts & Crafts

Four movies I've watched more than once:
1. Star Wars
2. The Matrix
3. Dead Poets Society
4. Good Will Hunting

Four places I have lived:
1. Portland, OR
2. Lexington, KY
3. Florence, Italy
4. Malibu, CA

Four TV Shows that I watch
1. Mythbusters
2. Lost
3. Good Eats
4. Suite Life of Zach & Cody (can you tell I have kids?)

Four places I have been:
1. Moscow, Russia
2. Croatia
3. Il Pallo (spelling?) horse race in Siena, Italy
4. Mammoth Cave

Four people who e-mail me (regularly):
1. Melinda
2. Ike
3. iTunes New Music Tuesdays
4. Multnomah County Library (your holds are ready for pickup!)

Four of my favorite foods:
1. Spaghetti
2. Steak
3. BBQ Beef Ribs
4. Fajitas

Four places I would rather be right now:
1. Florence, Italy
2. In my studio
3. in San Diego seeing the Robert Irwin Retrospective
4. in Pomona California seeing the exhibition of James Turrell's art

Four things I am looking forward to in the coming year (next 12 months):
1. Greater Financial Stability
2. A show at an art gallery
3. Starting a printing business with my wife
4. Seeing Saturn at an observatory on a camping trip with Adam Wolfgang and our boys

Four significant/memorable gifts I have received:
1. The Septuagint from my wife
2. money to pay Melinda's legal bills
3. An air compressor from my wife and her parents
4. Trip to NY/Jackson Pollock Retrospective from my wife

Four Books that have impacted me the greatest:
1. The Circle of Innovation by Tom Peters
2. The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge
3. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig
4. Visual Thinking or Art and Visual Perception (it's a toss up) - both by Rudolf Arnheim

Four People who have changed my thinking and continue to do so:
1. Christ
2. My wife
3. my kids
4. Tom Sibley

Here is the deal. Copy it paste it on your blog and change the list if you are...
Adam Wolfgang, Ike Graul, Jeff Partian, Carl Flynn, Melinda Brummett

Chris Burden

2008-02-11T22:52:00.000-08:00

I feel the true value of art is that it makes thinking visible. And once you can see your thoughts, or the the thoughts of others, then the process of reflection becomes easier because you can almost physically handle your thoughts, and explore their many implications, conclusions, sources and beliefs. So the artists that I will talk about most on this blog have been the ones that have helped progress my thinking and understanding. One such artist, to the chagrin of my wife, is Chris Burden.

My wife is not too thrilled with this selection because she thinks he's psycho- and truthfully she's got a plausible case. Because, you see, Chris Burden made his big splash in the art world as a performance artist. One of his earliest pieces, his graduating show from UC Irvine, was a piece entitled "Five Day Locker Piece."

He stayed, curled up, inside a locker for five days. He was in the middle locker, in the locker above him was a five gallon bottle of water, in the locker below him was an empty five gallon bottle (as you can imagine, by the end of the five days the fill/empty ratios of the two bottles were reversed). But his most famous performance piece, the one that really put him on the map was a piece called "Shoot."

Viewers came to a gallery and witnessed the following scene: Chris Burden comes out along with a friend who is carrying a gun. They stand and face each other about 15 feet apart, when the friend takes aim and shoots Chris Burden in the arm. Chris Burden is taken to the hospital. The piece performed; the show is over. Raise your hand if you agree with my wife.

So here's the deal- I think there is actually some profound learning that can take place when we open ourselves to the lessons. But in the interest of trying to make my posts a little shorter, I'll break the lessons up into 3 parts. This first part will talk about performance art in general. Part 2 will relay the sudden insight I had that led to my appreciation of Chris Burden's work. The third part will continue a look at his art -but the stuff that is less violent (he no longer does performance art).

Performance art. Many may think it is new fandangled. A creation of the wild times that were the '60s and '70s. Surely there were drugs involved. But I would make a case that it hearkens back to a much more primal time in human existence. A time that we can travel to...in the Bible.

