Culture Archives - Page 58 of 70 - Kuyperian Commentary

On May 9, 2014 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Eye screen, you screen, we all screen for eye screen

Over the years there have been more than a few memes and videos posted to social media about the ways that laptops, tablet computers, and smart phones (a.k.a., “screens”) are causing us to become socially inept hermits who are missing out on “real life.” The latest example is this video. Go ahead and watch. We’ve got all the time in the world.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

I will grant that there is more than a little truth in the message that videos such as this try to deliver. Screens have become nearly ubiquitous and it is good for every right-thinking man, woman, and child to step back and ask, “Is my life is an over-connected life? Are there changes I need to make in the area of limiting exposure to ‘screens?'”

Having done that, I would suggest that modern evangelicalism also needs to step back en masse and practice a good measure of overdue introspection. How many evangelicals that robustly “amen” the above video also attend a church where the most prominent architectural feature in their sanctuary is one or more video screens? How many attend churches where the pastor ascends into the pulpit armed with nothing other than a Kindle, an iPad, or some other tablet device? How many attend churches where texting, live tweeting, and/or Facebooking during the service is de rigueur? How many people are following along with the Scripture readings in church on their smartphones instead of shutting those devices down in order to stand and give an attentive hearing (with their ears alone) to God’s Holy Word?

In a more thoughtful, less wired time church architecture revolved more or less around two things–the pulpit and the communion table. From the sparse sanctuaries of the Puritan churches to the more ornate cathedrals of the high churches, it was clear to all that God’s herald would ascend into the pulpit to declare the Good News of Jesus Christ and then would descend to serve as an under-shepherd at the Eucharistic banqueting table of King Jesus.

For centuries Christian churches arranged things this way because they knew that the pattern of preaching and food in Luke 24 was paradigmatic. Empowered by the Holy Spirit, the ordained minister would declare the Good News concerning Jesus to the people, feed them the Eucharist, and then have confidence that the afflicted would be comforted and that the comfortable would be afflicted. The Second Great Awakening blew that paradigm out of the water and we have been downgrading ever since. The modern church no longer has any confidence in the Holy Spirit working through Word and Sacrament. Today’s church must innovate and invest in new techniques, new gadgets, and new technological gee-whizzery in order to “win the unchurched to Christ.”

I suspect that most churches don’t install jumbo-trons to aid the visually impaired or to compensate for poor sight-lines in the sanctuary. They install them because we live in an age of “screens” and because the average religious consumer expects the latest and greatest technology to be front-and-center in the church of his/her choice. At least that is what we were told by the high-dollar church growth consultant.

If we are going to “amen” videos extolling the unplugged life, why can’t we put our money where our “amens” are and begin unplugging on the Lord’s Day during His service? Is it really necessary to have so much technology going on during our services? Can evangelicals stand to be a even a little bit counter-cultural and (gulp!) “uncool” by scaling things back and restoring the centrality of the pulpit and the table during our services? Or are our church services really so barren that if they were forced off of the grid by a massive power/Internet outage would we be left looking around at each other and wondering, “No band, no screens, no words, no access to my online Bible, no latte machine. Now what?”

Before society at large can even hope to address their issues with “screen culture,” evangelicalism needs to take the beam out of its own eye and address its own technological addictions, especially as they pertain to corporate worship on the Lord’s Day.

—-

Derek Hale has lived all of his life in Wichita, Kansas and isn’t a bit ashamed about that fact. He and his wife Nicole have only six children–four daughters and two young sons of thunder. Derek is a ruling elder, chief musician, and performs pastoral duties at Trinity Covenant Church (CREC). Derek manages a firmware lab for NetApp and enjoys reading, computers, exercising, craft beer, and playing and listening to music. But not all at the same time. He blogs occasionally at youdidntblogthat.tumblr.com.<>

On May 9, 2014 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Carpe Symphoniam – Seize the Symphony

