PAPER MAN III

Now, watch this, because this is where it happens. This is the trick Paper Man pulls without knowing he pulls it —He's not that smart, he's actually kind of stupid, the way a reflection in a mirror is stupid. The trick is, instead of us saying, "Hey, Paper Man, there is no "them" you knucklehead," and then laughing at him. We say, "Yes, we are a "them" and we don't like it. We don't want to feel like a "them" Mr. Paper Man and you're making us feel like a "them." We demand rights for us "thems." There. Did you see it? Right there? Even though there is just "us," we let Paper Man say there is a "them" and we agreed! We even said we were a "them." —Church people sometimes say they are a "them," and church people, of all people, should know better. Even though Paper Man doesn't exist, by saying there is a "them," we've said there is a Paper Man, that he's the "us." But it isn't true! Don't you see, it isn't true! If Paper Man isn't an "us," we can't be a "them." Do you see? The louder we jump up and down and shout and scream saying, "Hey, listen to us "thems," we demand to be heard, we demand to be part of Paper Man too." the more we make Paper Man look real. Do you see how silly it is? To want to be part of something that doesn't really exist? It doesn't happen just to church people. Remember, no one is Paper Man, so everyone, in some way feels like they aren't Paper Man, they feel like a "them." Everyone, in some way feels like a "them." The second we agree and call ourselves a "them" and demand rights and priviledges and a "voice" because we are a them, we make Paper Man real. The more "thems" there are the more real Paper Man becomes. Like pencil marks around the outside of a shape. You don't draw the shape, you draw pencil marks in the space around the shape, and where the pencil marks stop, makes the shape. Without the pencil marks of "them" outside of Paper Man, he doesn't exist. Every time we agree we're a "them" we help draw Paper Man. The more real Paper Man becomes, the more we feel like a them, which makes more marks around Paper Man, which makes him more real, which makes us feel more like a "them," which makes more marks around Paper Man, which makes him more real, which makes us feel more like a "them," which makes more marks around Paper Man… well, you get the idea.

You know what would be sad? It would be sad if we started liking Paper Man more than real people. You know, the way we sometimes like Disneyland more than real life. But, what if we started preferring Disneyland to real life all the time? Wouldn't that be sad? Paper Man is safe and sterile. We can always control him because he doesn’t exist, someone makes him. He is thin and flat. But he is easy, like candyfloss is easy, only you'll die if all you have is candyfloss.

Real people aren't safe, they are messy. We can't control people, because they are themselves, but at the same time they are part of us. Real people are deep and savory. Real people are hard work, like a big feast. But it's worth it, isn't it? Real people are what we need to be alive. I hope I expect people to be real people. I hope I don't expect them to be Paper Man. Maybe I'm so used to the fake thing that the real thing just upsets me. Maybe I think messy real people are some kind of exception to the Paper Man rule, and they should clean themselves up and be safer and more antiseptic. That would be really sad. Paper Man isn't the way things are, messy people are the way things are. I hope I still know that.

PAPER MAN II

Let me tell you why Paper Man is so dangerous. Everyone, to some extent, wants to be an "us." No one wants to be a "them." We all want to belong somewhere. The 5 foot man and the 7 foot man want to belong. Imagine if someone, call him Ad Man, knew there is no 6 foot man, but pretended that there is a 6 foot man. What if Ad Man pretended there is a "normal" man, and he is 6 feet? The 5 foot man and the 7 foot man would both feel like they don't belong. They would both feel outside of "normal." Both the 5 foot man and the 7 foot man would want to be normal because everyone wants to belong. Now what if Ad Man told the 5 foot man and the 7 foot man, "You can't be 6 feet, you will never really be normal, you will never really belong, but you can feel 6 feet." Both men would say, "How can we feel 6 feet." Then Ad Man would tell them about something and say, "This will make you feel 6 feet." Both men would probably buy it, because they would want to be normal, because they want to belong. They would feel they should be Paper Man. Numbers Man and Seller Man would both think Ad Man is very important. The better he is at making Paper Man seem real the more important he is to Numbers Man and Seller Man.

When Ad Man helps Paper Man speak he is helping Paper Man say he is "us." As soon as he speaks, no matter what his mouth is saying, he is saying, "Hey, look at me. I am 'us'." But Paper Man isn't telling the truth, he's not "us." We're "us." Us real people who live and move and breathe in specifics. We're all just "us," autommatically, by being a person you are "us." That's all there is. Anyone who tries to tell you different isn't telling the truth. So Paper Man, by saying he is "us" isn't telling the truth. But Paper Man can't help it. In someways it isn't his fault. He doesn't exist, he's just trying to be one of us, but he isn't.

Everyone feeling they should be Paper Man is a problem. There is no Paper Man, he is Paper Man. Everyone feels this longing to be something that isn't really there, and they can never be it. It's easy to say everyone should or could be themselves, but sometimes that is not easy, and sometimes that doesn’t feel like enough. Especially when Paper Man is so shiny, and nice, and happy, and popular. Part of us thinks we are, or at least should be, Paper Man. Part of us wants to be shiny, nice, happy and popular with Paper Man. Part of us believes Paper Man when he says he is "us."

Another part of us doesn't believe Paper Man and knows we will never be Paper Man. That is a good thing, because no one can be Paper Man, there is no Paper Man, he's made up. But it's also a bad thing, because if you belive what Paper Man says (that he is "us") and you know you aren't Paper Man, you automatically feel like a "them." Which is sad, because really everyone is an "us." We're all just "us." Autommatically, by being a person you are "us." That's all there is. But Paper Man, just by speaking, is saying he's "us," and if we believe it, we are all "them."

Here's the really sneaky part about Paper Man. Since he doesn't exist, he's made up, Paper Man makes everyone feel like a "them." Everyone, to some extent, feels like a "them." It's kind of funny in a not funny way, because everyone feeling like a "them" makes us all "us'es," which is the way it really is, and Paper Man is the only "them," which is just the opposite of what Paper Man is saying. Weird, huh?

PAPER MAN I

Some people think TV is out to get the church. I don't think so. At least it isn't out to get you any more than cotton candy is out to get you. If all you eat is cotton candy, well, to some extent, it's your own stupid fault.

I don't think TV is out to get the church, I think it's out to get everybody, so the church shouldn't feel special in getting got. TV can't live and move and breathe in specifics. TV is only good at making Paper Man. TV isn't the only thing that makes Paper Man, but Paper Man is the only thing TV can make.

