Schizophrenia Sets In

One of my international colleagues recently died. It was sudden, unexpected and very sad, and at this point shrouded in mystery because we know very little about it. I'm writing announcements about that at the same time that I'm writing other people's birthday cards and other celebrations, and having very inspirational meetings with passionate people. Needless to say, it's been a strange day...

(Hey, that rhymes -- it might make a good song. Probably blues...)

A Radical Church that Isn't

What does church look like? That's a question that's been asked for, oh, 2,000 years or so. And we've seen some pretty cool, and some pretty horrific answers. Now they're naming an entire movement out of the question. I want to offer all sorts of caveats and preamble before the following statement, but I won't: I love it!

The emerging church is a movement (or conversation) that been happening for the last decade-and-a-half, and it's entire reason for existing is trying to get the church to ask itself hard questions. I mean, they shouldn't be hard. They should be easy, at everyone's fingertips, given eagerly and candidly at every opportunity. But somehow it remains challenging, even for a social critic like me.

You Can't Do That To Me; I'm A Canadian!

I was having a conversation with an American recently on the differences between Canadians and Americans. For the most part it was a well-considered conversation. I think the most important difference that I see between the two countries right now is the level of perceived entitlement. Don't get me wrong, Canadians have it. And it's getting to be more of a prevalent problem. But the title of this post could only be used as a joke, and somehow Americans carry that mentality all over the world with them.

When I said you'd never hear a Canadian say "You can't do that to me; I'm a Canadian," he actually started laughing. He said when you say that as a Canadian, "it just sounds different." Well, not to me. It's as ludicrous here as anywhere. Maybe my perspective comes from seeing the real trouble that attitude can get you into. Internally and externally!

The Cross: An Empty Symbol?

For a few years now I've been pondering why there isn't more of a visual language to describe faith and the church. I thought about trying to develop one. And I've largely given up. Mostly, I think it's a wasted effort.

The problem with symbols is that their meanings are abstracted from the original, and thus they are weaker. “9/11” doesn't even conjure an image for me any more (unless I think about it for a while – then too many images...). There are a myriad of examples like that, and the question I have is why would I want to do that to the faith experience?

To recontextualise faith in a way that can be grasped by others represents my particular celebration of and emphasis on art/creativity. My goal is to give people a new insight by coming at things from a different direction, by shining the light in at a new angle. And I wonder what new element I can add to the symbol of the cross.

For starters, why has the cross been adopted so universally as a symbol of the church? Realistically, it's the one Christian symbol that is internationally recognised. I'm not saying I don't understand its significance or relevance to the faith, but beside that and the “bumper-sticker” fish it's pretty much a symbol-desert out there. There is a lot of meaning represented by the cross (everything from sinful man to sacrificial God), but when its only translation is “church” or “Christian” then all of its power is leached out. In fact, I think the symbol of the cross has been co-opted for entirely the wrong thing.

There are two dramatic ways that we get symbols wrong. One is that we ignore the deeper meanings and allow them to exist like scrambled letters on a page. The other is that we take metaphors so seriously that we begin to worship and celebrate them over their creator. Without so many dogmatically-prescribed symbols, it is the freedom (and imperative) of each person to take this journey on his or her own terms, and wrestle with the stuff of life individually.

I used to think it was a weakness that the church has so few symbols. Now I wonder if it isn't our greatest strength.

Paid to be Infuriating?

It's just dawned on me. A large part of my job is to ask questions. Who knows this information? Who doesn't? Why not? Do they care? Can I get them to? Is that media device applicable to our organisation? Would it fit into our big-picture? If not, should we change the big-picture?

A communications person needs to constantly examine everything both within a body, and in its external context. I suppose that could get rather annoying... Oh well.

Harnessing the Negative Energy

Wanna hear something I love? I love what's happening within my generation. (Wanna know something I hate? All this talk about 'my generation'. Wasn't that wrapped with The Who, oh, about two generations ago? What does "a generation" even mean anymore? Silly. Ahem...) What's happening? We're learning how to harness the irony, the sarcasm and the cynicism for good not evil. Weird, huh?

