If the first verse is something of riddle concerning my identity, it is in the chorus of "Birdhouse in your soul" that I bring you to the top of the mountain, so to speak, of my self-disclosure, and your relationship to me. Who am I? I am...
- Blue canary in the outlet by the light switch
- who watches over you
- Make a little birdhouse in your soul
- Not to put too fine a point on it
- Say I'm the only bee in your bonnet
- Make a little birdhouse in your soul
First off, I find my existence situated in a trinitarian relationship:
1) Blue Canary
2) in the Outlet
3) by the Light Switch
The Outlet corresponds to the Holy Spirit in a biblical schema. From it I receive power and thus light. But this outlet is not situated close to the floor, like typical outlets. I am seated, as it were, in the Outlet, up by the Light Switch (the Father in the biblical schema), whose will/counsel controls the existence of light or darkness in the room environment. The Son sits on the throne next to his Father in the biblical schema.
I have a triple association with HEAVEN. First, I am blue (yellow is the natural canary color). Blue is the color of the sky, which is day-heaven. Second, I am a bird. Birds inhabit heaven in flight. Third, I glow in the dark like the stars in night-heaven. This triple association emphasizes the completeness of my association with the realm of heaven. The altitude of my seat helps me to better "watch over you" (v.2).
This heaven association is seconded by the idiom "bee in your bonnet". Like birds, bees also inhabit the realm of heaven during flight. The bonnet is worn on top of the head, which is typically the closest part of a person to heaven. Metaphysically, the idiom "bee in your bonnet" means "a fanciful or impractical idea that will not go away." Ideas,especially, fanciful or impractical ones, are again associate one's head with being up in the clouds.
My identity is emphatically CHILD-SAFE, in an otherwise DANGEROUS environment. Outlets are generally dangerous to children, as they have the potential to shock little fingers. I inhabit an outlet that is at an adult altitude, out of child's reach. Plus, I provide a safe covering for the outlet and mediate its power in a benevolent manner. So also in the biblical schema, the Holy Spirit can pose a threat to human flesh-existence, especially when sin has poluted the relationship between God and man, and therefore God provides special coverings (veils, blood, clothes), to either protect flesh from the Spirit, or make flesh more fit for the presence of the Spirit.
Of birds, canaries are a good choice for a domestic pet. They are smaller than most birds. Eagles, hawks, vultures, even geese are not appropriate for children. Children are small, and so a canary is a child-sized bird. Canaries are also extra sensitive to toxins in the air, and are so used to detect when harmful gases are in the air or if there is a shortage in oxygen. Canaries can thus serve to warn of dangerous breathing conditions.
Just because I'm a domestic canary in form doesn't mean that you have the power to domesticate me. I've chosen that form in order to be child-safe, not because I am naturally weak and defenseless. On the contrary, think of me also as a "bee in your bonnet." Bees also are typically dangerous because they have poisonous stingers. That's why I say "not to put too fine point on it." Don't let my stinger frighten you. I demand to be your topmost thought, but not because you're affraid of the (fine point) tip of my stinger. Friendships cannot be based upon dread. I simply want you to confess to being your best friend in a way that doesn't allow other thoughts to take my place, and I'll constantly bug you when I think someone or something else is occupying your mind in a manner that damages that relationship.
I'm not merely a friend. If I were, you may think I'm being overly controlling. My power and position are proportionate to the PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY I have over your life. You are in a very dark room. I am the one who watches over you in the dark. Your parents sleep in another room during the night and that's of little comfort to you. Without me, you'd have much to be affraid of. Your room is full of things that can do you harm without my presence. My blue glow brings day-heaven into an otherwise pitch-black night.
My responsiblity over you also carries the authority of parental command. There are two basic commands for you to respond to under my care. Both are for your well being:
1) Make a little birdhouse in your soul (v.3,6)
2) Say I'm the only bee in your bonnet (v.5)
My responsibility over you has implications for your life with respect to me. In the biblical schema, this is what's called a covenant-relationship. God takes responsibility over men, and they must respond and respect his responsibility in a manner that makes the world more like heaven, God's dwelling place, so God and men might dwell together. In the Bible, it is the responsibility of his king to make a home for God on earth (e.g. Moses, Solomon, Cyrus, Jesus). The king is endowed with knowledge and wisdom to design a temple on earth according to the pattern of God's home in heaven (though neither a home on earth or his home in heaven can "contain" him).