Take some fun passages from Ezekiel 4-5, for example. Here the prophet is asked to build a model of the city and then 'play war' against it (incidentally Chris Burden did a similar play act of war, as well as made miniature model sculptures of societies at war), lie on his left side for SEVERAL days (like, almost a year), then cook food over a fire fueled by poop, and finally burn, scatter, or chop up with a sword his locks of hair. Or one of my favorite performances from Isaiah 20 where he went around for three years au natural (or at least in his underwear). Or Hosea whose marriage was actually a sermon, rather than a relationship. Art conveys a message as well, and performance art can be just as impactful as a prophecy from God. And that's the essential thing- it's impactfulness. Anybody can fall asleep during a sermon or a lecture, or pass by a painting or a sculpture without giving it a glance. But heads turn when people are nude; they gawk at shootings and roadside accidents; they talk about people and their interesting spouses. It's hard to ignore. How would it impact you if you saw one of Chris Burden's performances? Or better yet, what if you participated- like the time when he took up residence in an elevator, provided a bowl of pushpins, and posted a sign inviting riders on the elevator to push the pins into his body?

So performance art may be weird, but it is not new. It may make you uncomfortable, but it gives you an opportunity to think exactly why it makes you uncomfortable, and therein may lie the message- something may need to change. And that change may need to be you.

Are you smarter than a three year old?

2008-02-10T17:16:00.000-08:00

Apparently not. Bevan got a Rubik's Cube for Christmas. So now I'm on a quest to master the cube. I am humbled....

Marriage and Divorce: Is That the Real Question?

2008-02-02T23:01:00.000-08:00

Ike was out of town this weekend...so he asked Adam Wolfgang to come visit and preach. Thursday I got a call from Adam- "I have every intention of making it this weekend, but we have a ton of snow out here and we're supposed to get more. Could you come up with a back-up sermon just in case?" I called him back again on Saturday.... and had to leave a message as he was outside, shoveling snow....

Here's what I think God wanted me to say.

It can sometimes be a scary thing, when you come in to preach on a predetermined course. You can't pull out your best sermons, your greatest ideas, your favorite scriptures that you have nailed down in pretty display cases. No, when the verses are laid out for you- you have to take what you've been given, grapple with a text that may not even be on your radar. You may have to open yourself to what God is saying to you. I thought is was sheer brilliance when my home congregation was looking for a preacher once, and they held the incoming candidates to the schedule of passages that we were working through (I want to say it was the Gospel according to Mark)- so even potential hires could not put on their best airs- and had to contend with passages that may or may not have been conducive to great sermons.
On the plus side- nothing gets overlooked. I remember reading a comment from a minister who liked liturgical schedules because it forced you to deal with texts that you would have otherwise avoided. Topics that you didn't want to approach for fear of offending someone. Or conundrums for which you had no easy answer, not even a complicated, convoluted answer for that matter. And so here I am before you, having to say a few words on the topic of divorce. But I feel the Lord has been merciful, and provided a way out. So let's read Matthew 19:1-12 and see if we can't figure out what this is all about.

So let's just break this passage down and see what's going on. First of all it begins with the phrase 'after Jesus finished saying these things...' which if you'll remember is a marker that Matthew uses to break the teaching material up into five sections, presumably to connect Christ's teachings with the five books of the Law. So we are now entering into the fifth block of teaching and narrative material that will culminate in the Passion narrative- His death, burial, and resurrection.

Then we have the basic structure of the Pharisee's question, Jesus' anwser, the Pharisee's counterquestion, Jesus' counteranswer, then the disciples get involved, and then Jesus' conclusion as a response to their insight. So let's explore this piece by piece.

The Pharisee's question- the first thing I want to know is how is this question a trap? What are the issues here? Perhaps there's more to it than this but here's how I see it. It's really a no win situation. God is obviously against divorce, they know it and we'll get into specific verses here in a bit but basically we can take that position. However, Moses, as we'll see in a little bit with their counterquestion, at least allowed the possibility of divorce. Now Moses was a pretty special guy. The book of Deuteronomy ends with saying that there was no other prophet like Moses whom the Lord knew face to face. In other words- while God spoke to other prophets in dreams and vision, or disembodied voices- God came down and spoke face to face with Moses- or as face-to-face as possible since nobody can actually look into the face of God without dying. but still, it was pretty safe to assume that anything Moses said was from God because they were that close. So the issue is that you really can't choose sides between God and Moses- so any answer that Jesus gave could be countered pretty convincingly by the other side. It was a question no one could answer and their plan was probably to show that Jesus was nobody special and thus discredit him in the eyes of the people.

