Note: this is a very early, initial, not-entirely-thought-through post on something I’ve been thinking about for a while, and something that, for me, is the biggest theological question. So it might not make complete sense. As always, please comment.
The other night I was driving to cell and was running late. I hit a red light, and a friend in the car joked that maybe God changed the light to red at that moment to slow me down and keep us safe.
This got me thinking, not for the first time, about how God acts in the world. It seems that there are two ways of thinking about this:
1. God intervenes at certain points in the world – to change a traffic light, to deflect a bullet, to heal an illness etc. God sometimes points his finger, says ‘zap’, and something happens. I call this the zap model.
2. God is continually doing stuff in the world, most of which we don’t notice. This is the continual model.
Biblically, there are many cases of God intervening by the zap model – mostly miracles (see here for a more detailed discussion of miracles). The main problem with the zap model is that it suggests that a lot of the time, God isn’t involved in the world. This contradicts the idea that God is constantly involved in the world, sustaining creation (e.g. Colossians 1.17).
The continual model makes more sense in my head, because it includes the assertion that God is always, without fail, involved in the world, never sitting back or ignoring it. Unusual events like the parting of the red sea can cause a bit of a problem to the continual model, but could possibly be explained by an argument along the lines of “God knew it would be needed so he set things in motion well beforehand so that, when Moses needed the sea to part, the ‘natural’ (bad word, sorry!) storm that caused the parting occurred at exactly the right time”.
Personally, it impresses me more that God could have to foresight and genius to know things that will be needed and set up millions of ‘coincidences’ a day to provide people with what they need. As has been argued before (can’t remember where), the real miracle is in the timing.
I definitely subscribe to the continual model, because of its consistency and its emphasis on God’s constant involvement. But I think it has one massive weakness – it makes prayer very difficult. The zap model makes prayer easy – you just pray for something, and hopefully God zaps. In the continual model, God is already doing loads of stuff, so it’s harder to get a clear picture of how and what to pray, and how it will make a difference, especially if God has already set lots of things in motion.
(This also touches on the question of why we pray – is it primarily to change God’s mind/plans about something, or is it primarily because we need to, to acknowledge his power and our dependence on him?)
Maybe the best model is some sort of hybrid of the zap and continual models. Anyone got any thoughts on all this?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
A Great Album
I was asked the other day what I look for in an album. What makes an album great? Here are my thoughts, based partly on thinking about my favourite albums.
• The music must be interesting (this discounts almost all of Green Day, for example), to my taste (if you don’t know, this is generally indie/rock-ish), and must have some oomph. By this I do not mean it must be heavy – A Day Without Rain by Enya has plenty of oomph. But I don’t like anything floppy or incidental (Jamie Cullum, for example).
• The lyrics must be inventive, poetic and purposeful (this immediately discounts most pop)
• The themes or message of the album must be something I really agree with. This is a difficult one, because it generally takes me a lot of listening to an album, and quite a bit of research, to work out all the themes. Therefore my appreciation of the music and lyrics tends to come before an appreciation with the theme. This is one reason why a Best Of album could never be a favourite of mine, no matter how good the songs are – a Best Of album is never a complete piece of work, precisely because it is amalgamated.
• The album must hang together well as a whole, rather than being disjointed (the main weakness of Mezzamorphis by Delirious). The whole should also be greater than the sum of its parts (the problem for How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb by U2).
• X factor – the indefinable thing that makes the album special. Sometimes it’s a unique vocal style, sometimes it’s a particular run of songs, sometimes it’s the memories attached to the album.
• Strong ending – the vast majority of albums start relatively strongly and then tail off in the second half (Californication by RHCP and Hot Fuss by The Killers are great examples). A great album is as strong, or stronger, in the second half.
The single album that most completely hits all these points for me is No Name Face by Lifehouse (which I’ve written about before) – my all-time favourite album. The music and lyrics are inspired and inspiring, the theme is superb, the album hangs together brilliantly, and it has a superb second half. I think the X factor is probably the honesty and rawness of the album.
• The music must be interesting (this discounts almost all of Green Day, for example), to my taste (if you don’t know, this is generally indie/rock-ish), and must have some oomph. By this I do not mean it must be heavy – A Day Without Rain by Enya has plenty of oomph. But I don’t like anything floppy or incidental (Jamie Cullum, for example).
• The lyrics must be inventive, poetic and purposeful (this immediately discounts most pop)
• The themes or message of the album must be something I really agree with. This is a difficult one, because it generally takes me a lot of listening to an album, and quite a bit of research, to work out all the themes. Therefore my appreciation of the music and lyrics tends to come before an appreciation with the theme. This is one reason why a Best Of album could never be a favourite of mine, no matter how good the songs are – a Best Of album is never a complete piece of work, precisely because it is amalgamated.
• The album must hang together well as a whole, rather than being disjointed (the main weakness of Mezzamorphis by Delirious). The whole should also be greater than the sum of its parts (the problem for How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb by U2).
• X factor – the indefinable thing that makes the album special. Sometimes it’s a unique vocal style, sometimes it’s a particular run of songs, sometimes it’s the memories attached to the album.
• Strong ending – the vast majority of albums start relatively strongly and then tail off in the second half (Californication by RHCP and Hot Fuss by The Killers are great examples). A great album is as strong, or stronger, in the second half.