The Schermerhorn Symphony Center
Nashville, Tennessee

Last Friday night, I accompanied my Classical Conversations, Challenge 2 students and their parents to the Schermerhorn Symphony Center in Nashville, Tennessee, to hear the Nashville Symphony. The symphony orchestra, conducted by Christopher Seaman, performed three Mozart pieces, one of which was his 21^st Piano Concerto, featuring Benedetto Lupo on the piano. It had been too long since I had experienced a live symphony orchestra, and, chances are, it has been too long for you as well. Even if you do not enjoy classical music, I think you should go. In fact, if you don’t like classical music, it is probably because it has been too long since you went to hear it be performed. Assuming that to be the case, I submit three reasons why it should not be very long until you attend a live symphony orchestra performing in their local concert hall. First, music is to be heard; second, music is to be seen; and third, music is to be felt.

1.) Music is to be heard. No surprise here, right? Everyone knows that music is to be heard. That’s the main point of music, of course, but my point is that until very recently, say the last 100 years, music had to be heard live. It was written to be heard live. Now, don’t get me wrong. I have a very good set of speakers at home, and I love to sit in front of them and turn the volume up high enough so that the music fills me up. This is a fantastic way to listen to a good recording, but it will always be that: a recording. My head between my speakers or my headphones does not equal the acoustics of a finely constructed concert hall. At home, the best I can do is “stereo,” and I guess some folks can do “surround,” but at the concert hall you are listening to 50-100 different instruments producing their own sound, from their own location, and then bouncing around the room that was created to bounce music before reaching your ears. Surround sound cannot replicate the acoustics of concert hall. At home you hear a recording; at the concert hall you hear the music.

2.) Music is to be seen. Okay, I know, under normal circumstances, you can’t see sound waves. But what I mean is that music does not birth spontaneously from empty space. People make music, and people are alive, so music is alive. (Not exactly a flawless syllogism, but I stand by the assertion none the less.) If you attend the performance of a symphony orchestra, you not only hear the music, but you see the music being made by the creators themselves. The conductor will lift his arms–baton in hand, and the musicians will respond. He is the head and they are the members of this music-producing body. The violin bows will point toward heaven, praying for the gift of music to be granted. The conductor will momentarily lift baton and eyebrows, both will fall, and the dance will begin. The musicians will sway, shoulders will lean, feet will arch, eyes will close, and chests will rise and fall. The music is alive, because its creators are alive. The instruments themselves come to life as their masters lovingly draw the music out of them while stage lights shimmer on brass and lacquer.

All of this focuses on the musicians themselves leaving out the lighting and architecture of the building. At the Schermerhorn in Nashville, we are blessed with exquisite chandeliers; ornately decorated, vaulted ceilings; and stately, columned architecture. The pipes from the organ stand at perpetual attention behind the stage and exhibit their visual beauty whether or not they are producing their aural beauty.

All of this is yours to take in at your discretion. Watch it all at once, or focus on one specific thing at a time. It’s your call, but only if you’re there.

3.) Music is to be felt. You will not only see and hear the music, you will feel it. There is a visceral delight that can only come when the mezzo piano pizzicato of the strings cadences and the full ensemble enters at a solid forte. It hits you. You feel it, and it feels good. You’re alive and they’re alive, and the music is alive. You’re right; you can feel the boom of speakers at home or in the car. We’ve all experienced the boom of the speakers from someone else’s car, but the feeling I’m talking about is not detached from the other two points I’ve made.

The “feeling” of the music is the culmination of the acoustics, the lights, the conductor, the musicians, and even the little old lady sitting next to you, who smiles when the cadence is especially sweet. Life doesn’t happen in boxes. It happens all at once, and feeling the music at a live symphony performance happens all at once. You must hear the music and see the music and be in the music in order to feel the music in this way.

Inside the Schermerhorn

A symphony orchestra is a crowning achievement of the triune God who made heaven and earth. He is one, and he is three, all at once, all the time. A symphony is 50-100 musicians living and breathing together for 1-2 hours. It is one and it is many, in a way that no other genre of music has ever come close to achieving. A symphony is on a whole other level. It transcends, yet it is right there in front of you, as well as around you, to enjoy.

