[S]instinct, Part IV: Lust

Continuing my series on the evolutionary morality of the 7 Deadly Sins. 4/7 of the way there… perhaps by 2011 we’ll be finished.

Popularly termed “every man’s battle,” lust is probably the most oft confessed sin by men everywhere. It’s common. It’s hardwired into men as a gender. The desire for sex is biological, the reward both psychological and neurochemical. Beyond this, it is the drive of all genetically reproducing organisms to “sow their seed” as one might say. Why is it wrong? Why deny such a basic instinct? I believe it is the first instance where what is deemed beneficial to the species (greater population) is deemed immoral and wrong for the individual.

"Birth of Venus" the Roman goddess of love, beauty, and sexuality

What we understand as lust is very different from the world our ancestors grew up in. With prostitution being termed the “oldest trade”, men (or women) could satisfy their sexual desires. Later developments were sexual displays and theater. However, even these do not compare to the world in which we define lust today. Multiple factors exponentially increase the opportunity for lust. The internet is by far the greatest revolution in distribution. The ability for anyone to produce and distribute photography, print media, and video recordings as meta-products (those which go beyond the tangible product by not necessitating physical hard copies for consumption) greatly expands the sheer volume of published material. Beyond simply a lust of the eyes, advancements in contraception has made it simpler to indulge in the lust of the flesh with less probability of impregnation and, thus, less chance of financial and relational liability to actions. With all of these advancements, it is no wonder that one sees such a rampant industry and why men find it such a difficult “battle” to fight. (That is, if their moral conviction leads them to avoiding lustful indulgence.)

Why, if it’s so wrong, is it so natural? Evolutionary psychology bases itself upon the principle that the neuroanatomy of an organism is what dictates its psychology. However, the neuroanatomy of the organism is dictated by the genetics of the organism. These are then held to the same genetic principles of other traits: the ones that help you survive and procreate are, thus, the ones most likely to be passed on and become most populous in a species. If a gene codes for heightened sexual desire in neuroanatomy, it seems likely that this gene will be passed on. It dictates a greater chance for its survival by increasing the likelihood its possessor will have sex. The stronger the encoded desire becomes, the better chance it has of continued survival and spread. So, as you can see, the chances of a gene for sexual desire continuing to spread and mutate toward stronger desire is obvious. Especially in the male of the species who has more seeds to sow. For the female, her gametes (eggs) are limited to a precious few, and if one is successfully impregnated, she is then taken “off the sexual market” due to the incapability of her to become pregnant again for the next 9 months. In this explanation, I hope you might also see how infidelity can become the strong temptation for the male. If the drive tells him to have as many offspring as possible, it seems a more feasible goal if one has as many mates as possible. (Interestingly, women are more forgiving of men for having extra-relational intercourse than men are of women. Another example of evolutionary psychology, in that a male values the loyalty of his partner to spreading his genes as opposed to a woman valuing the care and emotional satisfaction of the relationship.)

None of this is an excuse for infidelity or all-consuming lust by men everywhere. It simply is a reason for why those desires exist. We are not completely controlled by our psychological/biological desires. If you can skip a meal, you can skip some extraneous sex.

So why is it wrong? In many cases, as with gluttony and laziness, it is over-indulgence in the flesh that causes the religious institution to find it wrong. It is against the idea that the actions of the body do not affect the soul, and, strays toward the ascetic approach to maintain purity; that is, that the flesh is evil and indulgence in its desires are, thus, evil. However, does this run deeper? There has been a social impact of all previously addressed sins, is there one here?

In the modern era, one could make an argument that, provided it remains a private indulgence, consuming pornography has no impact on social life whatsoever. The problem with consuming pornography is its degradation of the humanity of those depicted. If it is not right to publicly oggle another human being, is it right to do it privately? One might argue that these women are degrading themselves by posing for the photo initially, and this may be true, but, just because there is a product provided does not mean consumption of it is ethical. Is it right to think racist thoughts regarding another human being as long as you’re cordial in your interaction? Or do we see a problem there? It’s a matter of equality.

