hey facebookers!

If you're on facebook, our band the OaKs is now add-able (is that even a word?) through the iLike application. I actually resisted adding this application many months ago, because it made my profile look too cluttered.

However, since then, I've added iRead, Movies, Mafia, Scrabulous, Pet Dragons, Harry Potter Sorting Hat, Pirates, Ninjas, Pirates vs. Ninjas, Pirates and their Mothers versus Ninjas and their Second Cousins twice removed, etc.... and totally neglected to re-add iLike, therefore perpetuating this never ending stew of mind-numbingly pointless yet somehow strangely diverting world known as facebook.

So, come add us to your profile!;)

src="http://www.ilike.com/images/ilike_this_artist.gif" alt="iLike The Oaks"/>

Bad Drivers in America

According to a recent CNN article, 36 million American drivers would flunk a driver's test. Idaho had the highest number of knowledgeable drivers, and New York was at the bottom of the barrel (big surprise)... along with Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C.

You can take a driver's test and see how well you would do!:

http://www.gmacinsurance.com/safedriving/

Sadly, I scored right about average at 75%...

However, I am not putting too much stock on the national statistics, because strangely enough, the most populous areas in America scored the lowest. I have to believe the numbers are slightly skewed, because the urban areas, home to Chicago, Pittsburgh, NYC, Boston, the northern Jersey area, etc. scored low, while the least densely populated states in America (Idaho, Alaska, South Dakota) scored relatively high. The numbers probably had more to do with the statistic sampling in proportion to the overall population, rather than actual driving ability. Still, I still think the numbers are on target for drivers in America.

On the road, these are common blunders I see:

Failure to signal before making a turn
Failure to merge properly into traffic on the freeway
Failure to pull to the side of the road when an emergency vehicle is attempting to pass
Road Rage: Unnecessarily honking, tailgating, flashing high beams

Any others?

NYC photo

In celebration of finally finishing the OaKs second album, I am posting these pics.

Tim, I hope you don’t mind I’m stealing this photo from your flickr.

I am just posting this because I felt silly for not taking any pictures while in NYC. Forgive me, for those photophiliacs out there.

Anyway this is a photo of Greg, Matt Ryan and me outside of

Fontana’s in the Lower East Side, shortly before we went tramping around Manhattan to find the Fanatic Promotion office.

And yes, I am glowing for some odd reason.

This is one of the promo shots taken by Stephen Taylor. We basically covered the walls and ceiling of Ryan and Denise's ex-dining room into this master piece. While taking this picture, Stephen told us to look at our favorite artist up there. You can't see in the picture, but trust me when I say I am looking at Billie Holiday. Somebody tacked one of her albums to the ceiling.

Anyway I am basically just thrilled I don't look like an Amazon warrior princess. Stephen used a wide angle camera lens on several of the pictures and I just happen to be at the end of each of those pictures. Consequently, I look like a monstrous lady with her tiny band of Ozian munchkins. I actually voted to rename the band Big Lady and the Munchkin Band.

Or we can just keep "the OaKs", with a capital K.

:/

killing God?

Okay, so now that the film The Golden Compass is coming out, many film critics, conservative Christians and Pullman book fans are in a tizzy because of what the film—in their opinion—has failed or succeeded in doing.

Thankfully, The Golden Compass film has eliminated any anti-church, anti-God sentiments and instead portrays the conflict as being merely anti-power-hungry-religion organizations. I can deal with that. I am actually hoping the films do a great job of telling the story of Lyra and Will without all of that atheistic crap that was in the book.

That said, this film is probably doomed to fail, mostly because although it will be fairly innocuous on the big screen (pleasing conservative Christians, while angering devout atheists and Pullman fans), the film will undoubtedly spark interest in the book (angering conservative Christians and pleasing devout atheists and Pullman fans).

And all of this would undoubtedly perturb Michael Scott, and his preference for win/win/win scenarios, sans compromise;)

Ultimately, I predict the film version will probably only satisfy two camps of people: 1) people like me, who appreciated the compelling storyline, prose and characters in the books, but found the atheistic element forced and contrived and will be glad to see it go … and 2) people who know nothing about the book and just came into watch the film because the trailer looked interesting.

The element I find most fascinating in the critique of the books is that this idea of “killing God.” I think many people are hearing the idea of a young girl “killing God” and associating it with the film, and immediately label it as unsuitable, heretical, dangerous, etc.

I am more interested in Pullman’s assumption that one could actually kill God. What does that exactly mean?

To take offense at Lyra supposedly “killing God,” one would first have to examine the book and see how God is portrayed in the novels. Is it the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH, Creator, all-powerful, all-loving God that we see in Scripture and in history? Or is it a false God that is merely after power, with no love or regard for humanity?