Let me explain. Imagine a room. In the room there is a man who is 5 feet tall. There is a second man in the room, he is 7 feet tall. Someone, let's call him Buyer Man, wants to buy, say, a sports jacket for both men in the room, but Buyer Man doesn't know the men in the room. Buyer Man asks another man, lets call him Numbers Man, what size jackets should I buy? Numbers Man says, "The average hight of the men in the room is 6 feet." So Buyer Man buys two jackets, each jacket suitable for a 6 foot man. Obviously, niether of the men, the 5 foot man nor the 7 foot man, will have a jacket that fits. But I don't want to talk about the 5 foot man or the 7 foot man. I want to talk about the 6 foot man who doesn't exist. The 6 foot man is a generalized man. He is a statistical man. But the 5 foot man and the 7 foot man don't live and move and breathe in generalizations and statistics. They live and move and breathe in specifics.

It's obvious to us that the 6 foot man doesn't exist. But since two jackets were made for a 6 foot man, the 5 foot man and the 7 foot man might be tempted to think there is a 6 foot man. Neither of them sees a 6 foot man with them in the room, but still they might think there is a 6 foot man. Even worse, they might think they are suppose to be 6 foot men. They might actually think they are, in some way, inadequate; rather than thinking the made up statistical man is inadequate, too general, not particular enough. The 5 foot man might think of himself as too short, and the 7 foot man might think of himself as too tall. That would be very dangerous, and very sad. The 6 foot man can be a very dangerous man, even though he does not exist.

I was wondering what to call the 6 foot man. The dangerous man that does not exist. I thought maybe Phantom Man, which is good because he isnt' really there, but it sounds too much like a comic book character, so that isn't quite right. Then I thought Invisible Man, more like he's there, but you can't see him, which isn't the right idea, plus, there is a comic book charater called invisible man, so that doesn't work. Then I thought of Everyman, which I think some philosopher used once to describe the same thing I'm talking about, but I didn't want to copy. Then I thought of Paper Man. And I liked that. It makes me think of people getting it right "on paper" but getting it wrong in the real world; and it made me think of papier-mache, like a quote in Heart of Darkness. "I let him run on, this papier-mache Mephistopheles, and it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my fore-finger through him, and would find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe." But mostly Paper Man made me think of a thin, flimsy, barely there, not-quite-man, man.

ESCHEW IMAGE VI: Rebuilding the Ediface

Having some understanding of our situation we arrive at what I believe is our best option. Eschew image. Do not willingly enter the realm of shallow images and appearances. By "image" we do not mean images. Indeed visual art, design, film and photography are all potentially powerful communicators of God's work in his creation. By image we mean instead the broader idea developed earlier; a marketing driven corporate identity, or a corporate branding strategy. Fundamentally the church is not about image, it is about substance, the active grace of Christ. As such the church needn't concern itself with "appearing to be" but simply with "being." However, the church does need to concern itself with image in as much as it needs to understand the dynamics and impact of image so as not to become an unwitting puppet of image. That is the least we can do.

Further, Children of the creator God should deeply understand what it is we offer as an antidote to the noise of marketing. Being a child of God is participation in a narrative of complexity and depth as initiated by the Master Poet of the Universe. It is authentic action as an extension of one's heart. It is an authentic spontaneous response of one person toward another, an honest moment. I see this as one of the most fundamental tasks of the church today, to operate in a construct radically separate from the dominant and homogenous construct of media driven image. Where image manipulates for gain, Children of Creator God shed agenda for the sake of grace. Where image ignores and is simplistic, Children of Creator God acknowledge and are complex. Where image hides in convolution, Children of Creator God bask in simplicity. Where image shouts polarization, Children of the Creator God whisper tension. Where image obfuscates out of expedience, Children of Creator God reveal despite difficulty. Where image mumbles, Children of Creator God speak. Where image moves toward the controlled moment, commercial exchange; Children of Creator God move toward the honest moment, mysterious grace.

The church must be situated in our creatureliness, a part of the world we inhabit, a world of image. At the same time the church must be situated in our createdness, separate from the world we inhabit, separate from image. To properly live in this tension the church cannot simply alter the message of a world of image, it must alter the world of image itself.

If the media construct is a tall shiny office building, the church cannot merely rearrange the furniture within the building. The church must begin dismantling the building, violating the intended purpose of various components of the building, and then reordering those various components so they now serve kingdom purposes. We can't wait for permission from the building managers. We have to start right where we are, in obedience to God. Is our allegiance to the big shiny building, it's order, it's immensity, it's appealing sense of solidity, it's effortless sense of entitlement, the security of it's status quo? Or is our allegiance to God? Do we care more for the people in the structure than the structure itself, as God does? Are we willing to violate the dictates of a world of image? Are we willing to begin dismantling our section of the building without asking for prior permission from the caretakers of the building? Are we willing to begin dismantling when we're not sure what we'll be building in it's place?

The caretakers of the building are more concerned with the building than the people in it. They will fight. They will say we are destroying the building. They won't understand re-ordering, nor kingdom purposes. They will say destroying the building is foolhardy, capricious, inhumane.

To properly live in the tension of creatureliness and createdness the church must feel the tension. Rearranging the furniture weighs too heavily on our creatureliness, we can become fairly confident and self sufficient in furniture arranging, therefore there is little tension. Dismantling and then rebuilding the only available residential structure because one has received orders to do so from an authority the caretakers of the structure do not acknowledge, while one remains living, along with the caretakers and all else, within the structure, is living in tension.

ESCHEW IMAGE V: Engaging Image with Image. An Unholy Accident?

In contrast to a conscious media holy war, a more pertinent and prevalent situation exists. The church, unaware of the dynamics and perils of image, unwittingly stumbles into the realm of image. Image is no respecter of persons. Whether one has entered image by choice of by accident, all rules apply. The rules are not dictated by malicious people, but by the construct, the epistemology of image, the intrinsic nature of the media edifice our society has produced.

Image, being anathema to the Gospel, does not bear the Gospel well. Unaware of the intrinsic perils of image, the church feels betrayed by those who operate in the sphere of image and media construct. The church does not realize the caretakers of image are merely operating within the prescribed limitations of media, and so the church blames "them" and leaves the media construct unquestioned. Thus the church marginalizes itself, affirms its powerlessness, and leaves the construct uncriticized and untouched.