So Jesus' answer at first seems like the best place to start- at the beginning. He appeals to the creation of marriage in the first place- with the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden. And so the Pharisee's think they have Him- "Aha- what about Moses saying you can simply write a certificate of divorce?" The 'trap' is springing? You can just imagine the other people around saying, "ooh, they've got a point you know. Why would Moses allow that?"

Jesus' answer is interesting for a couple of reasons: For one-I don't know why Jesus didn't enlist more scriptural support. Malachi 2:16 comes straight out and says "I hate divorce" says the Lord God Almighty. That seems pretty clear to me. But Jesus decides to turn it around and make it personal. Up until now the discussion has been theoretical- a hypothetical man hypothetically married to a hypothetical woman. But Jesus now turns it around to them and says, "Moses gave a concession for YOUR wickedness and hardness of heart." And here's where it gets interesting. So let's take a look at the passage of Moses allowing divorce that they're referring to. Read Deut. 24:1-4.

Now wait a minute. As far as reasons go for divorce, this verse is pretty weak. It's not even allowing it per se. It is not giving a provision that states if you're upset with your spouse you may go to the priest and he'll write a certificate of divorce and then you make a sacrifice and... no- there is nothing like that. It's a total hypothetical situation- if a man gives his wife a certificate of divorce and then so on and so forth...It makes me want to compare the Pharisees with this guy in Deuteronomy. This guy finds something wrong with his wife- for whatever reason. He judges her and casts his judgment in the form of a divorce. What reason is there to determine the reasons for a divorce other than as a form of judgment? Whether you're judging someone else or judging yourself- making sure you're still 'Ok' even if you have a divorce- the emphasis is on judging what we, as people, do. And we jump on the little provision that Jesus gives- the clause about marital infidelity. "See, Jesus said we can get divorced if our spouse has been unfaithful!" But look again. Jesus never said that- he just said that we would not be guilty of adultery, but he hardly gives permission to divorce, just as Moses wasn't really giving permission to divorce either. Jesus refuses to get caught up in a definition game of what we can and can't do under certain circumstances. Instead he points to something else.

But first, the disciples jump on this bandwagon, too. And their conclusion is a little quirky. After Jesus' statement my mind thinks, "Well, then I shouldn't get divorced." The disciples go a little extreme and say "Well, we shouldn't even get married, then, in the first place!" Which, by the way, would probably be considered a very good, Pharisaical answer. The law had gotten so convoluted because over the years they've put hedges up around the original law so they were sure not to sin. So when you're allowed to flog someone 40 times, you stop at 39- just in case you miscounted. So here, if you want to avoid committing adultery by remarrying after a divorce, don't even get married in the first place and you're certain not to get a divorce. Makes perfect sense, right?

What got me was that Jesus actually agreed with them. He basically says, "If you can handle that truth, it's because God helped you accept it." Then he launches into these statements about eunuchs. Now being a somewhat educated person, I basically knew what a eunuch was but wanting to give a thorough exposition on this text I decided to look the word up in the dictionary. And while its meaning has extended to include celibacy, historically its been accompanied by physical, surgical methods to help you keep with your decision- if indeed it was your decision. For one of the statements that Jesus makes is that some have been made eunuchs by others- and indeed, there were some jobs- often either a personal assistant to a member of royalty, or as a servant in a king's harem, where it was required to undergo a medical operation to ensure you won't overstep your bounds, so to speak, in your professional role. So Jesus covers the whole gamut of methods of refraining from marriage and it's physical manifestation- either you're impotent from birth, you've been made that way by someone else, or you've decided for yourself to devote yourself exclusively to God' Kingdom- and if you're cool with that- that acceptance - comes from God. And that's when it hit me. Both the Pharisees and the disciples were concerned about our actions- what can we do or not do? Jesus focuses us on what God does. No matter what way one has become a eunuch, or even whether one becomes one at all, one's acceptance of their condition is God given. And look back at Jesus' first response to the Pharisee's question- God created them man and woman. And 'for this reason' and man and woman become one- what reason is that? Simply this: that God said it was not good for man to be alone, and so God provided a helper. And what about our 'out'- the provision of infidelity? Any good Pharisee would know God's response to an unfaithful wife- He gave us a very concrete example of God's actions. God told the prophet Hosea to take an adulterous wife, a wife who was a prostitute. Then in chapter 3 God tells Hosea, "Go and get your wife again. Bring her back to you and love her, even though she loves adultery. For the Lord still loves Israel even though the people have turned to other gods, ..." We are still reminded of what God has done.