So, carpe symphoniam, seize the symphony. If you don’t love it now, devote yourself to it, and grow to love it. You will be blessed, and the world will be blessed that another image-bearer of God has become a patron of symphonic music. In our decadent culture, orchestral music needs all the patrons she can get.

This article was originally published at The Untamed Lion Pub.

Listen to a recording Mozart’s 21st Piano Concerto here.

<>

On May 8, 2014 By Adam McIntosh In Culture, Family and Children, Pro-Life Like

Abortion Isn’t Scary? Please, Cut to Camera Two

An amateur video titled “Emily’s abortion” has gone viral on the internet this week, chronicling the experience of a young mother undergoing an abortion procedure. In the video, Emily Letts explains her intentions:

“I wanted to show it wasn’t scary — and that there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.”

It should be noted that we never see any part of the actual procedure. The camera is focused solely on Letts’ face, showing her talking, laughing, and humming. It’s as if nothing horrific is happening at all. When the abortion is over, she says, “Cool,” and exits the room. Yes, it is true, abortion is no scarier than a yearly pap test – at least for the mother. (more…)

On May 5, 2014 By Joffre Swait In Culture, Family and Children Like

We Told Everyone Gay Marriage Is Perfectly Okay

Remember Gene Robinson? Only a few years ago, he scandalized many by becoming the first openly homosexual Episcopal bishop, and then by marrying his partner.

Welp. Now he’s getting divorced. You can read about it here. He’s sixty-six years old, but apparently the acrimony is too great to continue with the 25-year relationship. Although he wouldn’t say so.

Here’s what he did have to say:

“As you can imagine, this is a difficult time for us — not a decision entered into lightly or without much counseling,” Robinson wrote in a letter. “We ask for your prayers, that the love and care for each other that has characterized our relationship for a quarter century will continue in the difficult days ahead.”

“It is at least a small comfort to me, as a gay rights and marriage equality advocate, to know that like any marriage, gay and lesbian couples are subject to the same complications and hardships that afflict marriages between heterosexual couples.”

Mr. Robinson continued in this vein of acting like a responsible adult. As we all know, in this day and age we’re all French: we pretend to be blase about our lover’s lover and about our bitter divorce. It’s grown-up to be cool about divorce. Be cool, Gene.

“My belief in marriage is undiminished by the reality of divorcing someone I have loved for a very long time, and will continue to love even as we separate,” Robinson wrote in his column. “Love can endure, even if a marriage cannot.”

Love can endure, even if a marriage cannot. Right. I keep forgetting that love is a feeling, not an action.

It’s not like divorce could by definition mean someone’s not loving someone. That’d be ridiculous.

But that’s not the point here anyway. The reason I’m sharing this is to say that Mr. Robinson is right. Just like any marriage, gay and lesbian couples are subjected to the same complications and hardships that afflict marriages between heterosexual couples.

This is not Mr. Robinson’s first divorce. He divorced his wife in 1986. He did so “amicably”, for no other reason than that he could no longer be married. And that was fine. He divorced for no sound biblical reason, and was not defrocked.

Remember when you and I told the homosexual community that marriage was sacred? And then we went and got divorced like everyone else did? That’s what made this okay. We declared marriage profane well before anyone started trying to say that marriage could be something besides what it obviously is.

One thing marriage obviously isn’t is unholy. Or convenient. Or bitter. Or selfish. Or temporary.

Once we said it was those things, we were the ones who changed the definition of marriage.

Originally published at Joffre The Giant.<>seo оптимизация веб а

On April 29, 2014 By Joffre Swait In Books, Culture Like

Men Without Balls: The Difference Between Elves & Spacers

The Caves of Steel trilogy, or the Robot series, by Isaac Asimov was one of my favorite works as a child. In fact, thanks to my mother, Isaac Asimov was one of my favorite authors as a child; I say that even though I hated Foundation. I loved Galactic Empire, and the Black Widower stories, and The Gods Themselves. I believe my introduction to him was my mother’s copy of The Stars, Like Dust, a title which caught me with its beauty and punctuation at age nine.

