Letter to Eva on her graduation

Eva,

Psalm 144 says "May our sons in their youth be like plants full grown, our daughters like corner pillars cut for the structure of a palace." Mom and I count ourselves blessed by God because we see these qualities in you. Picture a piece of marble, carefully chosen and finished, intended to stand through the ages as part of a royal building. It's an image of something beautiful because it's noble and honorable and lovely. And it's an image of something strong because the corner pillar is quietly able to support the structure of the entire building. And we think you are a daughter like this, a corner pillar cut for the structure of a palace.

We have enjoyed watching you grow and mature for 18 years. You have always been a fun loving, composed, and thoughtful person. We've had fun watching you play with dolls, learn to draw, play the violin, sing in choir, catch a wave at Doheny, drive the car to youth group, get dressed up for dances, and travel the world. It has been a wonderful and awe-inspiring thing to see our precious baby girl grow up into a lovely and mature young woman.

You far exceeded our expectations for academic success. We tried to cast a vision of what it means to be an educated person, and you ran with it. You handled everything we threw at you: Homer and Herodotus, Wheelock's and Whitman, syllogisms and Senior Thesis. We saw you work with self-motivated diligence and whenever we read your papers or heard your speeches, we observed real thoughtfulness. We're extremely proud of you. And in addition to your academics, you acquired a remarkable skill and delight in drawing and painting which shows that you've developed a depth of character. Our hope is that your appetite for the good and the true and the beautiful is something that stays with you all the days the Lord gives you.

Mom and I also see the fruit of the Holy Spirit in your life. We see that you are a person with love for others, joy in life, at peace with God, patient through difficulties, kind to your siblings, a desire to be good, faithful to your church and family, gentle to those around you, and possessing self-control. These are evidences of God's grace in your life, which is only possible through Christ.

We also want to give you a few words of exhortation and encouragement.

First, you are going off to study art in Boston. You should enjoy it and stretch yourself and try new things. But, in the words of Solomon, "Remember your Creator in the days of your youth." A lot of modern art is just ugly because many talented, ambitious artists have rejected the source of beauty. They think they are breaking free from outdated tradition and arbitrary rules, but by mocking God's Law and rejecting God's Word they cut themselves off from what Lewis calls the "fountain of joy". But if you remember your Creator, you have an incredible opportunity to paint and create things that are truly new, thoroughly modern, and are beautiful too.

Second, just like me and your mom, going off to college is a time to make your faith your own. You won't be going to church because Mom and Dad are going, so you'll have to go because you want to be with God's people. You won't be listening to the Bible because you happen to be at the dinner table, so you'll have to "take up and read" because you're convinced that Jesus has the words of life. This is part of becoming an adult - you decide what you really believe and how you really want to live. To that end, I'll give you a little bit of advice: make sure when you get to college, you find friends who will encourage you in the direction you want to go. Even at a Christian college, you have to be mindful of how you're influenced by those you spend time with. It's your mom's and my prayer that you will seek the Lord and continue to follow him and honor him, so find friends that will help you with that.

Finally, mom and I really hope you enjoy college and enjoy studying and painting and enjoy having new friends and late night talks and adventures and just a great time. We'll be at home praying that God watches over you, and we hope you make these verses from Psalm 16 your own:

I say to the Lord, “You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you.”

I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken.

Love,

Mom and Dad

Out of the Silent Planet

I recently finished a year-long C.S. Lewis men's reading group at my church. The last title was Out of the Silent Planet, the first book of his science fiction trilogy. It records the adventures of Ransom, a British philologist, kidnapped on a countryside walking tour and forced to travel by spaceship to Malacandra by two inter-planetary gold diggers, Weston and Devine. On Malacandra (which is Mars) Ransom is surprised to learn that his H.G. Wells inspired view of aliens with super-human strength and sub-human morals is wrong. Instead, the three rational species on Malacandra are kind, content, and generally "unbent" in their moral compass. They know something of Earth, which is called Thulcandra or "the silent planet", but can't fathom the human condition of greed, jealousy, murder and the like. The contrast of fallen humanity and unfallen aliens is unique.