Paul, in Romans 12 says, "In view of God's mercies, offer your bodies as living sacrifices..." Not in view of what we think it means to be a living sacrifice; not in view of a list of things we can or can't do, or should or should not do. But in view of God's mercies. And every Sunday, in communion, we are reminded of what God has done. Whether we choose to remain unmarried- God has provided Salvation. Whether we are married and remain faithful to our spouse- God has provided Salvation. If we are married to an unfaithful spouse- God has provided Salvation. If we are divorced- God has provided Salvation.

It's not about what we need to do, or can do, or should do, or haven't done- It's about what God has done.

Richard Serra

2008-01-01T14:41:00.000-08:00

I came to the realization that I haven't talked very much about art on this blog- which is my life's passion. So I've decided to do a small series on the artists that have affected me the most- not in any particular order though. So I'm starting with Richard Serra more because I found this about him on YouTube. He is absolutely amazing and if you get a chance to see any of his works- especially his large scale Torqued Ellipses, Spirals, or Toruses and Spheres- I think you'll be extremely blessed by the experience (especially as you focus on the experience- the physical sensation of walking through 'bizarrely shaped' spaces). On a side note, I laugh at myself for having incredibly long posts so I found it all too amusing to post an hour-long video. For what it's worth, I found some of the best info from about minutes 12-18, stuff around minutes 25-30, and the last 10-15 minutes to be more enlightening. Otherwise, grab the popcorn....

A New Mind (Reconceptualization #2)

2007-11-25T17:04:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-11T21:55:00.000-08:00

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

2007-10-07T21:27:00.000-07:00

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 )))

2007-09-26T21:12:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-21T20:11:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-05T23:25:00.000-07:00

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..

2007-08-03T22:38:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-02T23:16:00.000-07:00

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.

...

2007-06-20T22:12:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-02-15T01:42:00.000-08:00

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."

I've been tagged

2006-10-24T13:31:00.000-07:00

I was tagged by Ike Graul a long time ago- sorry I've been slow on the uptake.
*Note: Most questions were in the singular, but I'm not an either/or kinda guy so I changed the questions to the plural to reflect my both/and-edness(!?)

Books that changed my life besides the Bible:
Tom Peter's The Circle of Innovation, Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad, Poor Dad, and Rudolph Arnheim's Art and Visual Perception.

Books I’ve read more than once:
Rich Dad's Cashflow Quadrant, the Harry Potter series (read twice with wife, currently on round three with my kids), Norman Mailer's Picasso

A book I would take with me if I were stuck on a desert island:
SAS Survival Handbook: How to Survive in the Wild, in Any Climate, on Land or at Sea
(Ok- I copied that answer from Ike, seemed like a wise choice)

Books that made me laugh:
Any and all Calvin and Hobbes books

A book that I wish had been written:
Upcoming Winning Lottery Numbers

Books that I wish had never been written:
trashy romance novels

Books I’ve been meaning to read:
Dietrich Bonhoeffer The Cost of Discipleship
Richard Foster Prayer
F.F. Bruce Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free
(I think I've started each of these at least once, some twice, but haven't made it through them yet.)

I’m currently reading:
(See reading list on the left.)

Crosswalk

2006-06-14T06:54:00.000-07:00

I always laugh at people who stand on the street corner, constantly mashing the little button to signal the crosswalk sign to allow them to continue their course. They push it faster and harder, trying against hope that it will 'hear' them sooner and change on account of their persistence. Don't they understand that it is timed with the traffic? That they must wait until they are flowing with the traffic and not across the traffic? The timings, are to some extent, preset. Yes, there is an element of cause and effect. Pushing the button signals the presence of traffic, just as cars trigger the weight sensitive plates in the middle of the road. But even if nobody pushed the buttons, eventually the light would change on its own. The path is already open to them, if they could only see the larger picture.

Then I think about God's timing. The Way is already established. It is open to us. Our 'pushing the button,' accepting the call, in essence, is a signal that we are there, that we are ready. But God's timing isn't our own. We mash and push the button, demanding that the light change for us. But we fail to see the larger picture. We fail to see the wisdom of God's timing, not to allow us to be broadsided. The Way is there, and we will journey along our path, in His time.