I will tell you the three things that impressed me most about the Robot series, in which a human and android detective combine to solve murders while awesomely revealing and expounding to the reader sci-fi tropes of far-reaching societal consequence. (bam!) The first was the dark, warm, and hardly understood feels evoked by the romantic tension between Lije Bailey and Gladia in The Naked Sun, the second was the exploration of Earth public restroom etiquette in Caves of Steel (men never ever ever spoke to each other), and the third was the deleterious effect of the incredibly long lives of the Spacers on them individually and on their society.

Spacers, who were descended from the best Earth had to offer, and had departed purged of all disease, ruled every part of the galaxy they had explored. And they did not permit the short-lived and disease-ridden Earth-dwellers to leave their planet and pollute the cosmos. They lived for 300 or more years, feared death, lacked initiative, moved slowly, and craved safety.

Recall that the largest literary loom that loomed in my childhood was The Lord of the Rings. In that tapestry, the immortal elves were doomed to leave the world to men. They were the first children, and lived forever, but knew that the second children, doomed to die, had a fate beyond death that brought them closer to the Creator (although that is only explicitly stated in The Silmarillion, which I read years later). There is undoubtedly a bittersweetness to the elves’ immortality, but that never robbed them of this: they blessed their world. The elves were crafters and gardeners and musicians and smiths and architects and poets. They made beauty appear everywhere they went.

I loved Lije Baley and R. Daneel Olivaw so much as a kid. I’m telling you, I read his adventures over and over again. But I knew, even as a child, what the difference between the worlds of Asimov and Tolkien were. There was no God in Asimov, and there was in Tolkien.

“If you were to die now,” says Hans Fastolfe the Spacer to Lije Baley the Earther, “you would lose perhaps forty years of your life, probably less. If I were to die, I would lose a hundred fifty years, probably more.” Spacers fear death, and the murder in their midst is too terrifying for them to contemplate.

Meanwhile, from the Wars of Beleriand to the dawning of the Age of Men, the elves, a noble race but not without their moral failings, not only continue to make beautiful things, but continue to lay down their lives for their world and for Men.

What’s the difference between elves and Spacers? I’ll tell you.

Elves know where they go when they die. They go to be in the light of Ilúvatar, who is a Christ-figure. In fact, they don’t have to die to go there; they can sail there if they wish, though Men may not. The ones who stay love Creation, and will die for it, knowing what their blessed fate is.

C. S. Lewis feared that without the God of Christ we would become “men without chests”. I believe we have become such men. But there is another organ missing. We don’t live to 350 and own 10,000 robots, but we do live to 90 and own 3 robots. That apparently is enough.

We are the men without balls.

Originally published at Joffre the Giant.<>

On April 29, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture Like

Sex as a Demon

“Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself; Eros wants the beloved. When natural things look most divine, the demoniac is just around the corner. But Eros, honored without reservation and obeyed unconditionally, becomes a demon. The real danger seems to me not that the lovers will idolize each other but that they will idolize Eros himself.” (C.S. Lewis in The Four Loves)

C.S. Lewis is a master of the human heart. He understood the dangers that come, not only with hurt and pain, but with pleasure and joy. We assume that it is the wicked things that destroy us. But all too often it is that which is beautiful and enjoyable that becomes a bloodthirsty demon. Why? We replace the Creator with the creature. The creature, the thing, the experience, becomes our god. The moment we do that we have brought home a dragon that will eventually eat us.

All areas of human experience are prone to this idolization. But there is no area so easily worshiped today as sex. Our culture is hyper-sexualized. Our commercials are filled with sexual innuendo or scantily clad women. Our teenage daughters wear more to bed than they do on the street. Television shows and movies are filled with sexual imagery. Songs are filled with sexual lyrics. Magazines have articles on how to have a better sex life. Christians write books on how to have a better sex life. Pastors preach sermons on how to have a better sex life. Apparently, a better sex life is the way to happiness.