We are a functionally monogamous species. The amount of sex that takes place outside monogamous relationships (and the number of monogamous relationships that an individual might have in their lifetime) shows that this is not our natural state. One of our close genetic relatives, the gorilla displays more primitive sexual behaviors. There is a tendency for a patriarchal society in a group of gorillas with one male designated as the leader (typically the “silverback”, denoted by the gray hair covering its back) and the females mating nearly exclusively with him. In a similar manner, in the more primitive societies of human culture, polygamy is a relative norm. Why do more “advanced” civilizations have these monogamous stipulations? My hypothesis is that it relates to equality, respect, and rights. While women have not had the same rights as men for what could be considered a “long time” respective to the existence of “advanced” civilizations, in some sense, I believe this shows some tier of rights that they might have possessed. The idea of female equality is not necessarily new. It is one that has been wrestled with by many civilizations over history. I would submit, if a female is perceived as “less” than you, it is easier to feel justified in your perception of her in a lustful manner. It is not then degradation, it is acknowledgment of truth. Over time, I believe history has progressed toward a generally accepted equality of both genders.

The question still remains, is there social consequence to lust? Obviously, there is an element of social consequence to the action of unwanted public degradation. However, the private action does denote a power element. Rather than work to gain the right for a sexual relationship, one simply finds another outlet for the biological need. In any form, this is not consensual or equal. One party either receives payment for deeds or simply has their image used for sexual stimuli. One might argue that it is better done to an image or a person who gets some sort of recompense for the action, but in the culturally progressive view of equality, respect, and rights it is, rightfully, taboo. This, I believe, is why it is unstated and viewed as a “skeleton in the closet.”

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

The Elimination of Suffering

The other day, a friend asked the time-old question “Why does God allow suffering?” to which multiple people responded with their various opinions on the subject. One individual responded with an argument of contrast. That is, suffering exists to show beauty through contrast. So, if suffering shows beauty, why do we speak of its eternal end with regards to heaven?

My (roughly edited) response was as follows:

The things we cannot, by their definition, conceive of are the very things we are being asked to put words to. If we acknowledge the existence of and attempt to describe such persons and places, it is and must be the loosest of metaphors. For all we know is our experience. All we know is ourselves. The impossible illustration without imperfection or brushstroke is the task at hand.

Is their suffering in heaven? Although it is, by definition, a place where “no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, and no mind can imagine what God has prepared,” then truthfully logic fails to some degree to argue. We are told by scientists that physical laws and constants may theoretically vary from universe to universe, yet we cannot conceive of an existence outside of our context. Any attempt to imagine a world in which these forces are different becomes automatically contextualized by our own for understanding. It is similar with ideas of heaven. We create a world in the looking glass. A world that is the same, yet different and idealized; like a work of fiction gives flesh, tension, and movement to a philosophy.

Please note, I am not suggesting heaven is some alternate universe or post-universe, because the timescale one would have to operate on to suggest such a thing does not account for the probability of extinction for the human race or the billions of years it would take for even our own sun to expand into a red giant and consume the earth (and still the universe would continue). But I am speaking of the incapability of man to conceive of what he has not experienced without shaping it as something he knows. We must anthropomorphize personality and we must shape metaphors to understand a world outside our own.

It does not prove its existence in anyway. A “restoration” or “rebirthing” of existence with the elimination of things like disease ignores the fundamental nature of such things. Disease is not demonic or malevolent. Disease is essentially packets of data doing, like a microscopic, simplified, and unconscious form of “us”, their best to procreate efficiently. What you call disease, is them hijacking you to help them. So is this part of refinement? The elimination of any creation deemed unfit to be of aid to the human being? Or is this rebirthing in essence the capstone of creation in its elimination of continued creation (and procreation)? Is it the sustained final chord in grand culmination of the symphony?

For myself, with my doubts and questions, it has often been a question reduced to what I know in the here and now. It is a question of suffering reduced in the here and now. I can seriously hope for such a final note, but may my uncertainty drive me to take hold of the here and now, both in light of that hope and in respect of the possibility that this will cease and be the only life and experience any man gets, and thus, to responsibly strive that each man’s suffering is lessened.