The single album that most completely hits all these points for me is No Name Face by Lifehouse (which I’ve written about before) – my all-time favourite album. The music and lyrics are inspired and inspiring, the theme is superb, the album hangs together brilliantly, and it has a superb second half. I think the X factor is probably the honesty and rawness of the album.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Critical of Christmas
Christmas is great and all that, but I’m a critical person and have lots of problems with how we do Christmas. Now the season of goodwill is well behind us, I think I can write about this without causing quite as much offense to people. So here are some of the reasons why Christmas annoys me.
Christmas is overhyped. The buildup lasts months, only children get genuinely excited, and the day itself tends to be anticlimactic. The shops start selling Christmas stuff in August or September (i.e. far too early). Most of the decorations and other stuff that people think they are ‘required’ to buy to make Christmas work are cheap and tacky. And very overpriced. And horrifically over-packaged. The music also sickens me. Cheap, formulaic, cheesy, manufactured pop. Absolutely no quality to it. The Christian element of Christmas (I say element, but really there shouldn’t be any other element to the celebration) gets lost in the presents and food and decorations. Christmas hasn’t been about the incarnation for a long time. It’s now a festival to money and excess. Moving on to the Christian stuff – even in religious circles, far more time, money and attention is given to presents, food etc than to Jesus. While in the secular world it might be mostly about gain, in the Christian world it is mostly about family and giving. But still not about Jesus, so still not really good enough. A central feature of many Christmas day services is the examination of presents. This is an awful thing which just reflects the general commercialisation of Christmas (and Easter, while I’m at it). Christmas services are full of unnecessary tradition, including some appalling songs – musically, lyrically and theologically. Even the best songs (there are only 2 that I feel are worthy of singing) are out of touch, dated, and clichéd. When it comes to sermons, most are unoriginal, uninteresting and uninspiring, and many focus more on Easter than Christmas, as if it is physically impossible to talk about Jesus’ birth without also talking about his death.
Christmas needs stripping down. In an ideal world, the commercial/secular element would be completely removed. In a real world, the format of Christmas should be changed as suggested here. This would at least remove the excessive hype, which is a start.
Christmas is overhyped. The buildup lasts months, only children get genuinely excited, and the day itself tends to be anticlimactic. The shops start selling Christmas stuff in August or September (i.e. far too early). Most of the decorations and other stuff that people think they are ‘required’ to buy to make Christmas work are cheap and tacky. And very overpriced. And horrifically over-packaged. The music also sickens me. Cheap, formulaic, cheesy, manufactured pop. Absolutely no quality to it. The Christian element of Christmas (I say element, but really there shouldn’t be any other element to the celebration) gets lost in the presents and food and decorations. Christmas hasn’t been about the incarnation for a long time. It’s now a festival to money and excess. Moving on to the Christian stuff – even in religious circles, far more time, money and attention is given to presents, food etc than to Jesus. While in the secular world it might be mostly about gain, in the Christian world it is mostly about family and giving. But still not about Jesus, so still not really good enough. A central feature of many Christmas day services is the examination of presents. This is an awful thing which just reflects the general commercialisation of Christmas (and Easter, while I’m at it). Christmas services are full of unnecessary tradition, including some appalling songs – musically, lyrically and theologically. Even the best songs (there are only 2 that I feel are worthy of singing) are out of touch, dated, and clichéd. When it comes to sermons, most are unoriginal, uninteresting and uninspiring, and many focus more on Easter than Christmas, as if it is physically impossible to talk about Jesus’ birth without also talking about his death.
Christmas needs stripping down. In an ideal world, the commercial/secular element would be completely removed. In a real world, the format of Christmas should be changed as suggested here. This would at least remove the excessive hype, which is a start.
Credits
When I go to the cinema, I usually stay to watch the credits. This is for 3 reasons:
1. I've paid good money to see them
2. People have worked hard to get their names there, so I watch them out of respect.
3. It gives me a few minutes to reflect on the film and form some initial thoughts on it.
I am genuinely baffled as to why the vast majority of people do not stay to watch the credits.
1. I've paid good money to see them
2. People have worked hard to get their names there, so I watch them out of respect.
3. It gives me a few minutes to reflect on the film and form some initial thoughts on it.
I am genuinely baffled as to why the vast majority of people do not stay to watch the credits.
Second/third album syndrome
Some music critics pick up on 'second album syndrome' - the phenomenon of a band's second album being significantly weaker than their first. Other critis believe in 'third album syndrome' instead.
I took 15 of my favourite bands/artists and ranked their first 3 albums. I gave 3 points to the best album for each band, 2 points to the second beat, and 1 point to the weakest.
The overall results:
First albums: total 27 points
Second albums: total 34 points
Third albums: total 29 points
Only 4 bands registered their first album as their best, compared to 5 bands (though none of my fave six) who registered their second album as their best, and 6 bands whose 3rd album was their best.
7 bands registered thewir first albums as weakest, compared to only 1 band whose second album was the weakest and 7 bands whose third was the weakest.
I conclude from this small study that second/third album syndrome is a myth.
I took 15 of my favourite bands/artists and ranked their first 3 albums. I gave 3 points to the best album for each band, 2 points to the second beat, and 1 point to the weakest.
The overall results:
First albums: total 27 points
Second albums: total 34 points
Third albums: total 29 points
Only 4 bands registered their first album as their best, compared to 5 bands (though none of my fave six) who registered their second album as their best, and 6 bands whose 3rd album was their best.
7 bands registered thewir first albums as weakest, compared to only 1 band whose second album was the weakest and 7 bands whose third was the weakest.
I conclude from this small study that second/third album syndrome is a myth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)