A few thoughts on what makes the book special:

Out of the Silent Planet was published in 1938, over twenty years before Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space. Lewis is a medieval literature scholar, but he does a good job of imagining space travel, a view of Earth and the Sun from outer space, and the effects of being outside Earth's gravity and on a low gravity planet. Some of it is outlandish, like in chapter 4 (my page 30), where Weston says of being in the spaceship, "You will soon get used to it...The ship is roughly spherical, and now we are outside the gravitational field of the Earth 'down' means - and feels - towards the centre of our own little metal world." It seems to imply that gravity is produced by the largest spherical shape in the vicinity, not the most massive object. Anyhow, it's still impressive if you consider that no one had been in space or seen a picture of Earth from space. This can be illustrated by a collection of cover art for the book in its nearly 80 years of being in print.




Next, Lewis uses the space setting to speculate on the nature of matter, energy and existence. It's a dip into the world of Einstein by a man who lives in the world of Dante and Milton. In chapter 15 (my page 94) a sorn is explaining the nature of the eldil, angel-like creatures which live everywhere in the universe but are only discernible by some. He says, "Body is movement...If movement is faster, then that which moves is more nearly in two places at once...You see that if you made it faster and faster, in the end the moving thing would be in all places at once, Small One." And then he connects that idea to the nature of light. "The swiftest thing that touches our sense is light. We do not truly see light, we only see slower things lit by it, so that for us light is on the edge - the last thing we know before things become too swift for us. But the body of an eldil is a movement swift as light; you may say its body is made of light."

Lewis is a supernaturalist. He doesn't believe the natural world, what we are able to see and touch, is sufficient to explain morality and reason and what it means to be human. But his view of "supernature" is that it is a higher nature. It is just as real, even more real, than what we see. It obeys laws, just different and higher laws. Science fiction proves to be an effective medium for Lewis to communicate these ideas.

The climax of the book is Weston's speech before Oyarsa and Ransom's tortured translation into the martian language. Weston has killed some Malacandrians and Oyarsa, the ruler of the planet, demands an explanation. Weston's skill in the local language is limited so he asks Ransom the philologist to translate. Weston's speech is quintessentially modern and secular. From chapter 20 (my page 135) he says "Life is greater than any system of morality; her claims are absolute. It is not by tribal taboos and copy-book maxims that she has pursued her relentless march from the amoeba to man and from man to civilization." Here is Darwin and Neitzsche and Marx.

And Ransom must translate. "He says that living creatures are stronger than the question whether an act is bent or good - no, that cannot be right - he says it is better to be alive and bent than to be dead - no - he says, he says - I cannot say what he says, Oyarsa, in your language. But he goes on to say that the only good thing is that there should be very many creatures alive."

In a lifetime of writing books and essays, Lewis critiqued secular modern thought as irrational, self-contradictory and insufficient. But on the fictional world of Malacandra he makes the same argument using Hemingway's "show, don't tell" technique.

The denouement of the book happens after Weston's trial. Oyarsa has heard enough from Weston and now wants time alone with Ransom to ask his own questions. He wants to know about Thulcandra, the silent planet, which is shrouded in darkness to the rest of the rational universe. We aren't privy to their conversation, but in chapter 21 (my page 141) Oyarsa concludes with, "You have shown me more wonders than are known in the whole of heaven." Here is Lewis's most explicit insertion of Christian theology. This is a near repetition of 1 Peter 1:12 where the Bible's teachings about Jesus's death for sinful men are "things into which angels long to look." Oyarsa is one of those angels, longing to look.

If Lewis would have inserted some explicit Christian message here it would have been jarring to the story line. Likely those who don't know the Bible will miss it. But the idea is that something very special has happened here on Earth, a planet full of sin and misery. There is divine grace in the universe that can only be seen in contrast to that sin and misery. Lewis takes us away from our silent planet to enable us to look back and understand it a little better.