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

[S]instinct, Part III: Envy and Greed

[It's a little overdue, but, yes, the series continues!]

greed

–noun

excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

en·vy

–noun

a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another’s advantages, success, possessions, etc.

What are envy and greed? These sins surround the subject of resources, consumption, and desire. They are inter-related and tangled together; one man’s greed provokes another man’s envy. In essence, I either desire more goods or I desire your goods.

Dissatisfaction, the root of envy, is the result of our desire for self-preservation and equality. On the sexual playing field, if someone has more or better resources, looks, etc. it is likely they will gain preferential advantage for their survival. If we all desire our own survival, we will naturally desire the things that allow others to survive. There is an invisible game of King-of-the-Hill going on in which all organisms are competitors. Why are we not all consumed by envy? Because we have found enough existential satisfaction in other elements of our survival. We have found companionship, employment, excitement, happiness, etc. Yet, we are still quite prone to dissatisfaction with our present circumstances in light of the success of others. This is envy.

Greed might be more difficult to define. Is it the hording of possessions and unwillingness to altruistically share? Or is it the desire for more resulting from dissatisfaction with present levels of success? Whichever it is defined as, greed is rooted in the same act as envy: possession.

Greed might be considered generalized, disembodied and non-directed envy. I want money.

Envy might be considered greed with an indirect object. I want his money.

When you look at the things we envy, I would submit that you find a pattern of interest. At their core, humans desire only a few things; things concerned with their survival and things concerned with genetic proliferation. That is, humans desire power, resources, and sex. With reservation, a man typically finds that these things are not detrimental to simply desire. It is when these desires go unchecked through a lack of satisfaction that mankind begins to find moral qualms with such ideas. Channing Pollock is quoted as saying, “Calm self-confidence is as far from conceit as the desire to earn a decent living is remote from greed.”

This brings us back to my original hypothesis about what determines moral wrongness regarding these subjects. It is the inter-relational element of our actions, the social outcome, that determines what we define as wrong. My desire for something is not wrong. Desire that is divisive or all-consuming is what we define as wrong. If I am unwilling to give out of my abundance to help, I am greedy. My desire to have overcomes the socially right action of altruistic giving. With envy, if my desire to possess what you possess drives a relational wedge between us, we find it wrong. If it doesn’t, we don’t. We would consider it to be a “mutual interest in the same things.” Just because my friend has a nice car and I want a nice car too does not mean I envy his vehicle. If that’s the reason he’s my friend, we might have an issue in that I’m exploiting him for what he possesses. If I harbour bitterness because he has the financial ability to get a new car, and I don’t, then I am envious.

Fable after fable tells us of the all-consuming power of Greed and Envy. Midas loses the things he values to the treasure he desires most. Faust loses an item of eternal value for temporary gain. And, in another example tying Greed and Envy together, Avaricious and Envious find themselves granted what they desire on the condition that their neighbour receives double. Avaricious lets Envious go first, knowing he will ask for treasure, thus doubling Avaricious’ wealth. Contemplating the possibility of his neighbour’s joy and benefit, Envious requests for one of his eyes to be plucked out.

“What joy it gives to the petty and tarnished to have companions in their ills and misfortunes!” – Aesop’s Fables

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.”

- 1 Timothy 6:10

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

Confession: Living a Lie – Daniel Zott

Featured on NBC’s ‘Chuck’:

Lyrics:

“When I wake up with the morning light I can always breathe
Somehow that never has meant much to me
And I can’t say I am thankful for the things I have
I’m a hell of a guy
Living a hell of a lie

And if I gave it all way I’d expect something back
I’m never sure that I could tell you where my heart is at
Cause every good thing I do is a selfish act
And I’m a hell of a guy
Living a hell of a lie

That’s why I don’t understand where you come in
Showing a son of dirt how to be a man
I tried to refuse your name, still you love the same
Singing hallelujah
Singing hallelujah”

(Mp3 available for purchase on Daniel Zott’s website)

[S]instinct: Part II, Laziness

Lazy [ley-zee] adjective, -zi⋅er, -zi⋅est, verb, -zied, -zy⋅ing.

- averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent.

The first of the 7 Deadly Sins I will address is Laziness (i.e. sloth or apathy); a sin married women everywhere might label as the spiritual bane of their teenagers and husbands.

The caricature of laziness is seen as a person preferring the luxury of rest over the benefit of work. However, in order for this sin to be committed, there must be work to be done. Rest itself is not sin. Rest as priority over work is a sin as much as refusing to rest altogether (Exodus 20:8-11).

The natural/instinctual argument would be that laziness results from the desire for conservation of energy. Through general need as a natural, physical creature, we must rest. We must conserve our energy, or our bodies/minds will wear out from too much stress. However, the individual must work as well. He must work to seek out energy supplying sustenance (or in a more modern sense, he must work for the finances that provide the capability to purchase such sustenance and comforts making rest more beneficial; housing, bedding, etc). However, the lazy individual avoids exerting himself in the pursuit of these, and, instead, capitalizes off of the work of other individuals around him. He is not compelled to work by need, and, thus, does not seek to work. It is taking advantage of the labor of those around you. This poses a reflective question: Can an individual be lazy in isolation? Could Tom Hanks be lazy on the island with no one other than his stained volleyball companion? It is inevitable that he, as a living, biological creature, will not rest himself to death. He will not starve by sitting around if he is capable of moving. Once his need becomes strong enough, he will be motivated to work, he will seek out sustenance, he will seek out some element of comfort.

His capability to find this comfort may be greatly hindered if he waits too long, but he will nonetheless cease to be lazy. In the fable the Ant and the Grasshopper, a Grasshopper observes as the Ant stores for the winter months when food is less plentiful. The Ant warns the Grasshopper that he must work or he will not have food, but the Grasshopper claims that he has plenty of time. This is because of his disinterest in work. When winter comes, the Grasshopper has no food and receives a stern moral lesson from the Ant regarding laziness.

The question is, was the Grasshopper lazy?

Looking strictly at the present, he is not. Looking at it with a sense of the future, he is. He is unprepared for the future moment when his stores run out or trial comes in the shape of winter. His workload is essentially doubled because of the scarcity of food at the time he begins working. However, at this point, he ceases to be lazy. He will not sit until he dies, but work to overcome such obstacles in order to survive. Yet, if value is placed upon the rest that is needed when he is aware of the hardship he will face, he will be considered lazy for not doing what needs to be done when it was easier to accomplish. If he is unaware, I would posit he is not lazy.

Rest does not become morally wrong until it becomes more important than the instincts we understand and hold as ideals in our societies. There are two such instincts which, when violated, result in laziness; sharing the common workload of the group and being prepared for future hardship through awareness.

One form of this laziness is essentially “rest addiction” resultant from the desire for neuro-chemical reward of rest over the desire for survival. This will ultimately be defeated in true hardship once higher biological needs are starved.

However, the main form of laziness we see in the first world is the consequence of social relationships. Rest here becomes sin when it capitalizes off of the work of others due to the abundance of provision that comes from good relationship. However, this taxes the provisions of the group in such a way that can be understood by simple math. If there are 4 people making contribution and 5 people consuming, there is a deficit. While each person contributes more than they can consume, in this sense it does not seem a terrible deficit and is survivable.

Wikimedia Commons

When a society is bearing a larger burden of consuming non-workers, the deficit b egins to be larger. This causes laziness to be an even greater sin as you have non-capable consumers such as children, invalid, and elderly who cannot contribute. This is because you are not only taxing the work of others, but consuming the provision of those who cannot work.

“Those who do not work, will not eat.”

- Appropriated from II Thessalonians 3:10 by Capt. John Smith of the Jamestown settlement in 1608 as discipline for laziness in the colony.

In review, the “wrongness” of laziness might be defined as, not simply a lack of work or motivation to work, but the taxing the contribution of others for one’s own restful gain or as valuing rest over preparing for future hardship in light of one’s awareness that it is coming.