Having read the entire trilogy, I can say with a definite assurance that the Judeo-Christian, all-loving, all-powerful God is NOT the God portrayed in Pullman’s book. The God in Pullman’s book is manipulative, fickle, destructive, insidious, powerful but not all-powerful. He may be a god, but he is not God.

My God cannot be killed. And if He were anything less than what He is, He would not be God. If He were mortal, He would not be God.

So tar and feather me if you may, but I have no problem with Lyra killing this “God” who in fact is not God at all, but merely a god. The god Lyra destroys is finite, non-eternal and non-loving. The “God” in Pullman’s books has a beginning and an end. There’s this passage where this “God” (or Authority as he is named in the novel), is admittedly described as not being the creator, only that he assumed credit for doing so and deceived others that followed into believing he was the original creator.

I honestly think Pullman unseats himself in his atheistic worldview, because while his storytelling is magnificent, his point is laughable. He has not achieved anything remotely Nietzsche-esque in his quest to kill God, he has only killed a character, and not a likeable one at that.

The God I know and worship and serve and believe in looks nothing like this “God” portrayed in Pullman’s books. So if he wants to kill this entity in his alternate universe that bears no semblance to reality or truth, then how can I fault him for killing a mere character? It’s his literary universe, he is entitled to develop characters and storylines as he wishes.

That said, there is a dangerous element to his novels, mainly because the books have been widely read and accepted by children. As a liberal arts major with a penchant for literary critique and analysis, I have the luxury of sitting back and blithely enjoying the trilogy (even if the books’ moral and metaphysical conclusion is a bit self-indulgent and contrived) because I can filter. However, if kids are going to be reading these books, I can see kids mistaking “God” for God, and swallowing Pullman’s worldview whole. And this is where parental caution and concern needs to intervene.

And as far as the “anti-church” sentiment plays through the novels, I believe that the true Church—the remnant—has never been about gaining power and ruining people’s lives through ambition and greed. Historically, that undoubtedly has occurred (Spanish Inquistion, the pre-Reformation Catholic Church with indulgences and simony, the Crusades, etc.) but such an abuse of power is a corruption of the true nature of the Church. Or what my friend David calls the drawing the line between the true Church and the “apparent church.”

This is where I believe Pullman’s anti-Christianity diatribe is contrived and a little—for lack of a better word—silly. He attempts to point at Christianity and say “look, look at them and all of the terrible things Christians have done to gain power over people’s lives, to oppress, and to withhold truth”, all in an attempt to make God and the church seem like the enemy. The ironic thing is that the God of the Bible stands opposed to oppression, and defends the poor and the needy, and even suffered to the point of death on behalf of humanity to ensure that we enjoyed an eternal life with Himself. To me, the passion and the cross speaks volumes about how far God is willing to go to prove His love to humanity.

The funny thing about the book is that despite heavy references to Adam and Eve and the Garden and Eden, Pullman virtually eradicates any mention of Christ. And you know why? If you’re going to espouse any atheistic argument, you almost have to leave Christ out of it. Because in Christ, so much of the atheistic argument is laid to waste… One of the biggest and most famous arguments against the existence of God is the problem of evil. This argument against Christianity typically goes as follows: that the all-powerful, all-loving God of the Bible can’t exist because either A) he may be all-powerful but he’s not all-loving, because what loving God would allow evil in the world? or B) He may be all-loving but he’s not all-powerful because he is unable to stop suffering and evil, as much as he might want to. This is a valid, formidable argument that must be wrestled with.

But to me, Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross—while it may not conclusively prove the existence of God—it proves at least the converse side of the argument. In other words, the cross proves that merely citing evil and suffering in this world is not a sufficient argument for proving that God does not exist. And more than that, Christ himself entered into our suffering. You can rail against God all you want, but in Christ, He offers us the ultimate picture of sacrificial love as an offensive strike against suffering and evil, and He’s proven His suffiency in doing so.

No other religion claims that God has suffered on behalf of humanity. None. That is one of the most compelling distinctions about the Christian faith from all other religions…You have to deal with the truth of the cross and the mystery of Christ. Period.

If anything, I think Pullman’s books constitute an important dialogue between conservative Christian and atheistic circles. Both groups have at least some misunderstandings about the other camp, and I think it’s important to address these issues. I would be annoyed to see Christians hear the words “a little girl kills God” and run away or blindingly decry the book, without ever having even tried to understand what’s really going on at a deeper level with our Western culture and intellectual ideas being spun around. I am also annoyed that many atheistic Pullman fans would automatically assume that the book is saying what they think it’s saying and that Christians ought to be automatically against the series, period.

I think this trilogy ultimately represents in our culture today two worldviews at work and what can truly happen when they’re rubbed up against one another.

Christians and politics

So I had an interesting (and somewhat heated) conversation with a couple of co-workers today about Christians in politics.