Yet, there is a response. Push the button and the traffic sensors now know there is other traffic, and in due course the lights will change. And they will change, albeit sometimes seemingly imperceptibly, faster than if the button were not pushed. Hence, 2 Peter 3:12 where we "look forward to the day of God and speed its coming."

In Theory

2006-06-13T11:33:00.000-07:00

I love ideas. I love to talk about, follow where they meander through the intellectual landscape, and I love seeing how everything fits together (because everything fits nicely in theory-world). However, I've recently been uneasy about dwelling on the theoretical as I become more and more aware that the practical concerns of everyday existence, and the experiential aspects of Christianity, in particular, are so often divorced from theory. Being 'purely academic' was becoming distasteful. And this change sounded good- in theory. But I've realized it's become a problem for me- I'm hardwired to be more theoretical. I draw a sense of life and a certain energy from mental pursuits. And, on the flip side, I've become more aware of my inadequacies in the practical, real world where you are supposed to get a job and earn money. I don't play that game very well, partially because it zaps me. There is nothing there to feed my spirit.
So I've been feeling a little down lately. But I think I'm on the beginning of an upswing thanks to a couple of books borrowed from my good friend Ike, The Divine Conspiracy and The Signature of Jesus. The latter does emphasize the experiential, which I still feel is crucial, but The Divine Conspiracy reveals that our actions stem from our thoughts. In essence, the practical stems from the theoretical. Everything that has ever been accomplished was born of an idea, relates Napolean Hill Theory may be divorced from the realm of the practical but only in the terms of time- it precedes the everyday, sometimes by a few months, sometimes a lifetime, sometimes even centuries may pass before an idea translates into life changing activity.
Ironically, now that I look back, the times when my practical life and behavior were most aligned with my spiritual values, was when I spent a lot of time in my head. Making connections, articulating new discoveries, developing awareness and understanding. It was only after I strayed away from these activities and concentrated on how I should be and behave, that my actions began to go to pot.
So I'm coming to grips with my God given talents and abilities- though they seem to have little to no application to life and they don't produce an income- and to not be ashamed. My ideas may have a vital role to play in the actions of myself and others. At least, it sounds good in theory.

Disappear

2006-06-12T14:46:00.000-07:00

I attended the Rose Festival in Portland last night and heard a performance by a Christian artist named Mark Harris and he sang a song that had a chorus line talking about when we get to Heaven, there we will disappear. And something struck me.

I once had a nightmare that is the closest thing to a vision I've ever encountered. Visually there wasn't much to 'see' like you would with ordinary dreams, but there was a feeling, a sensation. I felt like I wasn't just going to die, but that my entire existence would be eradicated- there would be no me past, present, or future. There would be no record or memory of me having ever existed. (There is a minor controversy in the church regarding what happens to those going to hell. Do they live in eternal suffering and torment? Or do they experience a 'second death' and get completely obliterated? I now side with the latter due to 'personal experience.')

I've always been afraid of dying young. I guess in my vaulted self-image I felt I had too much to contribute and it would just be really sad if I expired before I could make a valuable contribution to this earth. But I've always been afraid of losing...me.

Yoda once said to Anakin Skywalker, "You must train yourself to let go of that which you fear to lose." I like the concept of training oneself- I think that is a key concept that we miss out on in our daily lives. A concept I, admittedly, am very poor at, but at least I'm thinking about it with the conviction that those thoughts will translate into action someday. But I suddenly saw a new application for this statement. I had thought about losing a loved one, or having to give up my art, my passion. But what about myself? I'm afraid of losing myself. And though it might not be generally wise to follow the advice of a computer animated green 'person,' I think there is some truth to what he said.

Jesus said whoever saves his own life will lose it, and whoever loses his life, for Christ's sake, will find it. Ironically, the thing that I fear the most, losing my life, is the very thing I must do. Either way, truthfully, I'm going to lose my life. The choice is whether I'm going to have it obliterated, or if I'm going to choose to give my life up, and contribute to the praise and glory of the One who gave it to me in the first place.

What Christ means to me

2006-05-04T08:11:00.000-07:00

What Christ means to me.