The construct actually brings about a reciprocal straw-man attack which serves to distract and deflect on both "sides" of the Christian divide. As noted, the Church's attack on "them" deflects and distracts from a critique of the construct. Conversely a populace, also uncritical of the construct, is deflected and distracted by a negative image of the church, never encountering the church as it is. (How prepared the western Evangelical Church is for an authentic encounter is a completely separate course of investigation. The point here being, the good which does exist is not allowed an authentic encounter.)

This is the heartbreak of an unintentional engagement of image with image—that even one person would miss an authentic encounter with the reality of Jesus Christ because they first encountered a shallow image constructed by the chruch. It is particularly heart breaking when the church itself, however well intentioned, manufactures and facilitates the shallow image. It is further shame that the church, unwittingly caught up in image, unaware of the realities of image, is unable to provide an antidote to image.

ESCHEW IMAGE IV: Engaging Image with Image. A Holy War?

Given this reality, one of the options available to the church is to embrace image. Do image better than anyone else. Create and manage an image that overpowers the current image already created. Unfortunately engaging image with image is fraught with peril.

On a pragmatic level creating a positive image that is superior and more ubiquitous than the current image while retaining control of said image would require complete independence from the existing media edifice. One would need to, in effect, create a "Christian" media empire greater in scope and reach than the existing media edifice. There are a number of chilling issues with such a scenario, some all too current and real. However, suffice it to say a simple logistical issue presents itself. Creating and managing an image more ubiquitous than the image offered by the current media edifice would require financial resources equal to or greater than all current film, television, newspaper and magazine production. Unless one is willing to posit self-interested advertising driven commercial exchange as the hallmark and duty of those professing the gospel—recognized as a chilling current reality—one will have difficulty envisioning philanthropy expansive enough to sustain a "Christian" media ediface set about to challenge an existing media ediface built and predicated on self-interested advertising driven commercial exchange. Simply put, the church cannot out media the media without eviscerating the gospel.

One may argue that while the church cannot overpower the media edifice, it could work within the existing media edifice toward improving the church's image. I would contend that any willful use of image is counter to the gospel. Image is detatched, impersonal, synthetic, constructed, pliable, appearance focused, concerned with verisimilitude rather than reality, unable to broach complexity and depth. Hardly a list one wishes to associate with the transcendent and immanent person of Jesus Christ.

Catch phrases and gimmicks are shallow, one dimensional and encourage fleeting engagement. If the church enters the realm of image it is bound by the epistemology of image. The medium is the message. Thus, if the church uses catch phrases and marketing gimmicks it encourages people to engage a simple catch phrase or marketing gimmick. People will bounce off of gimmicks and into Cartoon Christianity. That is, gimmicks won't lead people toward Christ, they will lead them toward a media constructed image of Christianity, Cartoon Christianity. They haven't encountered Christ.

Worse still, simple gimmicks are open to subversion. Easy catch phrases, simplistic symbols, marketing gimmicks will be subverted. It is what media does. To everyone. Media, and a very media savvy public, will co-opt shallow symbols and spit them back with an ironic smirk, no problem. Tradition, doctrine or even Christ himself won't have been engaged, therefore Tradition, doctrine or Christ won't have been subverted. A simple catch phrase will have been subverted. This happens all the time to virtually all catch phrases, regardless of content, regardless of who started them. One has little excuse to be upset when "Christian" catch phrases are skewered. "Simplistic" and "easy" are the argot of media. If you lob the simple ball, be sure you're going to get the kill shot bouncing back off your forehead. I would contend that when the church willingly enters the realm of image it encourages an assessment of itself based on image. This is an undesirable dynamic as the epistemological constraints of image are counter to the gospel.

ESCHEW IMAGE III: A World of Image+Other

Having established the underpinnings of image and other we arrive at the crux of the matter, that is the dynamic between the two. To explore this dynamic we are not limited to Christianity. Virtually any identifiable group within society has, to some extent, deal with the "image/other" dynamic—women, Hispanic, gays, postal workers, francophones, teenagers, boomers, the elderly, Jews, Muslims, lawyers, skaters, jocks, punkers… ad nauseum. To begin, whenever a perception of "other" exists a reciprocal perception of “other” exists. If we use feminism as an example, feminism would view media, dominated by representation of white, middle class males, as "other." Conversely, media would classify feminism as "other." This is important to note. Media, by its design, not by malicious intent, must appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Its raison d'etre is to be inoffensive. This may seem a misguided assertion until one realized media's offensiveness and rebelliousness happens within rather rigid and structured norms. It operates in accepted modes of offensiveness, accepted modes of rebellion. The word convention comes from the root meaning "to come together in agreement." In that sense media is quite conventional in that there is broad agreement in how it should and does operate, indeed, how it should and does offend. As evidence I proffer the billions generated every year by the entertainment industry despite on going and persistent protestations regarding its content.

The important thing is to realize media isn't a function of its content, it is a function of its structure. The medium is the message. It is more important to understand media as ubiquitous, fickle, decentalized, primarily visual, rather than understand or analyze it's content. Given a broader systemic approach to the media edifice it becomes evident that society's protestations are part of the accepted structure, a convention of the larger discourse between society and media. The protests are merely part of the show. It is expected that media will "push the envelop" and it is equally expected society will "protest." We would surely be alarmed if anything else occurred for it wold disrupt our broadly agreed upon expectations. That media is not intrinsically offensive, but rather intrinsically homogeneous, is critical. It is precisely through its hegemeny that it excludes everyone. By becoming the non-existent "every-man" it becomes no-one. Media is a recursive feedback loop of expectation. Media violates the social norms of the generalized values and expectations of the non-existent "every-man," and we expect that it will. Media violates artifical social norms it has itself constructed, it's "violation" of artificial social norms becomes part of the construction.

By proffering generalizations media marginalizes everyone because everyone lives in specifics. Specific social norms, specific values, specific expectations. Everyone protests the betrayal of their specific values and expectations. However, in protesting the violation of generalized social norms we affirm the existence of the generalized social norms. The generalized social norms are simply a media construct, the values of "every-man." By engaging them we give them credence.