Who would have thought that was even possible?

But it is! There's no better way to discredit all the unnecessary things that people are trying get you to buy into, or to face the deep injustices of the world then pricking the over-inflated balloon with a sharp sarcasm needle.

Drowning in Words

I'm not a reader. Not by default. I mean I consume a large amount of information in written form, but I don't actually like the process of reading. And the Christian world seems to be veritably bursting with it right now. Each book's title becomes a symbol, and suddenly people are speaking a symbolic language that may as well be a foreign tongue. People are using titles to summarise entire philosophies, and are debating them without even offering their bullet points to the uninitiated.

Is all this verbiage really serving a purpose? I mean, even if I could, I wouldn't write a book right this moment because it would be lost in the clamour. I guess I'm glad that there is some level of thinking represented in all the writing and reading going on. But I heard something very insightful recently: reading is often the surrogate for experience. Well, in a way that's obvious, because that's the very reason for reading at all. Sometimes though that psuedo discovery prevents investigation. And lack of investigation almost always leads to lack of action.

If you're not a reader, I'm okay with that. And I apologise that you've had to wade your way through all these words... Now let's do something!

"You Watch Your Phraseology!"

I came across this quotable quote in perusing a website today:

"Mrs. So-and-so (not her real name – Ed.) has recovered to the condition before her last illness began earlier this year."

It is so close to making sense...and then, not.

The Gender Mindbender

I recently had a conversation about the feminine-ness of church, and whether that is turning off men. I actually laughed when I first heard the idea: its seems truly ludricrous at first blush. I mean, what a cop-out! But wait-a-sec. It's been a long time trend that church appeals to women more than men, and if we're honest, we need to ask why. Could it really be because church has become so touchy-feely, so emotional that men disconnect? The "buddy Christ", not a man of contentious nature, radical behaviour and righteous rage, but replaced by an eternally calm, soft, sadly-smiling hippie? Actually, that is a turn-off, come to think of it.

Suddenly I've become curious as to what a more masculine church would look like. I'm not talking about paternalism here. While it seems easy to equate masculinity with power, we'd lose the important advances we've made in gender equality. I'm asking (like perhaps 100 billion people have before me) "What does it mean to be a man?" I can think of some excellent examples, and some pretty shoddy ones. Secure, honest and wise make for a good start, but then what? Ach, let's zag a little.

You know, frankly it's flat wierd we're so commonly told to "fall in love with Jesus". That jus' don't do it for me, and I sincerely hope women don't fall for that line either. It's not a matter of neurosis, it's a matter of disappointment. Um, hello? He's God! Let's just say it's not a relationship of equals (like, for example, humans have bodies, and aren't in charge). Generally we're in an era with far too much emphasis on friendship, the humility and coziness of the transendent being, and far too little on the God that would melt your eyeballs if you caught a glimpse of him. We've gotten so comfortable in the fur, we've forgotten it belongs to a lion. Is that what men are missing (out on) in our brave new world?

I could write a lot more, and point to how the gender question has been addressed in our larger cultural context by movies such as Legends of the Fall and Fight Club (and tons of others). I could speculate on how the culture of the church moves a little slower than the greater culture, and that protects us from the hardest of knocks to our human identity, and perhaps gives us a unique perspective to guide our culture through some of the gender minefield. And maybe I could even smugly mention that we follow the truth about what it means to be human (and promptly miss the whole point of the journey!). But instead, I'm just going to mull this over for a while.

The Digital Divide

I just saw it firsthand. You can now get digital camera memory at your average grocery store, often right at the counter beside film and one-time use cameras. That was one of those things I was waiting for to tell me how ubiquitous digital cameras have become. Of course whether someone will be spending $60 for an at-the-counter impulse purchase remains to be seen, but I'm sure that prices will fall quicker now.

On a similar note, I heard from a Studio Lighting podcast that digital storage is getting cheap enough that it is being considered for use as image archiving, the same as film. You take your pictures, and then you store the cards. At $10 for 64MB (about 20 shots with the average camera), it costs a similar amount to film, and is supposed to be better for long-term storage than CDs or DVDs. But is this really an advance?