So I'm 'Sub-ing' for Columbia Christian School and I was asked to give a personal testimony of 'What Christ means to me" to a freshman class looking at the Life of Christ. I thought I would use it as my re-entry into bloglife. Thank you, I'm honored to be back.

I think this came at a good time (providence?) as I feel my relationship to Christ, or perhaps, more accurately, my understanding of Christ is in transition, and so this gives me opportunity to evaluate where I am and where I feel called to go. I am currently fascinated by Paul's words that "to live is Christ." That is what I'm currently trying to figure out- what does it mean that my living is Christ? To discover this, I am trying (also according to Paul's verbage) to "know nothing except Christ and Him crucified" and/or "to know Christ and the power of His resurrection." More on this later.
I've recently read a statement that goes to the tune "it's not what happens to you that is important, but the meaning you ascribe what happens to you is important." The crux of the matter is our interpretation of events. So here are some of the events of my life and my interpretation.
I, first and foremost, feel I am called to be an artist. It was like scales falling from my eyes when I saw, completed, one of my first semi-abstract paintings in my first painting class as an art major at Pepperdine University. Art was chosen as a major more because I had always drawn well my entire life and I didn't know what else to do. But that moment, that came halfway through my Junior year, confirmed my decision- I was going to be an artist for the rest of my life. My initial thought, perhaps also prompted with a lifelong desire to teach, was to become an art teacher and that would give me a steady income to provide my livelihood and give me time (especially during summers) to do my art and become a fabulously famous art star. So I pursued my studies and received my MFA (Master of Fine Arts) so that I could teach at the college level. Graduation day came but there were no teaching jobs on the horizon, and I had already started a family that now, for some reason, needed me to provide for their food, clothing, and shelter. Go figure. So we jump ship to Kentucky to live with my wife's parents (free shelter and sometimes food) so the financial burden was lighter. A job as a customer service rep for a company that sponsored business leadership seminars provided, somewhat meagerly, for other necessities of life (school loan payments not being one of those necessities- a life of financial hardship had begun). Oddly enough, I was introduced to the ideas of quantum physics while in Kentucky. Many of the leadership material drew lessons from implications of a new understanding of the world afforded by quantum mechanics. Again, more on this later.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. My wife's parents became missionaries in Croatia and decided to sell the house. Goodbye free rent. But- that same week I received a call from Pepperdine asking me if I wanted to teach on a temporary contract. Cool- my teaching career will begin; I'll get some teaching experience, I'll be back in the LA area and can get connected to the art scene; this temporary position will lead to other teaching positions and initial success in the art world- all is coming together.
What started as the hope of three years of teaching ended with only one year (budget constriants, not enough art students to support another faculty member) and things went into emergency mode. (By the way, there are now two children wanting to be fed! Economics- demand increases but the supply was decreasing.) Through some initial contacts throughout the years, I was able to begin teaching, albeit part time, at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, TX. Cross country move #3 in 4 years of marriage- not recommended, by the way.
Abilene was both an incredible blessing and an incredibly difficult period at the same time. (Interesting side note- quantum physics is still rolling through my head and one of the basic starting points was the discovered fact that light is both a particle and a wave. This duality is now played out in my life- blessing and hardship are two sides of the same coin.) I taught, and learned much about art- still believed to be my calling. But the art market in Abilene is a far cry from the environment to accept my 'difficult' work (as my wife describes it, mine is the work that people question, "Oh, so that's art?") Teaching part time is the interesting combination of working full time but being paid less than minimum wage, if calculated over the entire year. So the financial struggles continued, in fact worsened, as two more children are thrown into the mix. Having failed to secure, twice, a full time teaching position at ACU (for 'political' reasons) I was at my wits end. The teaching thing wasn't working which meant that nothing else was working out either.
In the background, though, was a plan unfolding. Rewind to my wife's childhood, before we even met. She spent the better part of her growing up in the Pacific Northwest- Vancouver, WA and Portland, OR. Through her connections there she met some people that eventually started an inner city church called PUMP. Melinda has always felt a calling to inner city missions and particularly felt compelled to help pregnant teens. In a moment where I was questioning whether to pursue teaching or try a career change she came to me and said, "Instead of pursuing your career, why don't we move to Portland and we start a non-profit working with PUMP to help pregnant teens?" I agreed instantly.
Financially we're not in the clear. We are beginning to fundraise and I'm looking for employment (after a failed attempt at selling mortgages) to pay the bills until we're on our feet with this and/or other endeavors (the art career is beginning without the aid of teaching). So I can swap tales of woe with some of the best of them. But I'm back to 'it's not what happens but the meanings that you attribute to them.' Again, I feel called to be an artist. That means I need to understand my art, or at least have a notion of what it is about and where I'm trying to go. Every place I've been has fed into that. Quantum physics has given me a set of reference points to approach the reasons why things happen. Those cause-effect relationships are what my art is about. And I wouldn't have known that without Kentucky, and the years teaching at Pepperdine and ACU. Abilene was hard but was a blessing, medically (won't go into the details here) for some of our children.
So what does it mean to "live is Christ?" Don't know. But I think maybe part of it is that it is not about me and how (financially) comfortable I am. But it's about what Christ is trying to teach me. It is about the preparations for the life to which He has called me. There is a power in Christ, signified by His death and especially His resurrection, that I feel is beginning to unfold for me. I don't feel as focused and compelled as Paul in his quest for understanding, but I feel I'm getting there. It has certainly helped going over my recent history. Because I know there is a God- I don't believe I would be having these thoughts were He not alive and guiding my thoughts. The fact that I am learning from these events, that I feel there is something to learn and am searching for it, means that He is in me. His power is in me. It's been guiding me all along, whether I saw it or not. His plan for me has been unfolding. Instead of a life of failure, which I can construe the events to be, it has been a life of preparation. I haven't missed the boat, I just haven't reached it yet. Christ means there is something more for me. And there is something more for you.