Taking feminism as an example we see the dynamic at work. Media presumes and creates generalized norms and expectations. Media then violates those same social norms. It does this in prescribed culturally accepted ways which allow it to continue creating and violating norms, seen as "pushing the envelope." Feminism, not sharing the generalized norms, see's itself as "other," marginalized. A violation of the generalized norms, (say an overtly misogynist radio show meant to shock) is viewed by feminism as resulting from the violation of actual social norms. By protesting the violation feminism acknowledges the generalized values thereby giving the non-existent values credence and shape. Simultaneously it gives credence and shape to feminism's position as marginalized, which, within the media construct it is.

It is critical for the church to realize this dynamic and free itself form the powerless victim hood of "an antagonistic media." Replace "feminism" with "chruch" and the preceeding explaination yet rings true. Replace "feminism" with "Hispanic, gays, postal workers, francophones, teenagers, boomers, the elderly, Jews, Muslims, lawyers, skaters, jocks, punkers," and it yet rings true. Media is antagonistic to anyone that is not every-man. In other words it is antagonistic to everyone since no one is every-man. Media must generate visible labeled groups to give shape to its absent Every-man. The positive (visible labeled groups) shapes the negative (absent Every-man.) The visible labeled groups exist only to give shape and credence to the absent Every-man. It would be like filling up a whole page of paper with pencil marks, except for a 5cm circle in the middle. You didn't "draw" a circle. You made a bunch of marks where the circle wasn't and by doing so a circle appeared. Media can't draw Every-man, he doesn't exist. But by filling up the page with the marks of labeled groups, shaped around the imaginary Every-man, media can make Every-man appear.

The all embracing antagonism of media has little to do with content. It is the structure of the media construct that keeps us entertained and distracted. Life the movie. The greatest expressive artists of our age are sports celebrities, film and television celebrities, followed by a host of minor celebrities from every walk of life blessed with 15 minutes of fame. What celebrities do as professionals is, ostensibly, "the show." The real show is their lives. Perfectly crafted "lifestyles," the holy embodiment of consuming expressive individualism. The celebrity slips into the skin of the non-existent Every-man. It is no accident that the negative shape of Every-man, provided by labeling the the rest of humanity, is a perfect fit for the celebrity.

Ironically, margianlized groups comprise virtually the entire populace. We are all part of several labeled groups. Thus we are all in the precarious tension of feeling we should be, or are, the Every-man Celebrity. At the same time we identify with several non-Every-man labeled groups. In this tension we loathe and love the gods who have risen from among us, but are now so very far above us. In the labeled tension of non-Every-man, that is, all of us, we moan, I should be like Every-man Celebrity, but I am not.

One final spin closes the loop and perpetuates the cycle: this entire "dialogue," between constructed social norms and marginalized groups decrying the violation of constructed social norms, takes place in the arena of image. The medium is the message. The shape of the medium, decontextualized shallow image, is the grease that keeps the whole machine spinning. There is never an actual reasonable person engaging another actual reasonable person. If there where it would become quickly and abundantly clear, specific non-labeld people don't make for good television, and the whole thing would grind to a halt. Labeled groups conflicting with labeled groups make for good television. A labeled group is entirely a media construct, and it is therefore an image construct. A labeled group's response to media becomes part of its image, to be used by media to further define the labeled group. In a visual culture of image, media calls the shots. The squeaky wheel, becomes "The Squeaky Wheel," news at 11:00.

By decrying content and the erosion of values the church is complicit in the assumption that we are marginalized and powerless. The louder we yell the more crystallized our image becomes. An image that is, as we have seen, out of our control. The more calcified the image the more it enables the self propagating cycle of media constructed generalized values. As the cycle spins we lose more and more control of our image, calcifying the image which enables the cycle... ad infinitum.

ESCHEW IMAGE II: A World of Other

Along with existing in a world of image, the North American church exists in a world of other. North America has been called a post-Christian society. Most people do not possess even a cursory understanding of the doctrines of Christianity. The word "Christianity" has become a culturally shaped social norm. As such it permits nominal engagement by both adherents and observers. Thus even those professing to be "Christian" have little understanding of the dynamics of Christianity. However, Christianity's historic impact is deeply felt in North America. Some bemoan the loss of "the good old days," and work toward a legislated return to our "Christian heritage." Unfortunately legislated change will, at best, produce behavioural compliance while completely ignoring the crucial and, in Christ's eyes, non-negotiable issues of the heart. Many others have realized that a force of will is contrary to Christ's agenda. Christ behaves, not as legislator of our destiny, but a persistent suitor, romancing us, wooing us to his side. The North American chruch needs to proceed with all the consideration, dexterity and aplomb of a persistent suitor, and as such offer only what Christ offered each and every member of His Church. It is a vision of the Church in keeping with Hudson Taylor's radical approach to missions in China. He didn't presume a Christian heritage meant cultural superiority, thus requiring an imperial transposition of cultural values. Instead he gave equal footing to Chinese cultural values and norms. In this way the Gospel wasn't superimposed on a culture nor did it displace culture. Rather it was allowed to suffuse the culture thereby enabling Christ’s mysterious work of transformation. Indeed, it would be impossible for the Gospel to operate any other way. The gospel is not a book. It is a life lived. The transforming power of Christ's life, death and resurrection doesn’t exist in a vacuum. His life, the Gospel, only has meaning in the context of another life lived. The mystery of Christ incarnate, the Gospel, is in transforming another life. That life in turn becomes the Gospel incarnate. It would seem this is a critical role of the persistent church to simply incarnate the gospel. Live a life in light of Christ's life lived.

ESCHEW IMAGE I: A World of Image

In North America we live in a world of image rather than substance. Image is synthetic, that is it is constructed, malleable, simplified and vivid. In thinking of image one can think of Nike's corporate image. It is carefully constructed and has virtually nothing to do with the manufacture and distribution of running shoes. Because the image is constructed it is malleable and can be shifted to accommodate different cultural milieu. The image has no subtlety or negative aspects, it is a distilled positive "experience." Stripped of the richness of actual experience, image is well suited to media. In fact it is constructed at great cost specifically for media. A corporate image is custom designed for sound bites. It is easily repeated and disseminated making it vivid and compelling. Thus image doesn't have to “be,” it just has to "appear to be." Interestingly this works synergisticly with media. Image demands media, media demands image. The two have a dynamism that is more than the sum of their parts. Yet both are limited by the intrinsic constraints of the other. This notion is at the core of Marshal McLuhan's aphorism, 'the medium is the message" —more on that later. What the image/media synergy doesn't handle very well is substance, which is extemporaneous, authentic, complex, unedited "being." Actual people are complex, unpredictable, take time to figure out, real people don't translate well into sound bites.