Who Competes with Apple?

I gotta say this first: I am so not a Mac-head. Have you seen those new Apple ads on TV? If you haven't, I guess you don't watch TV. And I can respect that. But this particular ad campaign makes me wonder who Apple is competing against.

In summary, Apple's ads use a conversation between two characters. One is a stuffy old executive, and he's the PC. The other person is a fresh-faced, "designer-looking" guy. And they banter about who's better, and of course the Mac appears to be far superior. The thing is, the criteria given are fallacies. Even though they're done with a wink and a nod, they're still untrue. I realise that this sounds like sour grapes, but it's a fascinating and frustrating issue for a communications guy. And it's an interesting battle to start -- if any PC company has any marketing brains, this is a battle. The timing is interesting, too. Can I have your permission to briefly examine why?

Apple is the one company left that makes both the hardware and the software. So now they've made this offensive, and the battle they'll be fighting will be one against competitors on all fronts. (One front might be virus coders as part of Apple's claim is that they are immune to them. If I wrote virusses, and liked making headlines, there'd be no better time than now to focus on the Mac.) This campaign may well stoke the fires of competition within the whole computer industry. From all the high-volume PC manufacturers, to the software makers. And interesting timing, because on one hand Microsoft in on the verge of releasing the next Windows version, and on the other Apple has just made their operating system the most Windows-compatible it's ever been. This whole new campaign smells like fear and concession from where I am.

And it forcefully reminds me why I hate Macs: they trade on non-existent mystique. Unquestionably, Apple designers put more flair in their products. How they appear and work physically is more intricate and stylish than any other computer maker. But can design alone sell anything? Well, yes it can -- to designers. To anyone else, the cost of infusing the computer with desirous cool isn't worth the bottom line. They are just computers after all. And, as a creative type myself, I'm more interested in making cool things than looking cool. Sorry, Apple.

The truth is that Macs are no better, and they cost more. The extras are nice when they add. But do they add enough to justify the extra expense? Ummm, nope. I kinda think that this campaign's only strength will be mobilise the Mac-evangelists to upgrade just one more time...

The Survival of People

I have an odd relationship with history. Most of it holds no real interest for me, but then there events or trends in the world's past that fascinate me. How does a culture thrive, dominate and then disappear entirely? And it's not like lost civilisations are an uncommon phenomenon in our world's history.

Yet I feel like understanding history simply for the safe of creating object lessons for the present is a really cheap motive. I just wanted to express that somewhere.

If I had a bunch of clones I could command at will, I would tell one to brush up on history and keep me informed of everything important I need to know. Unfortunately that will never happen, so I will have to go without knowing. There's too much for me to even start. Seriously!

The Sexy Church

For a good while I have wracked my brain for a way to use marketing principles to apply to the church. How do we make church sexy? Suddenly, this very morning, the reason this is such a challenge dawned on me. It's because the world's metaphors -- and often its style -- have been co-opted from the church itself. And our culture has become quite sophisticated and successful at it, I would assert more so than the church. Now we've got Jesus competing with "Brand X", and we're not doing so hot.

Okay, consider the following slogans. "The pursuit of perfection." "The power of dreams." "The real thing." Often they don't even begin to imply the products they support, but slogans speak of supreme sufficiency like all you need is [blank]. Or they offer strong, positive humanistic messages like you'll be so empowered if you buy ____. (Oops, not 'buy', that implies cost, and we want to avoid that association. At all costs. Oops.)

In missions, I'm finding that it's not enough for me to dangle a carrot in front of people -- I also have to be a carrot salesman. "Look how orange it is. It's so orange!" "You want crunchy? You got it!" "And talk about nutrition!" But the allegory breaks down here: Missions not a product. It's not even an experience. It's nothing that I can point at and sell. It's God's, and like God himself it's beyond definition. (Hmm... "Missions: Beyond Definition." It has potential...)