The human species is far more capable of looking ahead and planning than others. However, one often has just as hard of a time thinking situations will change greatly in the future as we do believing the world has ever been different than the one we have been raised and live in. We are not lazy if we do not prepare for constantly immanent crisis, but we are lazy if we do not prepare for those likely to occur.

Stay tuned for the next part of this series!

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

For quicker updates, subscribe to the RSS feed.

Oceans of Faith: A Glimpse into the Mind of Doubt

While I continue working on my [S]instinct series, I figured I would post something to fill time.

I don’t know if it’s of any benefit to anyone, but, if you’re curious, here is a glimpse through the clouds into the mind of doubt. I wrote this during my senior year at NCU. Perhaps it will help you understand the questions of your friends, perhaps it will help you in the midst of your own questions.

Whatever it does, I wanted to publish it because I was happy with how it turned out. Interested in hearing any feedback.

This wide ocean of faith is difficult to swim in. The mind begins to clamber, to tread water, to seek a foothold in some ounce of land. The depths seem impenetrable and dangerous, the heights, unattainable. With no land in sight, I am left afloat. I do not know what manner of thing might punctuate the silence, punctuate the loneliness, or punctuate this time-stretching dread. What might live in the icy depths beneath? What might live in gray skies above? Am I seen, or am I truly alone? This water, black, both keeps me alive and signals my possible fate. This wide ocean of faith is difficult to swim in. The doubt and fear like icy temperature cloud my mind. Am I alone? Will no one come to my rescue? Will no one give me light? Where is the hope? Surely, my faith is strong, I’m swimming in it. But where is the hope? “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and evidence for things unseen.” “Blessed are they who believe and have not seen.”

This situation I am faced with is the same which faced Peter. This water can be walked on or drowned in. The same water that holds him up might also silence him.

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

For quicker updates, subscribe to the RSS feed.

[S]instinct: Part I, Introduction.

How do we define sin? It is a question not addressed often by theologians. Grace is more their territory. The question is more commonly addressed to the ethicist. The question(s) being: “How does an individual determine right and wrong?” and “Is it universal or subjective?”

We know right action from wrong action. We make these determinations every day. But how? How did these become wired into us? For average Christians, the response draws back to the Garden of Eden where the consumption of a special, forbidden fruit imbued the naive progenitors of the human species with this moral wiring. My personal belief is that this is an explanatory myth regarding the fact that there is something wrong in this universe. The fundamental Christian religious belief is that the destructive elements of all existent reality is an aberration from what is perfect.

My personal belief goes the route of evolutionary development of life. Within this route, one must question the development of morality. One often hears the argument that you cannot fully believe in evolution and have morality.

Where do you get your morality? If there is no God, if I am simply complicated ooze, then the truth is, your life doesn’t matter, my life doesn’t matter…If life is just random chance, then nothing really does matter and there is no morality—it’s survival of the fittest. If survival of the fittest means me killing you to survive, so be it. – Rick Warren

This argument is flawed.

First, how does one reconcile the fact that the sense of morality extends beyond the human species? Chimps, dolphins, elephants, etc. These creatures have a primitive and basic sense of morality. Where does it stem from? Surely they didn’t accidentally munch on the forbidden fruit while grazing in the Garden?! Essentially, the only “special” nature of the morality we understand is a result of our advanced culture and our ability to verbalize and meta-analyze what it is we are even discussing.

Second, it ignores social development as an evolutionary trait for survival. What is a key factor shared between the human species and other “moral” species? Community. We are communal creatures. One man can walk alone and survive alone; but in a group he is far more likely to conserve energy and survive longer. He is able to combine his ingenuity and strength with that of others and accomplish more. It is because of community and intelligence that Man has become the dominant species on this planet. Our collaborative inventiveness allows us to change our survival tactics quickly when our context changes.

What does this have to do with morality? In my (and many biologist’s) opinion, morality is a development out of socio-communal evolution. Morality (and sin) can be defined by looking at what it addresses, namely, our relationship to one another as human beings. If we do not relate well with one another, we will not be as capable of survival. Man lives best in community with others.

However, this social evolution stands apart from standard evolution. Survival instinct is more primitive than social instinct. Our drive to relate well with others comes in conflict at times with our drive to survive. This is where sin enters the picture. I want to discuss in the following series how sin is defined by this conflict. How sin EMBODIES this conflict.