Apart from its synthetic nature, image is also autonomous. It exists separately from the reality of the original. As we have noted, the Nike image has little to do with the reality of the company. The image, although initiated and created by Nike, exists "out there," residing between it's creators and its intended audience. As many celebrities have discovered, the autonomy of image has its perils. Although a celebrity image is very carefully crafted it can be subverted, co-opted even hijacked and replaced with an image wholly beyond the celebrity's control.

Things Which Have Passed In Front of My Windshield in the Last 96 Minutes

01. 014 FAM
02. Two old ladies. One wearing a white hat, one wearing a pink sweater
03. Three people. Two men, one woman. The men are talking the woman is silent
04. A white haired man wearing a black leather jacket. He just bought a parking ticket
05. 090 FCM
06. 756 BBJ
07. 1407 VT
08. 171 GGP
09. 006 JKN
10. A large woman carrying a marine engine block.
11. Crow
12. GPM 744
13. 340 JEE
14. WVN 280
15. A Jaunty silver haired man. (He turned back half way, so maybe that doesn't count.)
16. VFM 759
17. A23076 M (Not from here.)
18. Seagull
19. 2373 ET
20. Clouds
21. GXD 668
22. Mountains (slowly)
23. Time
24. A fly (inside)
25. A small plane (outside)
26. 3324 FL
27. Another crow. (Could be the same one.)
28. A large woman with a greasy blue t-shirt (No engine block this time), walking beside a small curly haired man.
29. WVN 280
30. A yellow motorcycle (4x)
31. 2373 ET (With a dog in back this time.)
32. 6249 HK
33. KAH 479
34. 28 Japanese people who work for AFLAC Insurance carrying Dungeness crabs and/or Pacific salmon.

Mutts and Manx Gaelic

I have this ongoing delusional fantasy. It might be cute for a 13 year old, but it's kind of pathetic if one is supposedly well past delusions. The delusion is this, if I was born in another time I would be a warrior. It's really funny because I've never been in a physical fight in my life. Yet, I have this misty eyed vision: In another place. In another time, the warrior doth rise... [enter lute music] Maybe it's the kind of thing all boys think, some chromosomal malfunction, or maybe it's just me. Either way, here I sit, sedentary as a lamp, 41 years old, 40 pounds over weight, sloshing back my fifth coffee today. Still, that stupid warrior thing won't die.

Like a lot of Canadians I am a mutt. My family heritage is Austrian, Polish, English and Manx (The Isle of Man). I've always identified most strongly with my Manx heritage. I used to feel bad about it, like it was favoritism or something, but recently I've just come to accept it as it is, I feel more Manx than anything. (My siblings may well feel a different component of our heritage helps define who they are; as mutts we can pick and choose what part of us helps define us. It's kind of a cool Canadian thing.)

The Isle of Man is a weird place. It is an internally self-governing dependent territory of the British Crown. It isn't part of the UK or the EU. Tynwald, the Island's 1000 year old parliament, is the oldest continuous running parliament in the world. The Isle of Man has it's own currency and it's own language, Manx Gaelic. The film "Waking Ned Divine" was shot there [mild ripple of recognition rolls through the audience, replacing, heretofore, blank stares]. The Isle of Man is a cold inhospitible rock in the middle of one of the coldest most inhospitible seas in the world, and yet the Manx people continue to thrive there. Not only do they thrive, they remain hospitable within this sea of inhospitality. The Manx people are hearty people. The Manx people decended from Vikings. I descended from Vikings. Vikings are warriors. Hmmm... something to give one pause.

I've come to realize something I've always known, but nobody in the churches I went to really acknowledged it, so I didn't really acknowledge it either. It made me uncomfortable because I was suppose to be nice, but it's sitting right there plain as day; if God is who he say's he is, we wake up to a world at war. Paul makes it pretty plain:

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12 NIV)

Jeremiah was at war all his life. Who was he at war with? Not Jerusalem, the people. He loved the people, they were his people. That's why he dedicated his entire life toward trying to get them to change their ways. The battle isn't against sinners, God died for sinners. The battle is against powers that would keep God's creation in sin. It is a battle against powers who wish to see the people God loves not receive their inheritance as children of God. Jeremiah fought along side God, relentlessly breaking away things that would leave God's people in delusion, that wold leave them blinded to Him. Jeremiah didn't fight Jerusalem. Jeremiah fought "Jerusalem." "Jerusalem" was Israel's security, it's power, it's wealth, it's religious order, it's entitlement, it's ways-of-doing-things, it's systems, it's techniques, it's structures. All good stuff, but "Jerusalem" had become Israel's inamorata. "Jerusalem" was something other than God. The spiritual forces of evil loved "Jerusalem," it did all their work for them.

Jeremiah saw the way things were. He saw the anguish and the pain headed toward the people he loved and lived among. If they didn't turn from their God-ignoring ways, "Jerusalem" would be ripped away. It would be torn away for their own sake, to break them free of their God-ignoring structures. This ripping away was their only chance. God wouldn't leave them lost in their own structures. He was relentless about saving them from themselves. For those who refused to let go of the structures, they would fall to destruction clinging to the wrong thing.

We don't fight against sinners. Jeremiah didn't fight Israel, he loved Israel. He fought their self-delusion. He fought their self-delusion as already-children-of-God. He fought the ways of seeing the world that upheld the delusion. He fought the spiritual powers who upheld the delusion. He fought Israel's blindness. He fought the powers that would keep them blind. Jeremiah fought for new eyes. Eyes to see. Eyes to see things as they really were.

When I was studying for my fine arts degree I had a professor who gave young painters a very good piece of advice. He said if you're having trouble with a painting, if you're stuck and you're not sure where to go next, turn the painting upside down. When you turn it upside down, you see it with new eyes. You see it for the first time again, you see it as it really is.

This is what Jeremiah did. He spoke Jerusalem's world upside down, so they could see it fresh, so they could see things as they really were. Jeremiah fought for new eyes. Some time after Jeremiah, in a much different world, someone else spoke an upside down world. But He didn't stop at just speaking an upside down world, he really turned the world upside down. The first are last and the last are first. The rich are poor and the poor are rich. You have to die to live, you gain what you let go of. Jesus created one freaky weird upside down world.