In this pursuit of sex what people want is not a particular man or woman but a particular experience. A man watching pornography does not want the porn star. He wants what the porn star can supposedly give; a sexual high. A woman who sleeps with men at the drop of a hat or dresses with most of her body showing is not looking to please a particular man. She is trying to get a particular experience. Often, even the Christian, because he has been catechized by our culture, is looking for a particular sexual experience. In other words, we bow down and worship sex. It is our god, our great savior. It is the transcendental experience that will get us closer to God.

What are some of the effects of this idolization of sex?

Women are degraded. Because women are the weaker vessel they become objects. They are there to provide a sexual high. This does not stop with marriage. Many men still view their wives this way after getting married. She is there, not be loved, but to be used.
Children are sexualized. Pedophilia is a natural extension of the idolization of sex. A woman (or man) cannot provide a certain experience maybe a child can.
Perverted acts become part of the normal human sexual experience: handcuffs, dressing up as the opposite sex, having numerous partners, watching pornography together, sodomy, etc. The idol sex is supposed to provide a certain experience. However, she always comes up short. So we try more and more things. I remember an interview with mass murderer Ted Bundy. He talked about how he started out reading and watching pornography. Then he went to strip clubs. Then he took cheap feels on women in crowded places. Then he slept with prostitutes. Finally, he kidnapped, raped, and killed women. Of course, not everyone goes that far. But in our hearts, many of us walk that same path. The man who leaves his wife for a younger, more attractive woman is a miniature Ted Bundy.
We are never satisfied. Idols always take. They never give. Idols promise, but never deliver. They say, “You too can have amazing sex and be fulfilled.” But in the end the sex leaves you empty and dead. Oh, there may be a temporary pleasure. I am sure the fruit tasted good to Adam and Eve. But that pleasure fades. As Adam drove his spade into the rock hard ground under the hot sun outside the Garden, I doubt he thought that fruit was worth it. Idols give salt water to a thirsty man.
This might seem odd. But one effect of idolizing sex is that sex itself is degraded. It becomes a means to an end. The end is an experience. Thus sex becomes like a hammer. It is a tool to provide a certain service. Here again C.S. Lewis: “Put first things first and we get second things thrown in: put second things first and we lose both first and second things. ” When sex becomes an idol we lose the joy of sex.

How do we fight the idolization of sex?

Worship God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Believe that only He can provide everlasting satisfaction and joy. Bow down before God and you will not bow before sex.
Remember sex is intended to be act of love between a man and woman married to each other. The point of sex is not just so you can experience something. The point is to give. That is what love is. Again, C.S. Lewis, “Say your prayers in a garden early, ignoring steadfastly the dew, the birds and the flowers, and you will come away overwhelmed by its freshness and joy; go there in order to be overwhelmed and, after a certain age, nine times out of ten nothing will happen to you.” If we do something to have a certain experience we will often be disappointed. But if we go to do what we are supposed to do then we will usually be satisfied. So too with sex.
Sex, like any gift, must be used to love God and our neighbor. These two commands put fences around our sex life. Any act or thought which does not love God or love my neighbor is sin.
The idolization of sex will not be defeated by treating sex as dirty. Sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed within the bounds of the marriage bed.
Sex is a gift from God designed for certain purposes, including conceiving children, providing pleasure, protecting one’s spouse from temptation, and making a man and woman one flesh. It is not designed to provide a transcendental, spiritual experience. As Mrs. Elizabeth Elliott said somewhere, “Sometimes sex is a sandwich. Sometimes it is a steak.” If you can’t enjoy the sandwich then sex has become an idol.
Beware of always wanting more from your sex life. Beware of the slow creeping lie that there is something better and if you just do this or buy that or watch this then you can have a better sexual experience. Pull that weed up immediately and learn to be content with what God has given you.
Beware comparing your sex life with someone else’s. Most of us have seen examples of sex on screen or read about sexual experiences. The temptation is to compare our sex life with what we have seen or read. This is devastating to a real, enjoyable sex life. It does not matter what the world or other people are doing in their beds. Enjoy your spouse without a thought for the expectations of the outside world. You will be happier and your spouse will be too.
Be satisfied with who you have. The grass is not greener.