We had it first. Spiritual truth, the concept of supreme sufficiency, and the value of humanity. That was the message we were entrusted with. We are made in the image of the God that desires and has facilitated a relationship with us. (Now there's a dense sentence.) And somehow every day, that message gets adulterated, polluted, and convoluted. The church cries foul, and fusses about how misrepresented it is. But where is its own voice? Wouldn't it be cool if the church could get together and advertise in magazines and on TV right beside the messages we're trying to contest? Not in a this-message-brought-to-you-by-so-and-so kind of way. And not in a knee-jerk-reactionary-kind-of-way (insert your favourite Christian hobby horse not to ride here). But with original, kick-butt material that we can all agree on. I've got some killer concepts if you've got a few thousand bucks...

But here's what I don't want, what I want to avoid at all costs. I don't want to give the church lipstick, liposuction and breast implants, and call it good. I'm striving to figure out what Christ thinks is sexy, and point us in that direction. We are supposed to be His bride, after all.

Christian Censorship?

Having you heard about Christian movie rental companies who are offering edited movies to appease Christian sensibilities? My opinion: Taking out the "iffy" parts of movies for a Christian audience is a ridiculous endeavour. Comments have been published that even G-rated movies have stuff like "evil" and "sexual innendo". The question I would ask is what rating would you give the Bible? You don't have to look too far in the Bible to find evil, and we're way beyond innuendo here.

Truth is hard. Sin can be fun, but immorality has consequences. Denying either is wrong, and how are you possibly going to tell those stories without "going there"? I don't care about the legal ramifications, the issue of censorship, or even staying true to the creator's original intent. I'm stuck on the squeamishness of Christians. I've heard people say things like "It was a great movie, but it had nudity." And I've heard others say "If it has nudity, how could it be great?" Both perspectives dodge the important questions. Is the story true? Or, if you prefer: Is it honest? Equally, is it important? And finally, is it told well? If those criteria are satisfied, then I strongly assert that the rest simply doesn't matter!

On a slightly different tack, I'm glad that films like Hotel Rwanda and The Passion of the Christ are out there. I think they are important stories that the world needs new awareness of. They are (mostly) honest. I also have a pretty good sense that they have been told well. But I've chosen not to watch them. They are just too close to home. Everyone has to draw his own line. To say that I would watch a tamed-down version to avoid the soul-pain seems like an odd cop out.

Frankly, it all comes down to one question: Are you invested in participating in culture, or do you just want to be stultified by it? If culture is just for entertainment, then Christians have nothing to offer it. And it has nothing to offer them.

This Month's Grammar-Time

I'm not a big fan of grammar. But sometimes it's useful to know the mechanics of a language, so here's a particularly useful rule of thumb:

Never start a sentence with a comma.

Now you know! This has been Grammar-Time, another proud presentation from livingartyrs.com!

Think Slow

It’s an antithesis in our world. Everything is faster, quicker, more immediate. There has been much talk of a theoretical upper limit to electronic processing power. But little mention is made of the upper limit of our neurons. How fast can you make good decisions? How fast can you bring other people on board? How much did you miss?

I think we are witnessing the first generation in government to have to deal with this. In order to be in front of the media, the administration has to make rapid-fire decisions. There is no time for due process – to ask questions, let alone answer them. Appearing pro-active now requires being pre-emptive. There have been some costly mistakes. There will be more. They are the size of nations.

The promise of the info age is that life will happen at the speed of thought. Is that really a noble goal? When life moves a little faster than thought, what then? How 'bout a lot faster? Some time ago, humans achieved the ability to generate and share information at a far higher rate than their capacity to process it. With the technological improvements, every single person joins the global fray. Now when the phone rings, it could be a telemarketer, or it could be your mother. In a very real sense, it’s just another voice competing for your attention.

If that's not what you've signed up for, then change. Reduce the speed at which your life travels. Enjoy your time, don't wring your hands over it. Figure out what you need to do to make that happen. Then do it.