Remember that rule of etiquette someone somewhere in the distant past of our childhood told us are the taboo topics for polite conversation? Yes, religion and politics.

Oh yes.

Anyway, one friend put forth the argument that the “Church should be the Church” and that Christ rejected all forms of political power and political expectations, and therefore shouldn’t we as followers of Christ remove ourselves from the political arena? He said that the Great Commission and the call to serve is not fulfilled in ballots or legislation, but in serving one another and being the Church. He also posed the question “Is it possible for a Christian to remain in political office without compromising Christian values or faith?” He seemed to answer “No,” in so many words.

I am still wrestling with this, but think I generally agree with his statements, but not his rhetorical framework, and surely not his final conclusion.

I do agree that Christ did reject political power. It was not his intention to assume an earthly kingship, by any means. I do believe however, that it was His intention—through humility, love and sacrifice—to establish a greater kingdom (“All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me…”) By dying on the cross he (among many other greater things) also overturned popular cultural ideas concerning power. His example as a Servant King surely teaches us to serve one another, and not for any kind of political ambition or gain.

My friend also said “serving one another” and “being the Church” is what we are called to. Also, I agree. But I think I differ with him in that I think it is possible to be part of the Church and step into the political arena.

The best example I can think of off the top of my head is William Wilberforce. I know I’ve blogged about the man before, but his biography was probably one of the most fascinating books I read in the past year. All this man wanted to do was retreat into his garden and reflect on God and his creation within the safe realm of a humble botanist. Circumstances, conversations with certain friends and ultimately the call of God led him to be a part of British politics. As many of you know either from history or from the film Amazing Grace, his battle for votes and legislation eventually led—albeit circuitously—to the abolition of slavery, a universally agreed social evil. And Wilberforce pursued abolition, fueled by a personal conviction which was unequivocally grounded in Scripture. Wilberforce deeply believed in the intrinsic value of people created in the image of God, the dignity that comes with that, and the call to love people. For Wilberforce in his place and time and circumstance, “loving people” meant doing something about the millions of people around the world who suffer physical slavery. For Wilberforce, the kingdom values of freedom from oppression and defense of the poor and needy were translated into action, mostly in a political arena.

I’ve found that many Christians don’t fully understand the issues regarding politics. It is boiled down to morality voting (vote no for abortion, no to same-sex marriage) and that’s pretty much as far as most average American Christians take their voting. And because this simplistic view prevails, many Christians simply retreat from engaging thoughtfully with these issues, never considering that there might actually be an appropriate, biblically-based, strategic response to issues like poverty, war, environmental problems, not even counting stem-cell research, abortion and same-sex marriage, the issues that a majority of American Christians seem more comfortable debating and voting on, whether or not they are well-informed.

I’m not proposing a “social gospel” that focuses on “doing.” I’m talking about how kingdom values translate holistically into how we participate in culture and engage with the people around us. Christians talk all the time about “being in not of the world” but very few actually make this a holistic lifestyle. The Church—when genuine and true—has historically been radically opposed to assumed cultural values, by being an alternative community that promotes God’s kingdom and embodies Christ’s love and example through love and service.

I find it hard to believe that God means for us to retreat from the political arena, simply for fear that we might compromise our values in the dog-eat-dog atmosphere of modern politics. Does the common person struggle less with temptations of power? True, power can heal and restore as easily as it can corrupt. But to me, that is simply not a sufficient argument for overall Christian withdrawal from politics. If anything, it’s a statement of how much more followers of Christ should at least thoughtfully engage these issues and participate when necessary. Ideas will continue to shape the destiny of this world…

I really enjoyed the conversation. Since graduating, I feel like my brain muscles have severely atrophied. So this was a good exercise for my deteriorating brain.

Any thoughts on this issue? I don’t claim to have a well-defined stance on any of this, but it certainly is a heated topic!

this is me being picky

I need to apologize because I did not take any pictures when I was in NYC this past week. Shame on me. It simply never occurred to me to take my camera out of the camera bag.

Our show @ CMJ in NYC went extremely well, following a GREAT show at the Social in Orlando, FL. The venue—Fontana’s—isn’t exactly in the most attractive part of town—unceremoniously sandwiched between Chinatown and the Lower East Side. However, the venue itself was pretty cool, and surprisingly busy for a Tuesday night.

Because I’m me, I need to give my theatre review;) I apologize in advance if this seems overly-critical, but I take my theatre seriously!:D

I decided to go see RENT on Monday night. I went to the red Tkts office in South Street Seaport to see if there were any 50% off tickets available. By the time I got to the office, the only tickets available were for RENT or Chicago. I really wanted to see Lea Salonga perform in Les Miserables, but unfortunately that show is dark on Mondays, the only possible day I could have seen a show.