Rather than look at a list of commands like the famous 10, I figured I would address the list known as the “7 deadly sins” which has been used by the Catholic church as a list of the “mortal vices” that endanger the soul of man, as compared to the “venial sins” or minor sins which, according to the church, result in a less critical separation from God and threat of damnation.

- Laziness

- Pride

- Lust

- Gluttony

- Greed

- Envy

- Rage

In the next series of blogs, I want to look at these sins and their relationship to survival instinct. Why are they considered sinful? Is there a time they can be defined as not sinful or when their occurrence might be deemed impossible?

Remember, sin can be centrally understood in affecting our relationship with one another. The command to love our neighbor is intimately related to the command to love God. Ideally, in the final post of this series, I will address this other side of the coin; the relation of religion and theological/spiritual belief to socio-communal evolution and morality.

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

Luke 10:25-28

Stay tuned for the next part of this series!

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

For quicker updates, subscribe to the RSS feed.

The Power of Beauty

Taking the time to learn about any social justice cause can be exhausting. Once we open our eyes to the injustice in the world, it can be overwhelming. There are terrible things out there, like human trafficking, the global food crisis, and the dangers of malaria. It’s a noble goal to highlight places that need help, but it’s easy to hear about these things and feel despair because of how far the world has fallen. It’s easy to get discouraged.

This is a problem people who champion social justice issues must face on a regular basis. In the face of so much despair, how do you begin to have hope for a better tomorrow? A friend once told me that when you look at the world, it’s hard to ignore what a terrible place it is. You hear about people dying from starvation, about girls who are sold to pimps to be prostitutes, about groups of people who go around killing innocent villages. The world is filled with all kinds of awful. Looking at the world, it’s easy to see why there’s so much despair.

There are few human experiences that transcend cultural barriers and pain is something every person must deal with. It is unfortunate pain is universal to mankind, but it also allows us to feel empathy for one another. If we didn’t know what pain felt like, then how could we ever truly understand the sorrow others go through? But to view these issues with discouragement and despair is an injustice in itself. To limit the view of the world to just despair is a world that is not worth living in.

It comes down to a worldview question. How will you choose to view the world around you? Yes, despair and sorrow exist in the world, but will you let that become the only thing you see? It is a dangerous tension people who champion social justice must navigate as they live their lives. They can either choose to recognize the sorrow around them and be weighed down by it, or they can realize there is more going on than despair. It easy to feel outraged at the injustices in the world, but it’s also easy to forget to see the beautiful things people are doing everyday.

On the macro level there are organizations like, Blood Water Mission, Venture, and Charity:Water, that make it their goal to truly make the world a more pleasant place. They exist to make life better for those who are less fortunate, they get others to take notice and care about these tragic situations. The work they are doing is beautiful indeed.

But it also happens on the micro level as well. In every community you may a hear story like this (which actually happened): A daughter has five extra dollars that she doesn’t know what to do with. She thinks about it for a while and realizes there is nothing else she needs. You would think she would put it in her piggy bank to save it for another day, but this wouldn’t be a beautiful story if she did that. What she does instead is give the five dollars to her older brother so he can enjoy it. The brother of course accepts his sister’s generosity, but it doesn’t end there.

A couple of weeks later, the sister’s hamster suddenly dies and she is crushed about the whole ordeal. It may be just a hamster, but to her, it’s like her very own daughter has died. She is crushed. Her brother takes notice of the grief her sister is going through and goes up to his father and says, “Dad, I’d like to help pay for my sister’s hamster.” He offers to give up his own money to help her deal with her pain. Now this is a beautiful story.

It’s impossible after hearing things like this to see the world as only a place of pain and despair. We must remember beautiful things happen everyday. If we get stuck in pessimism, then evil, despair, and oppression will continue to weigh us down. But if we realize beautiful acts always triumph over evil, then we can create true change. It is only when we hold an optimistic view of the world that we can be driven to make a difference.