"Christian" Spam

I've got a message to the spammers who send "Christian" junk mail: Stop! I don't know if it's just because I work in a Christian organisation that I get bombarded with it, or whether the whole world is inundated equally, and I don't know which is scarier.

The problem is that it defines what's worst about Christianity. Little to no critical analysis, research or even thought informs it. It's knee-jerk reactionary. It's political not spiritual. And all that makes it downright offensive.

If your love of people isn't demonstrated in what you communicate, then I can't stand to be associated with you. And I don't care what demographic you're addressing, or in which context.

The Good Friday of Christmas?

My wife and I couldn't find the normal "Christmas" setting on our emotional dials this year. It's been a bit of a wild ride recently, and we were right in the middle of moving and painting... But I think it's more than that. I feel like our culture's push to post-Christmasness (Happy Holidays, Season's Greetings, etc.) is leaving people properly baffled. In effort to take Christ out of our culture, we've taken Christmas out of the December break, and then what's the point? Putting "seasonal presents" under a "holiday tree" is well past the point of ridiculous.

I like the reflection this Christmas brought. Like just how humble Jesus' advent was. I get the feeling reading the story that Mary and Joseph were so desperate to find a place that they were actually relieved to find a smelly barn. That never struck me before. I guess I just couldn't bring myself to accept the messy, stinky reality of it. Here was Jesus, born into a very desperate time, surrounded by poverty, disease and opression. (Well set aside that he was born so that he could die perhaps the most miserable death on record.) It seems a little discordant that sublime gifts should commemorate a historical event so earthy.

Perhaps this is the beginning of a new imperative: once again the meaning of Christmas will be determined by the church, and not the department store. Or perhaps it's just one more testament to the cultural dengration of Christianity. Perhaps both. All I know is that I don't want presents to cloud the meaning of Christmas for my children, either by their presence or their absence. It's going to be a complicated world they join. That's for certain. Perhaps it will be one with a resurrected Christmas...

We Will Have Our Victory

Dubya says it, it must be true. Has this war in Iraq not gone on long enough? I've heard so much broadcasting from the administration about how they need to "stay the course", and that "victory is at hand". Their resolve may not be crumbling, but their credibility sure is.

I am so glad Canada isn't in this one. The Canadians who are making the tough-to-read headlines are the ones without guns, bombs or tanks. They're the ones who are humbly willing to risk and sacrifice their lives in effort to bring peace.

This is my country: to stand against the threat of oppression from more powerful nations, to hold true to justice. Stripped of fanfare and tickertape, this is our victory!

Legislating Democracy

I have a real distrust of the west's global "encouragement" of democracy. Putting aside the inherent duplicity of the objective for a moment (your freedom at the end of my gun), democracy can and will be shaped by its cultural context. It stands to reason that if a monarchy changes to a democracy, its society will vote in the king, and pay the king the homage he expects. He may be called Prime Minister, or President, and it may even be a different person in office, but there is little fundamental change to the structure of power. And if we're trying to have democracy in a global sense, then unique interpretations of democracy need to be allowed.

That's not to say that I endorse oppression by any form of leadership. I don't. On the other hand, every system finds a way to marginalise someone.

My opinion is the west's interference in foreign nations' governmental structure is simply another way to destabilise them. For example, if we had a stable, organised Middle East, its power would increase immeasurably due to the monopolisation of the world's energy. Playing each country against each other like pieces on a chess board keeps things favourably unsettled.

The west has made the somewhat arbitrary decision that all countries should employ democracy/capitalism, which on the surface sounds good. But its real aims are much more nebulous.

Really Worth It?

Did you know that the replacement cost for a Cadillac windshield is about $2,200? There is a lot of electronic sophistication in the windshield of a modern Caddy, which explains the cost. Does it justify it? If the primary headlight burns out, that's about $1,100 a pop. The average Cadillac has roughly 32 computer modules built into it, built on about five networks. After my conversation with the insider who told me this, I began to think that this has wider implications than I at first thought.