The vault of your room is my temple, but I also desire to have a home-temple in your soul as well. I not only have power to watch over your well being from the outside, but can also serve the same for in the inner-room of your soul. Your soul is a dark room, like the dark room you sleep in, full of evil and foolish thoughts that can bring harm to yourself and others. My responsibility is for a complete watchfulness of your soul, inside and out. Light to comfort you from the enemies without, and a light inside to guide your thoughts.
I call upon you, my child-king, not only to build me a little birdhouse for your child-sized soul, but secondly, to speak as a prophet, confessing me to be your ONLY SOURCE OF REVELATION: "Say I'm the only bee in your bonnet." (See above for discussion of this idiom and its association with heaven.)
By the way, did you know that the word "canary" is also slang for "an informer"? Someone who is able to listen into the secrets and share them without their permission? While I do not give you permission to let someone else be a source for revelation, don't think for a minute I don't know your secrets when you let someone or something else take authority over your mind. That said, what is more important, is not your secrets but mine. And I have a secret to tell in the next verse of my song...
Yesterday, I introduced a few more of my friends to Kieslowski's Decalogue series. I typically begin by showing the first one, "Thou shall have no other gods before Me." As a result, I've seen the first of the Decalogue series at least ten times. Each time there's been something new I had not previously noticed, often by others in their first viewing.
This time someone noticed not just one, but two people being pulled out of the water. Sure enough, after rewinding it a number of times, we determined that indeed there were two. This to re-enforces my theory that the breaking of the ice was not only a judgment against his father's unbelief, but a means for redemption for the father and his son. The "homeless guy" left his fire in order to *be with Pavel* during the impossible accident. This multiplies the irony of the situation. If the breaking of the ice is a divine judgment, then it's a judgment that God also brings upon himself. One is tempted, therefore, to conclude that God must have failed in trying to save the boy from his own judgment. But that would forget the more important matter: the boy's soul.
From the beginning, the soul of the boy is being polluted by his father's humanistic naturalism. Milk is meant for nurishment of children, but the children in the movie are being forced to consume sour milk by the school authorities. Likewise, his father's naturalism is a spoiling of the nurishing use of knowledge which could make his son both wise and God-fearing. Pavel receives sour milk from his father; in contrast, he receives hardy meals from his aunt who is trying to provide spiritual nurshment for the boy's soul. Whose instruction will win over Pavel's soul? Pavel seems innocent from the beginning, healthily open to religious training and resistent to his father's naturalism. He is perceptive to the pointlessness of life apart from the soul, and recognizes the limitations of human strength and reason. At the same time, he does put great faith in his father's computer. Curiously, we never see Pavel's father bringing him to the priest like he promised. Doesn't this suggest that his father's confidence in his computer is trajected to become a dominating and oppressive force in his son's life?
After being shaken by the death of the poor homeless dog who must have starved and froze to death, Pavel is driven to conclude "perhaps he is better off now." So also, the break in the ice, represents both a divine judgment against his father's idolatry, but also a merciful tragedy for the redemption of souls. In the end, the father finally bows in the church, reaching into the bucket and breaking out a piece of ice which he brings to his forehead. In doing so, the father remembers his son, in sacramental fashion. For the first time in his life, he embraces life after death.
The last time I watched Magnolia, I noticed something else I had not previously noticed: the furniture store Solomon & Solomon represents riches and wisdom. At the beginning of the movie, it's money from his employer that the "stupid" Donnie Smith feels he needs most of all to win the object of his misdirected love. At the end, it's outside Solomon & Solomon that the Quiz Kid adult confesses he lacks wisdom in love: "I have lots of love to give, I just just don't know where to put it."
It's outside Solomon & Solomon that Jim the Cop demonstrates the wisdom of forgiveness in helping Donnie return his stolen money. For the first time in the movie, Jim sits and fully listens to a someone without judging them. "Some people you need to forgive. Some people you need to put in jail. That's the tough part of the job. Who can we forgive?" Governing and executing the Law with wisdom, is not simply a matter of putting people in prison or shooting them.