Cross-Pollination

2006-01-19T14:14:00.000-08:00

I'm an avid reader who usually has about 5 or 6 books going at the same time. Here's what I'm reading now: "Think and Grow Rich" by Napolean Hill, "See You at the Top" by Zig Ziglar, a biography on Jackson Pollock by Naifeh and Smith, "The Heart of Commitment" by Scott Stanley. I also read to my wife each night before bed, which currently we are re-reading the Harry Potter series so we're on book 5, the Order of the Phoenix. Plus I'm occasionally dipping into Dr. Phil's "Ultimate Weight Loss Solution," and "How to Have Power and Confidence in Dealing with People" by Les Giblin. The books themselves help me stretch and grow but the process is intensified when the ideas of one book correlate with those in another. So allow me to give you an example of what I call a 'cross-pollination' of ideas I've gotten from some of these books.

I've been struck by a concept of protecting yourself and your commitment. Consider this statement by Napolean Hill in "Think and Grow Rich:" 'The conscious faculty serves, therefore, as an outerguard to the approach of the subconcious.' An 'outerguard'- protective language. It coincides precisely with Scott Stanley's observations on commitment in marriage, taken from Malachi 2:15- '... So guard yourself in your spirit...' He explains that the word 'guard' in Hebrew literally means to set a hedge of protection around something." That in turn reminded me of how Dr. Phil related it to weight loss. He talked about structuring your life to fit the commitment. We all have willpower, but we also have a willpower that isn't so powerful at times. If we rely solely upon our willpower, we will fail miserably when our willpower isn't strong enough on a particular day. However, if we structure our lives in a way that our commitment is protected, then we ensure our success even in times when we feel weak.
This kind of excites me. You see, I'm a man. And I've learned that men are lazy- to a point. You see, we will work our butts off in order to be lazy. You know? We will put far more effort into finding a way to get something done on autopilot, than the amount of energy it takes to actually do the thing we're trying to do in the first place. So this whole idea of protecting your commitment seems to me to put effort into aspects that will then kind of put you on autopilot. Then you sit back and enjoy the benefits of your successful career, marriage, weight loss program, etc., etc., so on and so forth. Cool.

Sounds like my plans need to include plans for defense, as well as offense; for protection, was well as action.

The problem, I'm discovering are those little voices that claim (1) I deserve to have such and such (or do such and such)- even if it runs counter to what I ultimately want, and (2) that I shouldn't have to live up to my plans and goals, however good and noble, because I am free to do whatever I want. The curse of freedom: coming soon to a blog near you.