-Tone Hoeft

Bio: Tone is pursuing his Master’s of Communications at Eastern Washington University. To find out more about him or his thoughts visit www.inproximity.org.

Jesus and the Space Aliens

“They arrived in our greatest hour of need.

They gave us hope,

And in return,

We gave them our trust.”

The first thing I hope you notice when watching this promo is its HEAVY use of religious imagery and language. There are multiple references to the Visitors as “Saviors”. Tyler steps out aghast at the mothership and exclaims “My God!” There are healings. Talk of gratitude morphing into worship is heard. A crucifix falls off an altar. Messages of hope are being spread to all mankind and those in power do not like what they cannot control. The second thing I hope you sense is the fear these things generate in the religious leaders and conservative people.

Now, if one understands the plot of this series (due to it being a remake), the jaded perspective of man when it comes to things seeming “too good to be true”, and how pop culture ultimately spins things (main characters are not evil), one knows that nothing in this show is as good or perfect as it seems. However, what if it was? What if the messages of hope were what they claimed to be? What if these people truly could save us?

At the very least, the initial episodes of this show, revealing and developing the message of the Vs and the reaction of Earth’s population, could give us a wonderful lens into a first century Pharisaic perspective of Christ, in that, he did much the same thing. He upset the government and the religious system by giving people hope rooted in some sort of alternative form. The people who were myopically focused on who held power and control in the here and now, suddenly witnessed the gift of equality to those over whom power was held. It was not the revolution they were looking for. Because of this, it gained devotion from those who experienced the new equality and fear from those who watched their system be critiqued with an obvious authority they were helpless to stand against. All they were able to do was kill the man.

This plays on the common understanding that man has always believed the world could be a better place, he has simply been at a loss of what or how to change it. Suddenly, beings clothed in human bodies arrive on the scene and prominently declare messages of hope and peace; radically transforming the lives on this planet through “miraculous” healing and cultural advancement.

It reveals the development of fear in the systemic leaders, both political and religious, as a result of the development of hope in the masses. This fear is a result of the loss of control through the realignment of devotion.

The actions and message of the Vs reveal by stark contrast the failings of the religious system to spread the hope it claims. However, it seems they do so by giving hope for the present rather than a hope for the future. Also, it is spread to everyone. It is not a message solely for those deemed appropriate by the system.

This begs the following questions:

- In what way is our “blessed hope” one that is not simply a future, or what are the ramifications of the Gospel of new creation to the present world?

- In what way have we narrowed our message to those within our system versus a message to all? (Something most think is a result of lifestyle requirements, linked to the “Go and sin no more” statements of Christ.)

So, Jesus and the Space Aliens. Their stories start off much the same; with hope, devotion, worship, trust, redemption, and salvation. If we, as the church, are to be for the world what Christ was for Israel, where have we gone wrong? Where was our effectiveness lost?

Just something to think about.

“V” begins Nov. 3rd on ABC.

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

Theocommunications: Music, Songwriting, and the Puzzle of Worship

Writing a song concerning God and the worship of Him is like trying to convey a perfect picture through a huge puzzle missing half the pieces. You can only tackle one portion at a time. Even if you manage to assemble the majority of the frame, and maybe even some of the middle, the picture is still going to be incomplete. And in order to compensate for the “unknown” spaces existing next to the concrete pieces, you might try to dispense some of your personal ideas. This often leads to controversy among those who believe you are messing up what the picture was originally intended to be, and praise from those who clap their hands in delight that someone with a similar mindset concerning the picture must surely prove their belief to be good, right and true.

It is frustrating and beautiful all at once. Every time I sit down at my keyboard to attempt this process, I am greeted by old and familiar questions.  Where do I even begin? How is it possible to write about God when so much of Him is unknown or argued about? How is it possible to worship Him “in spirit and in truth” when we so easily forget why we should? How do we even know He is pleased with the sound of our voices and is it even necessary? How do I know previous experiences weren’t just the result of my own ability to manipulate? Yet I keep sitting down at that keyboard, because something deep within me has to. Something tells me the one thing truly worth writing about is Him. And so I keep trying.