And here's the exciting thing, Jesus turned the painting upside down, and then told us to do more painting. He said fight blindness by helping me paint this upside down world. He didn't turn it upside down and then put it in a frame and stick it on the wall. He also didn't suddenly make it a paint by number world. You get to create. You get to use your image-after-God as it was meant to be used. You are co-creators with Christ, bringing shape to his now upside down world. You get to paint like a warrior in this marvelous upside down world that you now see with fresh eyes, as it really is. Like Jeremiah, you get to join God in an epic struggle against right-side-up thinking. More specifically, against the powers of this world that promote, propogate, create, uphold right-side-up thinking. You fight against the powers that keep sinners sinners, instead of the already-children-of-God they have a right to be. If God is who he says he is, and Jesus made the world as upside down as He said He did, we are in a world at war. We are fighting self-delusion on an epic scale. We are fighting for new eyes. We are fighting blindness and we are fighting the spiritual powers of evil that love blindness. We co-create this upside down world with Christ and declare it true. Warrior-Kings, warrior-poets, warrior-sons and warrior-daughters fight along side Christ, co-creating His upside down world, declaring it true.

Fight the spiritual powers of evil who say, "The first are first, the poor are poor, you get to keep what you grab, and everything is still right side up." Go into all the world and tell them I turned the world upside down, and then help them to live as though it were true.

That seems like a task worthy of warriors, maybe even Vikings. Hmmm... something to give one pause.

I'm leaving on a jet plane

I've been busy preparing for a trip to Africa, consequently I haven't posted in a few days. By way of information, I'm posting the pre-written, thus time saving, letter I e-mailed around a few weeks ago:

Dear Friends

It's back to Bole! On March 31, 2005 Andy Harrington, Cecil Rast and I are returning to Bole, Ethiopia, a village Andy and I visited 2 years ago.

You are receiving this update because you supported, in some way, my trip to Ethiopia two years ago; or you have expressed interest in my travels. Hopefully you have received word that water is now flowing in Bole. Again, thank you for your part in saving lives. Andy and I are returning to Ethiopia to film a short video about the successful work in Bole.

Two years ago kids at Historymaker responded to the need in Bole and gave generously, making the work there possible. We'll be showing the Bole success video at Historymaker as an encouragement, proof that a difference can be made.

There is a second component to our trip, taking on new work, a new need. We will be returning to Addis Abiba to film a longer piece about AIDS orphans there, this is the work we'll be asking Historymaker kids to support this year.

As before, your role is foundational. That first video wouldn't have been made, and kids wouldn't have had the opportunity to respond if you didn't first respond. Your generosity carried me over the ocean, made the whole thing possible.

It is going to be a challenging trip this year. The situation in Addis has brought seasoned aid workers to tears, I have no illusions as to how difficult it will be to tell the story of these precious children. More than ever, I feel I can't go alone. I need to be sent. As always, your thoughts and prayers are greatly appreciated.

Also, if you would like to participate financially in, literally, sending me to Bole and Addis, that too would be greatly appreciated. We feeble humans need tangible evidence of inner realities. In my case, financial support is that tangible thing that tells me I'm sent, it tells me this is bigger than me. It seems kind of weird, and maybe lame, but rubber meets the road financial support gives me something spiritual to lean on when things get tough. I have a sense I'll need something spiritual to lean on this trip, it's going to be tough.

We will again be traveling under the auspice of Hope International Development Agency. It will cost approximately $2500 CAN to make the trip. Donations will be graciously accepted up to and after my departure date. Once my trip is covered, any additional money will go the AIDS work in Addis.

If you would like to be part of sending me to Ethiopia donations can be made to:

=================================
Hope International Development Agency
214 - 6th St. New Westminister, BC
V3L 3A2
cheque payable to: "HOPE INTERNATIONAL." You'll need to make note on your cheque that the donation is for: "STEVE FROST - ETHIOPIA TRIP 2005."
=================================

Alternately you can make a donation on the Hope web site. In the comments section you'll need to make note that the donation is for "STEVE FROST - ETHIOPIA TRIP 2005." Hope's web address is:

=================================
http://www.hope-international.com
=================================

Thank you for your continued support. Thank you for your interest in, and concern for the most vulnerable among us.




Yours in grace and compassion
Steve Frost

Prayer of the Benighted Somnambulist

Lord, give me flat eyes. Give me thin ears. Help me take things into my own hands. Give me strength to remain busy.

Amen

The Discipline of Celebration

My wife had a girls night out a Bimini's last night. Dancing, laughing, and drinks with umbrellas. My wife and I have never frequented clubs much, an oversight on our part, so she was seeing things with fresh eyes.

She noticed how people interact. It was obvious to her that people want to belong, to a group or to someone. They want to touch, to feel physical contact with another human being. They're all there looking for something, but they don't know what, or even that they're looking, but it's so evident they are.

She said it was good to be with her friends. There is some kind of intangible connection there when there is a connection of faith. It was good to laugh and dance and celebrate, but it was especially good with those friends. There is something different when people of faith celebrate. There is a freedom and deep joy that is compelling.

My wife almost didn't go. It was because of me that she almost didn't go. She had been looking forward to going all day, and then conflagration, and then she didn't want to have to push past a sudden foul mood to then be able to enjoy herself. But, she did. She's a strong woman. And she was glad she went. It was needed celebration, for the moment and in general.

That made me think, celebration is a much overlooked ecclesiastical discipline. It isn't a frivolous option, but a discipline. Other ancient cultures are built around celebration and festivity, you couldn't get away from it. "Aw, mom...suckling pig again." We've replaced celebration with "fun." A poor substitution, I dare say. Consequently, people of faith, in our culture, must work at making sure they celebrate.

I think songs, no matter how "contemporary," sung from pews, with hands up or down is a thin understanding of celebration. When I put celebration along side words like meditation, fasting and prayer I see a rich tapestry of tradition stretching back to Israel. Then I look at the little North American thread I'm holding and I think how did we get this from that?

Two stories:

1. I was in a mosh pit at an Andy Hunter concert dancing like an idiot. Kids who had never been through the doors of a church, also dancing like idiots, were saying how different this was from any concert they had been to, how they felt a freedom they had never felt at any club. I long for that kind of freedom among God's people like I long for spring after winter.

2. A man paid for a well in a village in Africa. He flew to Africa for the celebration in which the new well was opened. The villagers gathered around the well and moved in a tight circle. They danced and danced and danced. Singing and playing drums and dancing. This was their well. This was life! The painfully white, elderly man who had paid for the well, danced with them the whole time. He danced and danced and danced. I long for that kind of deep celebration like I long for a cold drink of water on a blistering summer afternoon.