<>

On April 22, 2014 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Foundational prog albums – Selling England by the Pound

If you click and enlarge the picture you can see good ol’ Charlie Brown pulling out his well-worn vinyl copy of Selling England by the Pound.

Selling England by the Pound – Genesis (released in 1973)

I remember several times as a teenager watching the British comedy show Monty Python’s Flying Circus on my local PBS affiliate. I loved some of the more obvious zaniness and several of the buffoonish skits. However, I always felt that the broader contours of the humor were beyond my grasp. In retrospect, much of Monty Python’s humor was beyond me. The colloquialisms were foreign, the surrealism was unfamiliar to me, and the social situations involving prime ministers, knights, gumboots, vicars, civil servants, and the like were just too…British. I was (and still am) a United States Midwesterner and, while I appreciated the hilarity of the physical humor of silly walks or the “Gumby” skits, it wasn’t until I was older that I realized the deep cynicism lurking behind government grants for silly walks or a statement like, “I would put a tax on all people who stand in water.” Taking something serious (for example, wanton over-taxation) and sending it up through silliness is distinctly British and is something that ended up profoundly shaped my worldview, my sense of humor, and the way I look at things like oppressive governmental entities.

Many newbies to progressive rock probably feel the same bewilderment I felt toward Monty Python when approaching the early albums of the British band Genesis. During the mid-1980s Genesis produced highly accessible music that allowed them to sell millions of records, play worldwide to sold-out stadiums, and shill for Michelob beer. This massive success no doubt sent new fans scurrying for the band’s back-catalogue. What awaited those bandwagon fans was a lot of idiosyncratic music with song titles like “Squonk,” “Robbery, Assault & Battery,” and “Wot Gorilla?” If fans managed to white-knuckle it through those late-1970s albums and worked all the way back to the early-1970s where Genesis was fronted by Peter Gabriel they were greeted by aggressively quirky songs like “Stagnation,” “The Return of the Giant Hogweed,” “Harold the Barrel,” and “Get ‘Em Out by Friday.” Anyone expecting “In Too Deep,” “Invisible Touch,” or even “Sussudio” was in for a rude awakening.

Genesis was a band that formed out of several friendships fostered in the British boarding/public school system. They released an ill-conceived first album in 1969 entitled From Genesis to Revelation that found them sounding much more like a third-rate Bee Gees knockoff than the prog rockers they would become. The band’s first proper album (Trespass) was released in 1970 and reflected a far more progressive rock edge, although in a very undeveloped form. It was followed by Nursery Cryme in 1971, Foxtrot in 1972, and Selling England by the Pound in 1973.

The band’s unusual songs were coupled with a live act that was equally daring. Gabriel regularly appeared on stage wearing bizarre costumes like a bowler hat, a red dress, a fox head, and a flower headdress as he acted out the characters from Genesis’ songs. This combination of highly idiosyncratic music and musical theater showmanship brought the band tremendous notoriety and helped solidify their reputation as an edgy live act.

After the jump I will explore Genesis’ Selling England by the Pound track-by-track.

(more…)

On April 15, 2014 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Foundational prog albums – Close to the Edge

If you click and enlarge the picture you can see good ol’ Charlie Brown pulling out his well-worn vinyl copy of Close to the Edge.

Eddie [Offord] roused himself sufficiently to play back one of the album tracks called ‘Total Mass Retain’.

“What does ‘Total Mass Retain’ mean!” protested Bill [Bruford].

“What’s wrong with ‘Total Mass Retain’?” demanded Jon [Anderson]. “I had to think of something quickly.”