Historicism by C.S. Lewis

Included in Christian Reflections, edited by Walter Hooper (1967). First published in The Month, vol. IV (October 1950).

Lewis argues against the foolish arrogance of Historicism, a belief that man can use his rational powers to discern a grand meaning or purpose of history. Examples include the Western idea of technological progress, or evolutionary ascent, or a Hegelian advance to a more rational society. We are tempted to spin metaphysical or theological tapestries out of tidbits of experience and learning. We yearn for the big picture, but reality is a picture bigger than we're able to see. We have rejected knowledge by divine authority, which logically could give us that view, because we would rather trust ourselves.

Lewis defines history in six senses:

• Sense One - "The total content of time: past, present and future"
• Sense Two - "The total content of the past only"
• Sense Three - "So much of the past as is discoverable from surviving evidence"
• Sense Four - "So much as has been actually discovered by historians"
• Sense Five - "That portion, and that version, of the matter so discovered which has been worked up by great historical writers."
• Sense Six - "That vague, composite picture of the past which floats, rather hazily, in the mind of the ordinary educated man."

Obviously the future is hidden from us. "We ride with our backs to the engine. We have no notion what stage in the journey we have reached. Are we in Act I or Act V? Are our present diseases those of childhood or senility?"

But even the past is almost completely lost to us. "It is not a question of failing to know everything: it is a question (at least as regards quantity) of knowing next door to nothing. Each of us finds that in his own life every moment of time is completely filled...A single second of lived time contains more than can be recorded. And every second of past time has been like that for every man that ever lived."

Artifacts and texts that survive are limited and largely survive by chance, not because they are the most significant. Historians focus on the parts that seem significant to them. They bring their values to history instead of learning values from history.

Lewis also warns Christians of having too confident a belief that they understand history. God has not revealed all. We cannot presume to make the same type of judgments of contemporary events that the Prophets were given in their day.

After tearing down Historicism, Lewis teaches us about accessible history, properly understood, especially by the average man: "We all have a certain limited, but direct, access to History in Sense One. We are allowed, indeed compelled, to read it sentence by sentence, and every sentence is labelled Now...It is very limited, but it is the pure, unedited, unexpurgated text, straight from the Author's hand...Where, except in the present, can the Eternal be met?"

I imagine there are other senses of history which Lewis values but doesn't detail here. To appreciate and quote from the Aeneid, you need to understand a bit about Greece and Rome. To criticize Hegel, you need to have some idea of who he was and what he said. But Historicism takes those valuable bits of understanding and vaults into pretentious claims about ultimate knowledge.

"If I attack Historicism it is not because I intend any disrespect to primary history, the real revelation springing direct from God in every experience. It is rather because I respect this real original history too much to see with unconcern the honours due to it lavished on those fragments, copies of fragments, copies of copies of fragments, or floating reminiscences of copies of copies,which are, unhappily, confounded with it under the general name of history."

Latin phrase and quote glossary

Latin: ratio cognoscendi
English: The ground of knowledge

Latin: non sequitur
English: It does not follow

Latin: fas est et ab hoste doceri
English: One should learn even from one's enemies.
From: Metamorphoses by Ovid

Latin: prima facie

English: at first appearance

Latin: fata Jovis
English: fates of Jupiter (?)

Latin: Tantae molis erat
English: So great size

From Aeneid by Virgil. "It was such a massive task to establish the Roman race."