A Short Comment

You no longer have to have or create a blogger account to comment, so please comment, reprimand, agree, add, differ, cajole.

More DNA II

It's kind of frustrating that Jesus said love will let people know you have Jesus-DNA, it would be simpler if it was a hat, or a spiffy salute or something. I could do those on my own, and I'd know exactly what to do. Honestly, I'd rather do this on my own. But, if it's love, that means there has to be other people that you love. The thing is, if you have Jesus-DNA you can’t be by yourself, you have to have other people around to love, and that makes things complicated. Plus, figuring out what love looks like is sort of like herding cats, or pinning jello to a wall. What love looks like depends on where you are, and who you're talking to, and what year it is. Most of all, what love looks like depends on who you’re with, because love connects you to other people. And when there’s more than one person, everything is more complicated, including love. But there has to be more than one person for there to be love, so, I guess love is pretty complicated. Jesus seemed to think so anyway. But then sometimes he thought it was pretty simple.

Knowing love is the thing that lets people know you have Jesus-DNA isn't very specific direction. In fact it leaves a whole lot of un-specifics. As much as we wish he had, Jesus just didn't give us the specifics of what his love inside of us would look like as we lived out our day to day lives. He didn't say anything about Bluetooth, or clocks, or what kind of car to drive, he didn't mention McDonalds, or P2P networks, or if Kraft Cheese is okay. In fact he said dangerously unspecific things like, "love each other," and "love your neighbor as yourself," and "love others more than yourself." Maybe that's why Paul, who had Jesus-DNA, said, following Jesus meant "working out" your faith, every day. We have to figure out, every single day, what it means to have Jesus-DNA inside of us. It sounds like a lot of work. I would just as soon not do it, but Jesus said we have to.The good news is that even though people have a hard time saying specifically what love looks like, everyone knows love when they see it. They don't even need a lesson in greek about eros or philia or storgé or agápe. They know real love when they see it because God made love the air that our souls breathe.

If you are someone who’s never seen real love before, it’s like you’re underwater for a long time without breathing, knowing you need something, but you can't find it. Then someone pushes you to the surface, and your soul just knows it's found what it needs. Your first breath of real love, Divine love is like that first gasp on the surface, no one has to tell you what to do, no one has to tell you this is what you need. I think that's the kind of love Jesus is talking about. I think that’s the kind of love he wants us to give to others, the kind that lets their soul breathe, that leaves them gasping for more.

It’s odd, but God made us—the ones with Jesus-DNA inside—so we provide the air of Divine love to each other. We all need each other for our souls to have divine love to breathe. It’s kind of weird, I know, but that’s how God set it up. So we have to figure out ways, every day, to push each other to the surface, so our souls can breathe.

We also provide the air of Divine love to people who’ve never breathed it. We have to figure out ways, every day, to draw them to the surface, to help them find the thing they know they need, but haven’t found. It seems like a lot to do everyday. But like I said before, Jesus says we have to.

More DNA

Jesus said that following him didn't involve putting on an outside symbol that meant there is goodness inside. He said that following him did involve an inside change that also changed things on the outside. This kind of talk upset the religious leaders of the time because they liked outside symbols of inside goodness. They knew all the symbols you were suppose to have, and they knew who had the symbols and who didn’t. It was a pretty big job keeping track of all the outside symbols people were suppose to have, but they were pretty smart guys. Plus, having clear cut symbols made some things a lot easier. For example, the religious leaders could say who was right and who was wrong. If you had more outside symbols than the person you disagreed with, you were more good than they were, and you were the one who was right. You were especially right if you were one of the religious leaders.

Today, some religious leaders think following God is like putting on a team jersey. You make a decision to do it, and then you do it once. They think everyone on the team should look like everyone else on the team, act like everyone else on the team and talk like everyone else on the team. To be on the team you just have to decide to wear the jersey. Once you are on the team you need to look and act and talk like the team captains because they know how the team is suppose to look and act and talk.

Once you are on the team you also have to try and get as many people as you can to be on your team. To do that you need to convince them to decide to wear the team jersey.

Some religious leaders also think the team has to make adjustments to the team jersey over time. Every decade or so the team jersey might have to be updated to make the team relevant and appealing, so people will agree to wear the jersey and then be on the team. It is very important to make sure people are on the team. Jesus said the religious leaders have it all wrong. Following God isn’t from the outside in, like putting on a jersey. Jesus said following Him is like DNA. It works from the inside out. Jesus himself, as revealed in scripture, is the spiritual DNA. Once you decide to change your spiritual DNA, he’ll do it for you. He’ll switch your DNA for Jesus-DNA and you’ll become a new creature. It's just like our physical bodies, we are all made from the same human-DNA, but we are all different people. In the same way, when we accept Jesus-DNA, we are all made from the same Jesus-DNA, but we are all different people. We are all new, but different creatures.

Inside-out Jesus-DNA makes it harder to tell who is on the team and who isn’t, because each person ends up different. Some religious leaders don’t like that idea because they like deciding who is on the team and who isn’t.

They also like telling the team how it should look and act and talk. But if everyone is different it makes it harder to say how people should look and act and talk.

Also, if everyone is different it makes picking the team captains harder because all the outside symbols of inside goodness will be different for each person. This is maybe the thing the religious leaders don’t like the most. They really like being the team captains. Jesus is saying they won’t even be the water boys.

Jesus said there will be one way people will know if we are on the team—except he never really called it a team—but anyway, He said there will be one way people will know if we have Jesus-DNA. That one thing is love. Jesus-DNA starts from the inside but then goes to the outside and connects you to other people. It changes you from the inside and you want to start loving people outside of you more than you love the inside of yourself. You probably won't be very good at it, because you've been so used to loving yourself more. But you'll start to want to do things for other people rather than do things for yourself, and eventually you'll actually start doing those things for other people. So the change that happened inside of you is now outside of you affecting other people, and it connects you to other people. Jesus said that was the symbol of goodness inside. But the goodness isn’t your goodness, it’s Jesus-DNA goodness that’s growing a new creature and connecting you to other people.

tweeking the electrofuzzgroove

DaveyJ
Originally uploaded by Warrior Poet.