If you want a Caddy, and you can afford it, go for it. Same goes for a Lexus, Mercedes, even (to a lesser extent) a Hummer. But I don't want to feel the pressure of carrying anyone's insurance rates on my first gen Neon because they cracked their windshield. I don't want to feel the pressure of paying higher gas prices, just because they can sell it at whatever price they pick to the wealthy gas guzzler. And I don't want to pay for extra, unnecessary electronics in my car, included just because that's what the market says should happen.

Interestingly, as time goes on, I find that people who are in the automotive hobby are becoming increasingly distanced from the current market. Even the import scene -- comfortable with the highest level of technology -- is going to older and older cars. They are more fun, and easier to work on. How could any amateur car lover even lift the plastic engine cover off of a vehicle with 32 computers? The higher the level of automotive technology, the more I'm glad I have an old carbureted V8 in my hobby car. Now if gas prices would just get low enough that I could drive it. (And I'll save house prices for another day...)

On Being an Individual

I discovered this week what I've been told all my life: I'm an individual. It's hard to explain this realisation purely in words, because they all sound like what I've heard forever. In university I used to tell people, "You're unique, just like everyone else." I meant it slightly sarcastically, but I have finally come to grips with what it means. At least a little.

Perhaps it's of interest what precipated this epiphany: I entered a picture in the local photo club and its was given a lower score than I expected. Enough positive comments were made about it to preclude bitterness, and so I was allowed to wonder objectively what happened. The effort that went into it was obvious, so I'm left to assume that ultimately it was judged to not be worthy of that effort. "If you like that, you'll love this!" has been the presumption informing so many lost causes.

The whole discovery is a little unsettling for a person who needs to engage a wide variety of people. I realised suddenly that I need to keep reaching out for new ways to connect. At a very basic level, no-one can read my thoughts, and no-one can share my exact beliefs. Truly, no-one can fully understand me. Well, I guess I've known that for a while :) It's a fascinating thought, though, because what I really mean is that no-one can fully understand anyone else. It's a miracle that humans have gotten as far as we have. There is a flip side though.

There isn't nearly as much competition for the things I like as I have been led to believe. There isn't an unquenchable market for Pentax equipment (much to Pentax's chagrin, I'm sure). For early 70s Dodge sedans. For old Suzuki 750s. For basement suites in suburbia. But more importantly for creative expression, deeply appreciated or not.

There is a place in the world for me. I don't have to work so hard to make it, or even find it. In many ways it's being provided, and I just have to accept it. And I'm starting to. I'm starting to.

Digital Camera's Interesting Times

Digital camera manufacturers are in trouble. Of course. Because marketing has been pinned solely on the resolution count -- the almighty megapixel -- and that single feature's marketable equity is doomed. There is an upper limit to the useful resolution necessary in photography, and I think we've found it. More resolution than absolutely necessary is simply a waste of storage space. And so the market is saturated with 5-8MP cameras that are all competing for attention of consumers that are satisfied with the 4MP cams slung around their necks. (As an interesting aside, used film SLRs still command a respectable price. The same can't really be said for any digital camera.)

This has to be the most rapid life-cycle of any product to date. The early adopters were getting on board back in the mid-90s at the earliest, and the technology was still considered 'cutting edge' in the late 90s, where prices of rudimentary cameras and memory storage media were outrageous. Then in about 2000 the floodgates opened. Compeition got fierce, features improved and prices dropped. Rapidly. Now many companies are starting to feel the cost of expensive R&D schedules, as their consumer bases start to dwindle. Nikon is perhaps the one exception, as they have used intelligent marketing and their renowned expertise in photography in this new era. In the meantime, HP is bailing out of the Asian camera market altogether, and a lot of the other do-it-all electronics giants are seeing sharply reduced profits. Even strong second-string players, like Pentax, are feeling the crunch.

I think the problem is that while digital has been touted as "better than film", in most respects it really isn't. And instead, ironically, using film as its benchmark has limited what digital can be. I expect very soon we'll see an improvement in sensitivity to allow digital cameras to shoot in light dimmer than the eye can see, and image stabilization will become ubiquitous, as it is in camcorders. Of course multi-function units will cause minor clamours ("my PDA can receive e-mail, play MP3s, run movies, make phone calls, do my homework, find me a girlfriend, and take half-decent pics too! Woohoo!"). As to whether they have the ability to turn this market scenario around, I'm sceptical. The mainstream market's full, leaving only the niches.

