This may be the best subscription service ever.

Tomorrow morning I fly out to the Second City—you know, the one that begins with a C, ends with an O, and in the middle is a little Hicag—for the Evangelical Covenant Church’s annual Midwinter Conference. It’ll be my first gathering with this denomination at any level larger than a local congregation. Thanks to the hospitality of one of the local pastors and his family, I won’t have to pay for a hotel. I’m excited for the conference and for the opportunity to make some new connections. Please pray for discernment, of whether this denomination is where God is calling us. I’m not taking the computer, so blog updates won’t be likely.

“World Honors Mozart on 250th Birthday.”

I may have to listen to Eine kleine Nachtmusik later today.

I posted this quote last year on my old blog, but it is something I find worth repeating. In fact, it is one of the wisest quotes I’ve read in years. It comes from my systematic theology professor Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, in his book An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives (2002):

If one is not simply ready to discount the ecclesiality of Free churches and other nontraditional church forms, it poses the question of the conditions of being a church. Of course, the approach of traditional theology has too often been to impose its own often quite-limited definition of churchhood on its younger counterparts. Naturally, those churches that define what ecclesiality means usually themselves fulfill the requirements of their own definitions! But ecumenically, it does not further the discussion. For older churches, just to discard the enormous potential and force of nontraditional churches by classifying them as something less than a church is both dangerous and useless. Younger churches have shown their vitality in their lives, and now it is left to theology to catch up with these developments. This has always been the main task of theology: to reflect on and make sense of what is happening in Christian life and churches….

There is no denying the value of ecclesiological traditions in classical theology. It simply is the fact that most ecclesiological thinking and even experimenting has taken place within the confines of classical Christendom up until the expansion of the modern missionary movement. And even then, almost until our day, theologies were still Western. Even though today in any meaningful teaching and study of theology full hearing has to be given to voices from outside the West, it is only naïve and harmful to imagine that two thousand years of theological tradition could be easily discarded. (9)

I find that Kärkkäinen’s critical program isn’t true of just ecclesiology, but helpful in nearly any arena of life.

READ more

Eschatology. View of the End Times. These terms mean pretty much the same thing in a strict dictionary-definition-type understanding. But in popular usage, they have really different meanings, as far as I’m concerned. When someone talks about eschatology, I think of systematic theologians and seminarians and books I find in The Archives Bookshop or the Fuller Seminary Bookstore that cost an arm and a leg because only a few hundred people will ever buy them. When someone talks about the End Times, I think of TBN, Hal Lindsey, and The Left Behind series. Given my biases, it is no surprise I prefer the term eschatology (in fact I’m shocked I just put up links to TBN and Hal Lindsey). But it’s too showy and esoteric of a word. It sounds pretentious in normal conversation. People squint their eyes when I say “eschatology” and I can tell they’re thinking, “I don’t know that word; should I know that word?” On the other hand, I’ve seen eyes get wide and concerned when I’ve said “End Times” and I can tell people are thinking I’m going to produce some chart or timeline, or tell them that we have to support the state of Israel no matter what. We need a better term. I would say I would want to recapture End Times, but that term has been so abused through bad biblical interpretation and theology in my opinion, that I’d rather not bother. I’m just spouting thoughts here. Does anyone know a better term to use?

On a different note, Tall Skinny Kiwi has a great post on the Missio Dei, “the Mission of God.” Well worth the read, unlike the above paragraph. Plus the post has one of the best emoticons I’ve ever seen. (I’m generally not a huge fan of them.)

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said this regarding President Bush’ domestic surveillance program that is under debate:

“You may have heard about the provision of FISA that allows the president to conduct warrantless surveillance for 15 days following a declaration of war. That provision shows that Congress knew that warrantless surveillance would be essential in wartime.”

He makes an interesting point, though other law professionals debate Gonzalez’s interpretation of FISA in the article. I have no legal expertise or experience in which to weigh the arguments laid out by Gonzalez or his opponents.

My question—and I don’t mean to sound glib—is regarding Gonzalez’s statement that there was a declaration of war. Article I of the US Constitution says, “The Congress shall have the power to declare war.” When was there ever an official declaration of war regarding the War on Terror? The term War on Terror is commonly used by politicians on both sides of the aisle, but that does not mean we are legally at war, does it? (For that matter, the Korean War, Vietnam War, first and second Gulf Wars, were never officially wars.) Congress has approved ongoing military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it has never issued a declaration of war on terrorism, as far as I can remember. Am I mistaken? Of course, the last time the US officially issued a declaration of war was on June 5, 1942 against Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary (see the chart on this page). Does the Constitution need to be amended so that the US can address new enemies and declare war in what some have called a post-Westphalian world?

I was reading some different blogs the other day, and was turned on to this site, which has “Flickr Toys,” which are tools to edit or manipulate photos from one’s Flickr account (though they can use nearly any photo from the web). First I made the following montage using recent photographs taken at the Walt Disney Concert Hall:

Then I started making some motivational posters. This one is my favorite:

You can find the rest over on my Flickr account.

A house just a couple of blocks away from our apartment is regularly used for film shoots. This week the big trailers sit on the cross streets and last night the light trees illuminated the front yard of the house so that at first I thought there was some night crew from CalTrans fixing a pothole. Based on the cars parked on the street as I drive by the location on my way home from work, it appears the film or television show takes place in the 1940’s-1950’s.

I’ve lived here for nearly four years now and I still cannot get it in my head that entertainment is one of the the main industries in Southern California. Part of me still finds these crews mysterious, magical, and other words that begin with “m”. When I was a kid in Sanger, one of the biggest events that ever happened was a movie was filmed at a nearby ranch. Our small town was abuzz for the few weeks the production was in town. As the owners of the closest hardware store to the production, my parents benefited greatly from the film. People in the town daydreamed aloud of hoping to see the film’s stars drive through on Academy or Jensen avenues, or eating at one of the restaurants. At the time, the film’s star was one of the biggest in Hollywood.

For Sanger, seeing the movie trucks and trailers was a unique experience. In Southern California, however, those trucks and trailers are the equivalent of John Deer combines in the San Joaquin Valley—they are the standard equipment of the industry driving the economy. Still, I do not respond to seeing film locations the same as I do when I see a tractor tilling a field in the Sanger countryside. I rubberneck whenever I pass a film crew, hoping I can catch a glimpse of some celebrity. I tell myself it is so that I can later relay to my friends in a superior and demystifying tone, “He’s actually really short.” In all honesty, there is still some glamour attached to celebrity for this small town boy—there is some hope of magic that exists in this cynic.

For those who have been wondering with great expectation what was the movie filmed in Sanger, it was the Patrick Swayze masterpiece, Road House.

Munich co-screenwriter Tony Kushner writes about the film in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times:

In the last month, the co-creators of “Munich” have been accused of being apologists for the Palestinians, apologists for Israel, defamers of Palestinians and of Israel, softheaded Hollywood liberals, dupes of the radical left, dupes of the radical right, even of being anti-Semitic or self-loathing, for showing Jews talking about receipts and handling money. We’re morally confused, overly complicated, simplistic. We’re cowards who refused to take sides. We took a side but, oops! the wrong side.

If you haven’t seen the film, I say read the piece with caution since it will likely influence your viewing of Munich.

Just uploaded a bunch of new photographs over on my Flickr account. Some were taken at the Walt Disney Concert Hall, which was designed by Frank Gheary. It’s a gorgeous building.