Latin: De Monarchia
English: Of Monarchs

A treatise by Dante on secular and religious power

Latin: De Civitate [Dei]
English: The City [of God]

A book by Augustine about the fall of Rome and the endurance of the church

Latin: in via..in patria
English: on the way...in the homeland

Latin: ad nos vix tenuis famae perlabitur aura
English: to us a slight breath of fame is scarcely derived
From Aeneid by Virgil

Latin: Caveas disputare de occultis Dei judiciis - Quando haec suggerit inimicus
English: Beware of discussing God's hidden judgments - When this enemy suggests
From The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis

Critique of Pure Reason: Glossary

Some terms from the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant (Cambridge edition, 1998)

apodictic (or apodictive) - Clearly established, necessary. Apodictic (necessary) judgments are contrasted with problematic (possible) and assertoric (actual) judgments.

Kant: "As far as certainty is concerned, I have myself pronounced the judgment that in this kind of inquiry it is in no way allowed to hold opinions, and that anything that even looks like an hypothesis is a forbidden commodity...For every cognition that is supposed to be certain a priori proclaims that it wants to be held for absolutely necessary...which is to be the standard and thus even the example of all apodictic (philosophical) certainty" (p102)

My thought: What can we really know with absolute certainty? Math and science have a necessity to them, and Kant wants to capture what provides that necessity and apply it to metaphysics. The result will be destructive, not constructive. We cannot have mathematical certainty about the most important things in life.

apperception - A subject's consciousness of itself

Kant: "Any difficulty in this depends merely on the question how a subject can internally intuit itself; yet this difficulty is common to every theory. Consciousness of itself (appreception) is the simple representation of the I" (p189) 

My thought: Descartes said, "Cogito ergo sum". I think therefore I am. But there is a wonder in the reflexive nature of our thought. We are conscious of our own consciousness. Cogito quod cogito. Kant is challenging us to see how precise and reliable our self-perception is.

propaedeutic - preparatory or introductory teaching (http://en.wiktionary.org)

Kant: "We can regard a science of the mere estimation of pure reason, of its sources and boundaries, as the propaedeutic to the system of pure reason. Such a thing would not be a doctrine, but must be called only a critique of pure reason" (p149)

My thought: Kant realizes he can't actually say that much. The best he can hope for is to draw boundaries and show the finite capacity of man's understanding. We go this far and no further.

subreption - unfair representation through suppression or fraudulent concealment of facts (http://en.wiktionary.org)

Kant: "Yet this [transcendental] ideality [of time] is to be compared with the subreptions of sensation just as little as that of space is, because in that case one presupposes that the appearance itself, in which these predicates inhere, has objective reality, which is here entirely absent except insofar as it is merely empirical." (p182) 

My thought: We can only think of time as real in reference to our own perception and thinking. A succession of observations, either physical or imagined, creates the essence of time. Our daily observation of the world dulls us to the thought.

transcendental - thought concerning a priori concepts, not objects or sense perceptions 

Kant: "I call all cognition transcendental that is occupied not so much with objects but rather with our mode of cognition of objects insofar as this is to be possible a priori" (p133).

My thought: It's always wise to back up and consider where you are. The Greeks challenged us, "Know thyself." Paul commanded, "Examine yourselves." I find Kant's transcendental philosophy quite compatible with Christian theology because it puts man in his place as a finite creature. Kant is looking at the metaphysical Tower of Babel and says: tear it down.

Christian Ethics and the Very Flame of the Lord

The following is a discussion of my Christian ethical convictions on clean language, modest clothing and loving homosexuals - and their connection to the nature of God.

Clean language

Ephesians 5:4 says "Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving."

Foul language is childish. Young boys like to say "poop", and adults say "shit". Young boys giggle and blush when they hear about sex, and adults pepper their words with "fuck". Young boys complain about mom, and adults say another person is a "son of a bitch". Not much difference when you think about it.

Foul language is also blasphemous. God commands us to not take his name in vain. If I casually toss around God-damn this and God-damn that, I should not be surprised if God actually does damn something. And he may begin with my violation of his command to not toss around his name like that.