The leads of this RENT cast (for the roles of Mark, Roger and Mimi) definitely weren’t as strong as the previous show I had seen last summer, when Matt Caplan, Tim Howar and Antonique Smith filled those roles. The other actors (for the roles of Collins, Joanne and Angel) however were phenomenal. They each brought humor and likeability to the roles that I hadn’t seen before. Unfortunately, I felt pretty neutral about Maureen—typically my favorite character! Her voice was kind of annoying, as opposed to Maggie Benjamin and Haven Burton, the only other Maureen’s I’ve seen live. Her performance of Over the Moon was probably the most unique I’ve ever seen though, so I have to give her kudos for that.

I realized the difference—the last time I saw RENT in NYC, it was Matt Caplan’s last night playing Mark. So the crowd was full of Matt Caplan fans, and there was an electricity in the air the moment Roger (played by Tim Howar) stepped foot onstage to tune that famous guitar, and Matt injected some extra energy and “last hurrah” into his performance. His humor and weird, screwball energy and intelligence just brought so much to the role. I don’t think I ever truly appreciated the role of Mark until I saw Matt Caplan play him. (side note, if you pay attention, Matt Caplan is one of Jude and Max’s buddies in the “With a Little Help From My Friends” sequence in Across the Universe)

I couldn’t help but compare this Mimi actress to Antonique Smith, my favorite Mimi to date. Antonique’s vocals blew me away, especially in Another Day and Goodbye Love. Her voice was raw, emotional and expressive. Her interpretive ability and emotional range is incredible. I saw Antonique perform once and I still remember how amazing her voice is. The Mimi actress I saw this past week sounded too trained and she didn’t seem to portray the vulnerability of Mimi. Even her Out Tonight dance kind of bothered me. I always saw Mimi as being sweet and sexy with a hint of a fun and wild side, without being dirty, and this actress seemed to skip sweet and move right on to dirty which I didn’t necessarily appreciate. This is why I appreciated Rosario Dawson’s interpretation of Mimi in the film version: even though her vocals weren’t the most versatile, her ability of as an actress brought a certain sweetness and vulnerability to the role.

This Roger’s voice was actually great, just as good as Tim Howar, just minus the intensity. I remember I wasn’t crazy about Tim’s interpretation of Roger’s character, just because Tim plays Roger with a lot of anger and a lot of emotional walls. I just really loved Tim because his vocals are incredible and he did some creative, surprising things with his voice, in a role where I’ve gotten used to Adam Pascal’s vocals because of the soundtrack. This past Roger (Declan--I forgot his last name) made him more of a brooding, tortured soul, which is how I always pictured Roger to be.

I noticed that—especially with Mark and Roger—the humor overall did not play well with the crowd. I will allow that I noticed that this audience had a lot of older audience members, and not so many crazy RENThead fans like the last time I watched the show. So that probably made a difference in the energy of the crowd. With a tough crowd to respond to and with, I’m sure it probably made it harder on the actors. I’m pretty sure this cast lineup is new, so maybe the chemistry and energy will develop more as they learn to gel more, but I am just glad that I paid half-price for these tickets.

If only I’d gotten to see Lea Salonga perform in Les Miz…L

Okay, okay now I am just being whiny;)

news media differences

I don't have a ton of time to blog at the moment so I apologize. But I was reading Al-Jazeera's website about Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has become a household name in the U.S. ever since his infamous speech at Columbia University.

However, I initially found out about the incident after I read about it in this article while sitting in the lounge of Washington-Dulles Airport, waiting to board the airplane in the Washington Post.

Same event, two completely different perceptions.

Just makes you realize how distorted the media is, and how riddled everything is with agenda.

Recently, I've taken to reading BBC and Al Jazeera and balancing it out with CNN and occasionally Fox News...(Oddly enough, my preference for CNN over Fox News has nothing to do with my political leanings, only my preference for web design and aesthetic.) Also, I feel like an old person now, because I am now a regular NPR listener.

Or I was, before my commute got so short;)

I remember I got steaming mad at CNN a few weeks ago when it failed to provide a timely report of a bombing at a busy market square in Iraq that killed more than 200 people. The BBC of course immediately posted the event as a top story... I was reading it by 8a.m. that morning. CNN didn't get around to posting the story until mid-afternoon! Some silly entertainment news about Britney Spears had pre-empted it. By the time CNN did post it, it was as a tiny article in the Middle East section. You wouldn't know it was there unless you regularly checked Middle East News.

Granted, Britain is 6 hours ahead of the U.S., but CNN never sleeps. It's their job to provide the most up-to-date news.

At the very least, the different perspectives on these various news sources are very revealing of various cultures and their priorities.

Anyway, if you have time, take a look at the articles. The differences are quite telling.