“Why not call it ‘Puke’?” asked Bill.^[1]

—

“In 40 years’ time, along with three or four other albums from that era, people will pick out Close to the Edge and say, ‘That’s what progressive rock was all about.’”^[2]

Close to the Edge – Yes (released in 1972)

Few bands personify the worldview and ethos of progressive rock better than the band Yes. The band formed in 1968 around a nucleus of bassist Chris Squire, guitarist Peter Banks, vocalist Jon Anderson, and drummer Bill Bruford. Keyboardist Tony Kaye was added a bit later and the first version of the band was complete.

Yes began their career as a cover band performing tunes by The Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel, and The 5th Dimension. Instead of performing the hits of these artists verbatim, Yes would add long instrumental sections of their own composition, extending the songs to epic lengths.

The first incarnation of Yes proved to be short-lived. After two largely unsuccessful albums, Banks was out of the band in 1970. He was replaced by Steve Howe. Kaye would leave the band a year later and was replaced by Rick Wakeman. The Yes of Anderson, Squire, Bruford, Howe, and Wakeman would comprise what many fans consider to be Yes’ greatest lineup.

Over the span of eighteen months (March 1971 to September 1972) Yes released three of the finest albums of the first wave of prog: The Yes Album, Fragile, and their masterpiece, Close to the Edge. Close to the Edge contained the perfect storm of three dynamic songs, performed by the right five musicians, recording under the oversight of the right producer and engineer (Eddy Offord), and everyone performing at the peak of their potential. The album also featured a brilliant album cover and gatefold sleeve by graphic designer Roger Dean.

As for the songs, Close to the Edge is an album full to overflowing with beauty and goodness. The songs also might be overflowing with lyrical truth. However, vocalist Jon Anderson’s lyrics are notoriously cryptic and quite difficult to interpret. Guitarist/keyboardist Kerry Livgren of the band Kansas summed up the ambivalence that many fans have with Yes’ music when he wrote, “Yes…should have been everything I liked, but for some reason they weren’t. They made use of esoteric and quasi-religious themes, but they sometimes went so far with their lyrics that it struck me as almost corny. But The Yes Album, Fragile, and Close to the Edge were musically excellent.”^[3]

Dr. Brad Birzer has stated that he has heard Close to the Edge is about the Protestant Reformation. Although I have been unable to find any scholarly works or papers to verify Birzer’s assertion, he very well may be correct. Most of the scholarly commentary on the album’s title track point out that the lyrics are influenced by Hermann Hesse’s book Siddhartha. Regardless, we can certainly say that the album contains some images and concepts that may be biblical. I’ll point those out as we explore all three of the songs on this classic album.

Note: For the purposes of this review I used the 2013 Steven Wilson remix of Close to the Edge as a reference. Wilson spoke recently about his approach to remixing this iconic album here. If you can spring for the Wilson remix (especially the Blu-Ray version) it is well worth the money.

(more…)

On April 9, 2014 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Building a Prog Foundation – Five Starter Albums

We have arrived at the point in our show where, having set the stage with a brief history and addressed some “what and why” questions, we are ready to get down to brass tacks and give consideration to a variety of prog rock artists, albums, and songs. In forming this list I worked from the assumption that the average Kuyperian Commentary reader would have little to no familiarity with progressive rock. So my recommendations are geared toward the prog newbie and not so much toward a seasoned listener familiar with every nook and cranny of the genre.

If you are a seasoned consumer of progressive rock you will undoubtedly look at my list and find a quibble here or there. “I wouldn’t have recommended ______ by _______. I would recommended _______ by ______ instead.” Recommended lists are by no means definitive and I am assuming that. However, someone has to be the navigator on this prog journey and and I’m the one wearing the tour guide hat, coat, and dungarees. Nevertheless, prog fandom inspires vigorous debate like few other rock music genres. Proggers are a spirited lot, active on Internet message boards, able to write thousands of words about the glories of mid- 70s Italian prog, or argue to the death that everyone but them has completely overlooked obscure prog artists like Ozric Tentacles or Grobschnitt. Let’s just say that, if you’re looking for a series of recommendations from the skinny branches of the prog rock tree, prepare to be disappointed.