I keep trying because there is something interesting about music in comparison to this walk of faith that amazes me. Music moves me, though I cannot fully understand why. I can read the basic principles through books and scientific articles on the subject, but even those do not explain it in a way that satisfies me. And it is the same with God and faith. God moves and changes me, though I cannot fully understand why. I know the basic principles of faith but the truth of the matter is that words, as powerful as they can be sometimes, do not always move me or change me. There is also someone behind those words and ideas.  And when you put that someone behind the mystery of music, it becomes quite powerful.

That powerful mystery is the beautiful side of the process. The execution, however, is the infuriatingly frustrating part. When it comes to writing worship music especially, an acute awareness that I am tackling the “sacred” comes into play. The notion that this omnipresent might would bend to hear my small attempts to describe Him means I cannot just write haphazardly through my personal emotions or ignorance concerning Him. There is a responsibility to challenge, teach and equip that comes along with any attempt to convey spiritual truth.

Throughout my years of attempting to join the ranks of those writing worship songs, I’ve attended a number of song writing sessions (focused on worship) in which the popular sentiment concerning a successfully written worship song meant the following: Make it easy. Make it sing-able. Make it catchy.  My response was to become even more stubborn concerning the opposite view. We have dumbed down our worship,  along with theology and faith. It’s something I’ve tried, not always successfully, to break out of.

As a result I have always had the highest affinity for hymns because they belong to an era of music used to build on the theological foundation being taught in the church services. They contained multiple verses inundated with amazing revelations about the nature of God, faith and theology. If you ever find yourself humming a hymn, start thinking about the words and chances are you’ll realize you’ve been humming about some incredibly deep truth. When I started writing songs it came out of the desire to challenge, encourage and provide the revelations I had grown up discovering in those hymns.

But the main thing I’ve learned in my attempts is that there is no “right “ way when it comes to something so intangible and inexplicable. Music is a combination of the simple and the complicated, containing formulas and theories that are then broken, repeatedly.  Music is shaped by the perspectives of those creating it, and when you throw in the mysterious “God” factor, one can never be fully sure of whether the music or God is affecting them. And perhaps it is a combination of both.

I’ve tried avoiding the shallow “sing-along”  tune, but realized some of that is necessary in order to make it possible for a song to be sung by multiple people. I’ve worried about creating an “emotional high” and have tried (completely unsuccessfully) to avoid it altogether, only to realize that music IS emotional. One of my biggest struggles concerns how manipulative music can be and so I’ve tried to avoid “manipulating” people only to realize that too is impossible.

Whether it’s sacred or secular, music will always be emotional and there will always be an element of manipulation in it because that is what art does. Art manipulates our emotions. And in many ways that is necessary because sometimes we are more open to messages in art, whether in song or picture form.  To top that off, anyone born with a propensity to create art will generally carry more than their fair share of emotion, which inevitably wafts into everything they do, including their creations.

And the creating itself is actually part of where I believe one of the most “worshipful” aspects of writing these songs comes from. “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” We were created by the Creator, and when we attempt to create in an effort to praise Him, regardless of what form it takes, that creation IS praise in and of itself. It is acknowledgement that we are made in His image and that His characteristics flow out of us.

In all of these “revelations”  concerning writing songs about God and for God I have wrestled with many factors and continually changed my mind. The pattern of writing a song is as elusive as nailing down a “correct” way to write songs about God. Some days the songs just climb out of me as though they couldn’t stand to sit inside my head one minute longer. Other days I’m convinced I’ve lost the ability to ever write another song again. Once those dramatic moments pass I am reminded that music is lodged within my system, much the same as God and the desire for Him seems to be lodged within my soul. And coupled with this is a deep belief that He delights in our imperfect attempts to worship Him because they come out of faith that despite only having half the puzzle pieces, despite how much we have yet to know about Him, despite the doubt and frustration and tension of faith, we keep coming back to try, because we believe the final picture (yet unseen) is perfect.

Bio: Summer Lee Carlson is currently living and teaching in South Korea until August 2010. After that she has no idea what is next and that’s the way she likes it. Her blog can be read at Aestivus Lee and her music can be found on Myspace.