The movie begins with a kind of angelic merciless justice. The narrated series of "coincidences" at the beginning involve divine judgments all ending in death or imprisonment. The cop's monologue at the beginning of the movie focuses upon man's need to "be good to each other" setting the standard by which the rest of the character's lives are judged or being judged. The cop represents God's Law. But the movie ends, not with simply fatal judgments, but with a dying wish fulfilled, second chances, reconciliation. Redemption. Thus, Jim's character moves from "strict justice" to the wisdom of forgiveness. If Jim can learn the wisdom of forgiveness and not being too quick to judge, than his budding relationship with Claudia (the sinner drug-addict) has hope. And if their relationship can work, the whole world has hope.
Wisdom is one of the main themes of the movie. This becomes most overt when all the characters join in the movie's climatic music video "It's not going to stop, till you wise up". The game show "What do kids know?" play upon the competing relationship between knowledge of adults vs. kids in the context of authority structures. Kids and their knowledge are held hostage to the abuse of adult authorities. Authority asks questions and makes imperatives, kids answer trivia for the sake of cheap adult entertainment (or, in the case of parents, exploiting children for lucrative gain). In the end, Stanley wises-up and realizes that there is an authority that is higher than the oppressive uses of adult authority and education. He begins to ask adults questions. "It's not a dangerous thing to confuse children with angels." After "getting" the divine revelation at the end, Stanley functions as an angelic messenger to warn his father against abusing his authority: "Father, you need to be good to me." Will his father wise-up and see that it is wrong to use his child for fame and fortune? Will he realize that he is not the ultimate authority in his and his son's life? In the end, divine judgment remains penal, but this serves to "Let my people go."
I spent last week at the Biblical Horizons Conference in Valparaiso, FL. Here are some highlights that left a lingering impression upon me. By the way, the Vespers services alone were worth the trip.
The conference theme was "The Beginning of the Apostolic Age". Speakers proposed fresh readings for New Testament books of Acts, Matthew, and James that draw a closer connection to the early Jewish context. James Jordan showed how the narrative of Acts closely parallel's the narrative of Luke. Advances in the scope of Jesus' mission to the world, come through patterns of death-and-resurrection, first in himself, and then through His apostles. Each kind of "death and resurrection" brings in more of the new world and advances the glory of God's kingdom. Jordan asks whether we can see this pattern of death-and-resurrection in the process of the structuring of creation itself; not something that's simply the result of the fall (e.g. the alternating cycles of day and night in the creation week, and Adam's death-like sleep from which Eve is made). The fall gave death "sting": sin/separation from God. Jesus therefore had to die two kinds of deaths, the first to deal with sin; the second to bring creation into the new creation. Jordan had much more to say, but as Rich Bledsoe says, "Summarizing Jim Jordan is like summarizing War and Peace."
Peter Leithart furthered his thesis that Matthew is the first written Gospel, published shortly after Pentecost, for Jewish believers. He gave evidence to his thesis that from beginning to end Matthew shows how Jesus is true Israel, and fulfills Israel's entire history through successive stages of his ministry. Baptism through Sermon on the Mount represents the Mosaic phase. Chapters 8 through the giving of his authority over demons to his 12 apostles is the Joshua phase (12 apostles representing 12 tribes engaging in holy war). Matthew 12 and the parables of Jesus (ch. 13) represent King Jesus as the new David and greater Solomon, respectively. The Elijah/Elisha phase follows, largely to do with feeding and other kingdom signs showing Jesus to be a "leadership prophet". Then comes the apocalyptic phase (his presence and preaching against the Temple). Followed by Exile and Restoration (his death and resurrection). Dr. Leithart also suggests a parallel between Matthew and Chronicles (the last book in the Hebrew canon). Both begin with genealogies and end with the commission of the King who has received authority from God. Both are summaries of Isreal's history.
Jeff Meyers expounded the implications of reading James as written by James the Son of Zebeddee to the Jewish Christians after the first major persecution of the church (the death of Stephen). One thing that I had never considered is taking the address to the "brothers" as a way of speaking primarily to the Christians leaders (e.g. 3.1 literally "let not many become teachers, my brothers, for we who teach..."). That added a dimension to the text with other plausible implications (e.g. 3.2 "bridle the whole body" could have reference to the whole church, not just to an individual's body).