In the end, a person's language tells what he really believes. Beliefs matter, so words matter. Crude talk about sex and flippant talk about God reveal a person's worldview. The opposite is also true: you can usually quickly measure a person's character and intelligence by his vocabulary and grammar. The Bible tells us that our words should be filled with thanksgiving. We should be grateful, humble, kind people, and our words will show that we are.

Also, there are no words which are categorically off-limits to a Christian. If a word expresses the right meaning at the right time, then use it. If someone sitting on a couch all day can be properly motivated to get up and work by calling him a lazy ass, then it might be best to speak the truth with words that can be heard. If a movie has lots of swearing, but it uses it to capture something true about life, then enjoy it for what it is. All things are ours.

Other verses: Ephesians 4:29, Colossians 3:8, Matthew 12:34

Modest clothing

To be modest means to not be boastful or to call attention to oneself. In clothing, modesty typically means avoiding sexually suggestive clothing, and this is primarily a concern for women. God made man to be attracted to a woman's body. This is good and right, but it is a gift from our Creator to be used wisely. As a dad, I want my girls to value themselves and not give themselves away for cheap. Showing lots of leg, or low-cut tops, or see-through mid-riffs is an easy way of getting attention from guys - and usually the wrong attention from the wrong guys. Instead, by wearing beautiful clothes which show style and self-respect, they are more likely to attract the attention of young men who will see and value their character and thoughtfulness.

So, modesty is not about being a kill-joy, but about seeking better and lasting things over the quick and easy thrills of the world. 1 Timothy 2:9 says "Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness - with good works." We should interpret this thoughtfully, not simplistically. A Christian girl can wear gold and pearls, but it should be in moderation and not for attention-seeking. Instead, pay attention to what really matters.

Other verses: 1 Peter 3:1-6, 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Romans 13:11-14

Loving homosexuals

The Apostle Paul wrote "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost" (1 Timothy 1:15).

God's love extends to sinners, otherwise I would be lost. And it extends to the worst of sinners, otherwise I would be lost. If this is true, then God's love reaches out to homosexuals, and so should I.

Paul also wrote, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

It's also true that I tend to minimize sin. I like to talk about love and grace, but don't get the same joy talking about condemnation and wrath. But the Bible presents both: there is love and mercy, but only for the repentant; for the unrepentant, God will be an unrelenting judge.

In the last 10 years, homosexuality has been normalized in our culture. When I was a boy, it was there (as it always has been) but was rarely mentioned on TV or in the news. But now, not only is it normal to see it in pop culture, you are publicly shamed if you say anything negative about homosexuality. The world talks about tolerance, but they will settle for nothing less than approval. Historic Protestant churches have largely approved of homosexuality. I predict evangelical churches will be challenged and split over this issue within a few years. So the pressing issue for us is not loving homosexuals, but the authority of God's Word to define sexuality.

Strangely, I think this will give Christians a tremendous opportunity to show the love of God. The world wants to approve of homosexuality, but the average person has a natural aversion to it, which will lead him to say cruel and harsh things about homosexuals. In contrast, Christians cannot approve of homosexuality, but we know that each person is made in the image of God and is deserving of respect. We should love homosexuals.

Other verses: Romans 1:26-27, Galatians 5:16-24, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8

Wrapping it up

In each of these ethical concerns, the immediate issue is human sexuality and the ultimate issue is submission to God's authority. The sexual urge that drives our most passionate language and strongest attractions and family structures - where did it come from? Is it just our animal nature? If yes, then it boils down to atoms and physics and math. Find whatever pleasure you can, but it all adds up to nothing in the end.

The Bible says that human sexuality comes from the nature of God. It is strong because God is strong. Solomon wrote, "Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for love is as strong as death, jealousy is fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord" (Song of Solomon 8:6-7).

God made us and put his image into us. He made marriage between a man and a woman to reflect Christ and the church. He has also given us an instruction manual for all his work. I've learned that when I ignore instruction manuals, the toys usually end up broken. To get the most and best out of it, let's follow the instructions.