My advice to both manufacturers and consumers is to slow down. For the consumers, take a hard look at what you need, and set what you want to spend. Carefully factor in accessories, batteries and memory, and don't be distracted by big numbers and bigger promises. And if you're satisfied with what you have, stay that way. For the manufacturers, your customers are getting wise. It's time to get down to the business of high quality, and useful features over flashy fads and glitzy gimmicks. The rewards may not be as glamourous, but they are certainly more trustworthy.

No-one Here but us Scary Wierdoes

Who would willingly subject themselves to scarring, piercing, burning and injecting? A prof of mine once said if you want to have some fun, climb into a packed elevator and scream at the top of your lungs, because, well, you know what you're doing. Projecting a wierd persona follows much the same lines. Imagine the insights that Marilyn Manson has about the human condition. He can watch everything from behind a mask and a costume.

I have wasted very brief moments of my channel-surfing existence watching extreme makeover shows. It surprises me how surprised these women are. They talk about the increased confidence, and how much better they feel about themselves. But no-one mentions the removal of honesty. No-one talks about the costume that people have inserted into their bodies, or the permanent psychological changes that accompany it. Once you've got those implants and dental veneers, what do you do with them? Sure you've got confidence baby, but how long can you keep up with yourself. And anyway, just how noble is it that you've done all that "only for yourself"?

Now get this: in a recent interview a walking human spectacle said that we're only seeing the very beginning. He believes that people will begin modding their bodies, removing parts of their organs that seem to be extraneous, and streamlining bodily functions. Add to that the many jokes that people are making about surgically implanting electronic devices like cell phones. I'm not laughing. I mean for some people they may as well be implanted already, they're so removed from their daily reality.

So many people are so passionately chasing after the wind, looking for the next wagon to clamber on, doing whatever it takes to prevent life from feeling old. The rebel in me is getting a thrill out of just being where and who I am, as hard as I can.

Those Evangelicals

In listening to the media discussing the gay agenda vs. the Christian agenda, I get a mental picture those two exploding helmets they show during televised football games. They appear on the screen, crash together in hi-rez CG goodness, some people passionately express some pretty inane convictions, and we're back to the helmets. (I hate TV sports, but those helmets somehow disengage my hair-trigger eye-thumb reflexes.)

Especially since the same-sex marriage decision in Canada I have found myself watching more gay media. And I actually think we're closer to each other than either side would ever admit. The gay stuff has a leg up because it's more of an unknown novelty, while all people think they're experts on God and religion.

I'm not as free as some respected friends who've gone on record saying Christians should allow gay marriage, because "Well, what's the big deal?" I guess my retort to that would be, "If the deal isn't so big, then why do gay people want it?"

Words are all we have. Symbols are assigned definitions, entirely arbitrarily in most cases, and they form the tenuous shared culture experience that connect human beings together, and we call that language. Changing the definition of a fundamental cultural tenet, like "marriage", is riskier than at first it may appear. As pointed out by several religious thinkers (and here I'm not just referring to Christians, if you're curious), divorce has made what was indefinite temporary. In general that has caused much harm to society, across all generations. It continues to have repurcussions that weren't imaginable. In college-aged students there is little expectation to get married; they've seen their parents' example, and they're not readily buying into the marriage model. So instead we have even more tenuous relationships forming, ones without formal recognition or lasting commitment of any kind, except perhaps to car payments and mortgages. In the span of two or three generations, relationships have become comoditised.

I think there's a historical simplicity to the design of marriage. But if you take it apart to examine it, you realise just how complicated it is. And that's when you realise that have no idea how to put it back together.

However I'm not the type to say we're all going to Hell in a handbasket. Or that the world is about to end. I'll leave that to the other radical evangelists. But when they say it, I'll sort of shrug. "Could be, could be."