Plans vs. Goals

2006-01-05T20:20:00.000-08:00

So I was talking not too long ago with someone in my company (I'm a loan officer for a mortgage company) who is more established and thus more successful (proven by the paycheck he showed me that had just arrived, one with significantly more numbers on it than I'm used to seeing on a paycheck) and I inquired about the topic of goal setting. His reply kind of shocked me. "I don't believe in goals. They don't do anything for me. I don't make goals. I make plans." Internally I had a huge smile because he just articulated something that inherently I somehow knew to be true but could never put my finger on. Granted, he did say that you have to make your plans according to what you want to achieve. And though he did not say the word, it was obvious to me that 'what you want' is....well,... a goal. But the point is that the goal is not the end-all-be-all. Where the real rubber meets the road is in the plans you make. I've made several goals in my life, few that have been accomplished. Because I merely thought of the goal and thought that was it and the rest would take care of itself. Nope.

A goal is only useful to the extent that it is translated into a plan of action. Sometimes, though, that plan is not readily apparent or not worked out in detail right away. The trick is continually developing the goal into a plan. Sometimes, I find, it takes more effort than I thought to sustain the vision of the goal in my mind. I'm not used to holding an idea for that long. If an idea has stayed around, it is because I have been able to put it to use and reuse- like when I was teaching a class and the thought was reiterated in a couple of lectures. So for me, I'm learning that knowing what I want, what my goal is, can only be achieved by making a plan... a plan to sustain the vision of my goal until my plan to achieve that goal is in place. The plan I've adopted is simply reading the goal, and statements that paint a picture of me achieving that goal, everyday. Ideally I read it about 4 times a day, but that doesn't always happen. So simple, but I can already begin to sense the fruits of this very easy task.

The cool thing that I'm finding is that things come about when you work towards it, but not necassarily as a direct result of your efforts. I find it best stated in a quote from a book called "Seeing is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees" about an artist named Robert Irwin: "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 ther is something else, beyond that, which is gratis, for free."

Plans. Plans to succeed. Plans for spending your money (a more preferable way of saying 'budget'). A plan for learning something new. A plan for salvation. A plan for actively loving your mate. Goals are but dreams. The plan is the key.

On Blogging and Knowing

2005-12-22T21:45:00.000-08:00

So I've decided to try this blogging thing. There was a time when I could be quite wordy in print, however, now that the prospect of blogging is upon me I find myself quite unaware of what to write about. Though it is not necessary, perhaps, to enforce any agenda on myself and my writing, by beginning this I willingly put one upon myself. You see, I wanted to begin blogging as a way of improving myself. By writing or typing these things, they become more real, no longer brief flashes of electrical current in my mind, but something that is now out in the world; something that bears witness to me and my actions; something I must reckon with. In my pursuit to improve upon myself, then, I am structuring into my experience a sense of accountability; something that I think we all need.

This is also an attempt to know more deeply. Many of the ideas I present here are but origins that I hope to develop into mature thoughts through the very process of making them known- to others and to myself. As I reflect, then, on some of the new things I have learned in the last couple of months even (which is plenty as I'll go into more detail in a future blog) I am amazed at the concept of knowing. It seems there are different levels to knowing. I recently read in one of Robert Kiyosaki's "Rick Dad, Poor Dad" books (he has several, I think I read this in book 2 or 3) that learning something new is really just a matter of expanding your vocabulary. I was struck by how profound this was, because I saw the truth in it. However, it was only a partial truth. Indeed, much of learning something new is learning how it is called, and what that word means. This alone can open up vast new worlds and areas of exploration. However, to truly know requires a depth that goes beyond just the mere understanding of a few words. But rather you begin to see the new concept in all of its fullness. You can imagine it, like a circular globe in space. And you begin to see it in multiple dimensions, how it is interconnected with other concepts you hold. You can visualize the warp and the weave of the fibers that bind it to new experiences and past experiences that you have had. And you begin to see options; no longer does it have a singular meaning, but carries a multiplicity of nuances that vary according to the time and the exact context.

Well, I'll dispense with the theoretical rhetoric for now and just let it serve as my introduction. In the days and months to come I hope to go into more detail on the things I am learning, how they are interconnected with each other and how sometimes a single idea can run its singular course through seemingly diverse subjects like God, marriage, sales, real estate, art, and physics. All subjects I spend time with. All areas in which my life currently has stakes in. Welcome to my brain.