Critique of Pure Reason: Human Pride and Foolishness

In the Introduction to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant describes the foolish and blind ambition of man to make dogmatic assertions about things of which he has no experience. His antagonist is the philosopher of metaphysics with his abstruse proofs for the immortality of the soul, the freedom of the will, and the existence of God. Kant thinks these are true, but he denies they are attainable by man's reason. "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (page 117, Cambridge edition, 1998).

Since then, modern man simple denies them.

And he claims Kant as one of the decisive turning points for making an absolute separation between faith and reason, then leaving faith in the dustbin.

I'm only a little ways into the Critique, but I see two foundational ideas from Kant that my age has missed: the foolishness of the educated, and the wisdom of the commoner.

About the metaphysicians Kant says: "Captivated by such a proof of the power of reason [from mathematics], the drive for expansion sees no bounds. The light dove, in free flight cutting through the air the resistance of which it feels, could get the idea that it could do even better in airless space. Likewise, Plato abandoned the world of the senses because it set such narrow limits for the understanding, and dared to go beyond it on the wings of the ideas, in the empty space of pure understanding. He did not notice that he made no headway by his efforts, for he had no resistance, no support, as it were, by which he could stiffen himself, and to which he could apply his powers in order to put his understanding into motion" (p140).

And in his Preface to the same edition, he compares the monopoly of the schools, with their dogmatic proofs, to the simple and obvious understanding of the average man who believes in the immortality of the soul "on that remarkable predisposition of our nature, noticeable in every human being, never to be capable of being satisfied by what is temporal...leading to the hope of a future life". Or on the freedom of the human by "the mere clear exposition of our duties". And finally on the existence of God by "the splendid order, beauty, and providence shown forth everywhere in nature leading to the faith in a wise and great author of the world."

Kant calls this practical reason. It is not mathematical and can't be reduced to equations. But it is real and it is reasonable. It is an approach to reality rooted in the humility of being a creature. We cannot directly perceive the immortal. It is beyond our human ability. But what we can perceive reliably leads us to true thoughts about what or who the immortal is.

Bill Nye "the Science Guy" gave an interview to the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/02/bill-nye-universe-exclusive-interview_n_5233555.html). Asked about the most compelling scientific mystery, he answered:

"The whole thing puts me in awe when you start talking about the Big Bang. But as Einstein said, perhaps the most remarkable thing about the universe is that we can understand it at all, that we can make any sense out of it, is really amazing. I mean we’re these animals running around on this planet and we can understand that. What is the nature of consciousness? What is the nature of your mind? What goes on that I have a mind? I’d say I have a mind. It seems like I have a mind. You know, I speak with dogs frequently. They don’t really talk, but I feel they’re communicating. I just don’t think that they’ve asked these questions. But still they have emotions--they’re happy, they’re sad, they’re tired, they’re energetic in ways like people, but I don’t think they’ve asked a lot of questions. I don’t think they do a lot of calculus, not formally anyway."

What a wonderful answer. I have another term for this: the image of God. I think his hesitation comes because he knows he's giving a theological answer to a supposedly scientific question. But it's a human question. The answer cannot be reduced to space and time and mathematics, but my perception and understanding of space and time and mathematics presupposes a "me" that is doing the perceiving and understanding. And in a world without faith, or without practical reason, there's not much of a "me".

With greater education and understanding, human pride puffs up and then confuses and forgets the most basic truths about our existence as creatures. I think this is what Kant has in mind by setting limits and bounds on the capability of pure reason, and yet we use his very arguments to prove that this life is all there is, man is essentially an animal, and there is no God.

The Good Old Hymnal

The evangelical church has struggled with its worship music for decades. Should we sing the old and great hymns that Christians have been singing for years, or should we sing contemporary songs with modern tunes and lyrics? The issue has largely been decided. Very few churches stick to just the old hymns. I'm pretty sure most evangelical churches don't even have hymnals. And for churches offering two styles, often in two services, it's just a matter of time before the old guard dies off.