Last night subVERSIONbeta met for the first time in Mosaic's new space at 4th and Columbia.

subVERSIONbeta is a loose collection of creative tech nerds who want to pull technology apart and then make stuff as creative as children of Creator God should be making. We're scribblers.

Dave Johnson set up the better part of his recording studio and was making some insane ambient industrial urban sounds. Mark Anderson brought a projector, screens, MotionDive, pretty movies, and an Edirol V4. He has everything. He knows a lot. If you want to see what we're about or come out for geek head fun, have a look at our mail list

What's with the name?

I'm part of Mosaic. It's a little trembling aspen. It got it's DNA from Tenth. The DNA of Tenth, and now Mosaic, is: Jesus, God the Father, The Holy Spirit, God's Word, authenticity and humility. If Mosaic is a trembling aspen and not an acorn, then Tenth isn't an oak, it's another trembling aspen. That seems like a healthy thing. I'm pretty sure God wants us to see ourselves as trembling aspens. Oaks might tend to take things into their own hands.

The largest living organism on earth is a trembling aspen grove in Utah. This populous tremuloides grove covers hundreds of acres, it is possibly thousands of years old. The trembling aspen reproduces using rhizomes. A rhizome is "a horizontal plant stem with shoots above and roots below serving as a reproductive structure," it's a taproot, a sucker root, or a rootstalk—pick a word, they're all weird. The grass in your front lawn grows the same way. A lump of grass sends a root underground and then sideways and a few inches away another lump of grass pops up. A trembling aspen is sitting there all by itself and then, as if by magic, another trembling aspen pops up beside it. It isn't really magic, the first tree just needed more light, so it made another one of itself, starting underground. Every tree in a trembling aspen grove is a clone of every other tree. They are genetically identical. All the trembling aspens are connected by an enormous rhizomatous root system underground.

There is an aspen grove on either side of Highway 99 just north of Brohm lake on the way to Whistler. You can tell something is a bit weird about this stand of trees, but you might not know why at first. If you look, sort of all at once, you'll see that all of the trees have similar branching structures. They look kind of the same, in a weird way, but not really. They aren't one big tree, they're all different trees. They look similar, but different, and they all need each other. Each trembling aspen needs every other trembling aspen.

The rhizome is a two way system. The original tree isn't just supporting the offshoot and the offshoot isn't just supporting the original tree. They're both supporting each other. They both need the water and nutrients from the other. They both need the leaves of the other for photosynthesis. One of the trees was the first tree, it started the stand of trees, but it would be very difficult, if not impossible to find. It's quite happy to stand among all the other trees, being itself, quietly knowing it started this amazing stand of trembling aspens. The relationship between two trembling aspens is distinctly different from the relationship between an oak tree and an acorn.

Why Blog?

On March 12, 2005 Stan Grenz died. Stan's words changed me. Words can do that. I write to process, so I wrote a memorial to Stan, but I had nowhere to put it. The day before, someone told me they were surprised I didn't have a blog. I hadn't before thought of myself as bloggable. I felt somewhat hollow as I thought of no more words coming from Stan. Maybe some new words would help fill up the hollow feeling. Maybe a new blog would be an appropriate response to a loss of words. So, here it is, the blog, Trembling Aspen; and the memorial, a tribute to the power of the written word, hope for change. I'll leave it at that for now, we can talk about other stuff later. ////


I'm not a family member, I'm not a close friend, I don't attend Carey or Regent, I don't even attend First Baptist; yet, Stan has had a profound impact on my life.

I talked to Stan only once. I bought him a chai tea. I had called him, out of the blue. Though he didn't know me from Adam, he graciously agreed to meet. I remember thinking Stan was a keen and intense listener, I can't say what specifically made me think this, maybe it was everything about him. I also remember thinking his was a breathtaking intellect. I would babble something, and he would repeat back what I had said, but in a way that now made sense. He would then add something better. It had taken me weeks of thinking to come up with mere babbling, in the moments it took Stan to repeat it, he had clarified it and added to it. It was stunning. But, he was no cold intellect. Here he sat, with a complete stranger, fully engaged, sipping chai tea. Gracious was the word I often used to describe the encounter.

I knew Stan best through his books. In That regard, I could say, along with thousands of others, I've been mentored by Stan. His books were a double edged sword. The content spurred me to write, but how he wrote, the clarity, was a stern caution; "This is the standard you must attain to." I was reading page 538 of "Theology for the Community of God" when my wife called to tell me Stan had died. Suddenly the words were just useless black blobs on a white piece of paper. "God," I had prayed the whole day before, "we can't afford to lose this man." Now a husband, a father, a grandfather was gone. This isn't right. This isn't how the story goes.

I have a page in my note book; "Questions to ask Stan." That says it all doesn't it? I wanted to make sure my theology wasn't flying off into outer space, so of course I'd ask Stan. If you wanted to be gently tethered to solid ground, who else would you talk to? I didn't get a chance to ask him, and now that little scrawled page says it all again. A memorial to loss. This just isn't right.

I think I accidentally wrote something about Stan. I wasn't writing about him when I started, but it seemed to fit when I finished. I knew Stan the author best, somewhat mediated knowing, but maybe not. Those who knew him well, tell me if this wasn't Stan:

We are in a battle and I was born to fight. I was born to fight with words like swords and with words that bind and heal. I was born to fight with wit and wisdom, but most of all to fight with the mightiest affront mounted against the powers of darkness; a life of rich celebration, a life of deep commitment.

It seems like there should be more. But, that's the way this whole thing feels. We've taken a wrong turn somewhere. There should be more.

The blobs have started becoming words again. Right there on page 538:

"The future dimension is evident in Jesus' promise at the institution of The Lord's Supper: "I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matt. 26:29) Through this promise, our Lord invites us to see his sacrificial death within the grand sweep of the biblical drama. This narrative moves from the past to the future, climaxing in the end of history. The Lord's Supper, therefore, is a celebration of the story of Jesus in its finality and totality, from cross to crown."

It isn't suppose to be this way. We were created for glory. We weren't meant to feel this loss. It shouldn't seem right. In a broken world, a broken country, a broken city, Stan fought to bring people a taste of glory. He fought to bring people he loved reconciliation to a God he loved more. It would be precisely in this moment that Stan would point away from a broken world, and toward "the grand sweep of the biblical drama." Of all the words Stan put on paper, the one he really gave me, the one I really came to know through him, was "eschaton." I think I'll hold on to that word more dearly now.