Finally, when compiling lists like these, I try never think in terms of a “best of” list. Therefore, this list (nor any other lists in this series) should not be misconstrued as being my picks for the “five best prog albums ever.” Leave the “best of” list discussions for athletic competitions and the Guinness Book of World Records. This is all about my opinions of what would suffice as suitable listening for a Kuyperian Commentary prog newbie. Your mileage and recommendations will surely vary.

This list is meant to address foundations. The following are five albums that I believe I could give any prog rock newbie and they would come away feeling as if they had a solid knowledge and understanding of what makes for good prog rock. If you look at the picture above you’ll see a spoiler snapshot giving away my choices for this list.

Let’s consider briefly each album in chronological order and then, over the next five posts, we will attempt a deeper, track-by-track dive into my “foundational five albums of progressive rock.”

(more…)

On April 9, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture Like

Obedience is the Door to Joy

Reformation begins with a Spirit-given desire to submit fully and completely to the Scriptures. It does not matter whether this reformation begins in the home or the church or in the community. Sitting humbly under the Word is an essential ingredient.

In my home one of the ways I have worked towards reformation is by getting my children to obey me. This is not easy in our culture where both authority and submission are despised. By getting my children to obey, I am learning to obey. But as with any good thing there are dangers. One of the great dangers of teaching my children to obey is to view their obedience as the goal instead of the means to a greater goal. The Westminster Shorter Catechism very succinctly names the goal we should have in life:

Question: What is the chief end of man?

Answer: The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

In another delightful phrase that I, unfortunately, just found, The Belgic Confession says that God is the “overflowing fountain of all good.” (Article I) The goal is enjoying God, not obeying him. Now, you cannot have joy without obedience. But it is possible to have a type of obedience that does not lead to joy. It is possible to teach our children to obey without ever leading them through the door to joy.

Do we teach them to obey so they might enjoy the goodness of God? Do we view obedience as a door to a mansion where all the rooms are filled with the wonders of God or do we view it as the last stop on the train? Is teaching our children to obey a way setting them free or a way controlling them? Let me use the dinner table and bedtime as examples of what I mean.

At our table we have rules. These are not written in the Bible, but they are “house rules” that my wife and I have set up for our table. If I was going to use a Bible verse to justify these rules it would be Ephesians 4:32, “Be kind to one another.” Manners at the table are a way of being kind. Some of these rules are: wait until mom and sisters are seated before the men sit, chew quietly, do not interrupt, do not eat with your fingers (with exceptions for pizza, fried chicken, and PB&J), etc. The point of having and enforcing these rules is not just to keep our children under control. These rules make our table a place of joy. (Needless to say it does not always work out this way.) We sing at the table. We tell jokes and puns. We tell stories. We listen to stories, even from the littlest ones. We ask questions. We discuss world events and events in our homes. We learn what our children are thinking and what they care about. None of this is possible without obedience. But obedience is not the goal. The goal is joy around the table.

Bedtime is the same way. I do not make my children obey at bedtime so I can simply say, “Bedtime” and they all snap to it. I teach my children to obey at bedtime so we can pray together, talk a bit, maybe sing. In other words I teach them to obey so we can end the day enjoying God and each other.

The goal in all of life is to find great joy in God, his people, and his world. Obedience is a door to this goal, but it is not the goal itself. To stop and sit in the door of a great house would be an insult to the master of the house.

Here are three questions to consider:

First, are you teaching your children to obey? Do you know that by allowing them to disobey you are keeping them from enjoying God and this world? Disobedience brings bondage.

Second, you parents who are trying to get your children to obey are you leading your children to joy through obedience or are you sitting in the door examining the hinges? Is your house filled with joyless obedience? If you have obedient children, but no joy then neither you nor your children are being obedient, no matter how well they listen.

Third, parents how do you view your own obedience? Do you view obedience as a means to enjoying God? Or do you view obedience as the end, the goal itself?

This was originally posted at Singing and Slaying.<>cifrolom.com надежная раскрутка а