I'm 43 right now. I grew up on hymns. I've also sung and played and enjoyed plenty of contemporary choruses over the years. But, given the choice, I'll go Watts over Tomlin. But I also prefer a Chopin etude over Kanye West, and I'm much more likely to watch Columbo than CSI (is that show popular still?) I think I'm already one foot into the dinosaur camp.

There is the reformed crowd, hunkered down with the regulative principle and liturgy. But even that has its gradations: only chanted Psalms with no instrumentation, or metrical Psalms with simple instrumentation, or metrical Psalms plus traditional hymns like A Mighty Fortress, or maybe A Mighty Fortress updated to modern musical tastes like a steady 4/4 beat. And the variations stretch all the way to the contemporary reformed music of Sovereign Grace Ministries.

I don't think the challenge for evangelicals is traditional vs. contemporary. I don't think it's a choice of hymns or choruses. I suspect at the center of the problem is simply the loss of the hymnal. We have rushed to the digital age with hardly a thought of the consequences. If we can project some lyrics from a laptop, isn't that better than being stuck with the old and fraying hymnal we can't afford to update? Clearly there are advantages to the digital age, but I think the dangers are easily overlooked.

A central feature and flaw of contemporary music is that it is consumed. It's easy to change, so we do change. We no longer have a tradition of songs which shape our faith and form our community. Instead, each generation has its own music: the youth sing a totally different set of songs than the adults, and their kids will surely sing another. And because the music is changed quickly and easily, the criteria for that change are light. Hardly any effort at all. It's easy to pick a song because it has an appealing sound, or has lyrics which really speak to us, or is the newest release from a publishing group or worship band we really like. The consequences are that our worship music must constantly change to follow the popular sound, the lyrics are increasingly experience focused, and Christian music corporations report quarterly profits and losses on the NYSE. We consume our worship music like we consume just about everything else in this digital age.

My proposal is for the evangelical church to create a modern hymnal. Not a bound book of old songs, but a well-defined list of songs that communicate our faith and form a church tradition. Put it on the web site or Power Point projector, but make sure "it" is actually defined. The list should include traditional and contemporary music. It can change over time, but do not let it change lightly. Musicians will play a key role in the formation of the hymnal, but it cannot be left only to them. Give our hymnal the full attention and scrutiny of the pastorate, including our best theologians. It doesn't mean you can't ever sing outside the hymnal, but choose to make it the exception. I'm calling for a robust theology of music and its role in the church, embodied in a collection of songs.

Colossians 3:16 says "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." This is not a command to only sing old hymns. But it is clear teaching that the Word of Christ ought to be planted deep within us through the songs we sing with each other and to each other. What do our songs teach us about our faith? What do they say we believe? Or how we should live? Let's sing it. It will help to shape us as Scripture moves in and through our minds and hearts.

Every age group in the church should learn the new hymnal: children, youth, adults and seniors. We sing it together. And learning includes not just the words but the music. Just like everyone can learn to read, everyone can learn to make music. Don't leave musicianship for just the few on stage. To achieve this vision of a broad musical literacy requires notes on the page, not just words on the screen. Do you want to learn how to play the guitar or piano or trumpet? Here's our hymnal; let's work on it together!

I also believe that if our singing was given the full weight and consideration it deserves, we will also see the need for a broader, richer musicality. We can't always sing happy, upbeat music. We need a broader palette. Our music can help us feel and truly believe the weight of our sinful condition and the mournful condition of the world. But these musical considerations will naturally follow from a proper attention to the Word of Christ dwelling richly in our lyrics.

Finally, what about music as outreach? What will be welcoming and attractive to the outside world to come in and hear the gospel? Whatever it is, I don't think a hip musical style is the answer. Rather, let's be concerned about what kind of people our music is forming us to be, and trust that God will use the living witness of a people who are joyful in God, mournful over their sin, loving towards each other, and thoughtful in their faith and living.