Bill DeJong and Rich Bledsoe also gave lectures. Bill expounded the last chapters of 1 Samuel, how David must trust God to bring in the kingdom, and not give in to the temptation to take the kingdom for himself by killing Saul (or Saul-like Nabal). In the end, Saul represents Israel as a nation as a whole, who rejects true Messiahship, and dies like the Philistine nation they fight against. Christ's death likewise, dies the death of God's enemy, but in sacrificial love, and not as a means to hold on to his own authority.
Rich Bledsoe spoke on how the new creation brought by Jesus is the real reason why no one seems to know how to relate to each other any more. He has "messed everything up" so that all relationships in the world can no longer be organized around the creation, but must now be organized around Himself for the glory of God. The point of creation, even before the fall, was to allow for man to mature in communion with the Trinity, who has perfect communion within Himself. That suggests that creation expected to receive the incarnation of God's Son, from the beginning. Creation was pouring itself into mankind until Christ. Since Christ, man has begun pouring himself into creation.
Bledsoe suggests, that new reorientation and reorganization for the whole world must begin with "giving thanks for all things", rather than further analysis. The basic nature of analysis is deconstructive, rather than constructive. Church history and gospel emphasis can be roughly divided into Hope (Augustine), Love (Medieval), and Faith (Luther-Reformation) periods. We are at a point where the relationship between globalization and localization most resembles the early Christian church period. This suggests that the world is in fresh need of "hope" today. The gospel of "hope" is the way forward for Christian church. It must triumph especially over the cities of the world, which are the international "nerve centers" of the world. Paul preached not only to barbarians but also to the wise. Europe is the future frontier for missions. Bledsoe exhorts that the church must not only speak to primitive "tribes" but also to the ancient "wise" of the world; until she effectively does so, she will simply be endlessly repeating history and not making the final progress to which we were called.
Few evangelicals today would find fault in the Church of the Latter-Day Saints' 30-minute movie production on the gospel of Christ. "Finding Faith in Christ" is narrated from the perspective of Thomas who counsels a friend embittered over the death of his Christian wife and carries a doubting-Thomas attitude towards the Christian faith. Much of the dialogue between Thomas and his friend consists of quotes from Scripture weaved into the conversation. Thomas's story seems to cover all the main facts about Christ that call for faith in him: the OT expectation, his ability to heal the sick and perceive thoughts of others, his surpreme example of love and service, his authoritative teachings, his blood atonement[*] and resurrection. When asked, "Why did most not believe in him?" Thomas begins with "I don't know" and proceeds to explain the significance of his crucifixion and death, which most saw as a failure of his power: "he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." The only major incongruity, in my mind, is nothing I can particularly verify: the blue-eyed, King-James-only Jesus seemed stereotypically sentimental and soft-spoken.
Thomas's conversation with the man seems like a conversation we might have today with an unbeliever. This, in my opinion, is both the movie's strongest appeal and greatest weakness. Thomas's manner seems far removed from the events he speaks about, as if it had happened long ago, as if they only thing he had to go on was his "faith". On the one hand, this helps their conversation about "faith" seem more relavent to us living 2000 years later. Thomas summarizes "faith" as "the belief that good will come of whatever happens to us" is perhaps not so much an absolute definition, but geared towards the condition of his friend in the loss of his wife. However, Thomas' character lacks the confidence that Jesus is ruling and present in a mighty way and abiding way with his apostles. Gone is any sense of Acts and Paul, and their foundational work on His behalf.
What we are left is the feeling that we need to find "faith in Christ" more than we need to find Christ. This sense of existential "gap" between us and the Jesus we've heard "rumors" about, serves well to introduce people to the "Church of the (so-called) Latter-Day Saints". The movie ends fading with (something like) these words:
The crucified, resurrected Jesus still lives today...
He still loves us...
and has again reached out with his gospel to restore the church in our day. To find out more about the teachings of Christ and his ministry...(call 1-800-666-WOLF)
To fill the void of some faithfuless sense of the absence of Jesus from His church for hundreds and hundreds of years is what these cult-restoration movements all have in common. Resurrection equals absence: an absence to be bridged by our faith plus some new work of His revelation, new apostles and prophets, new people, new religion. A divided kingdom cannot stand. You cannot say with one side of your mouth, "the Bible has the gospel" and on the other side of your mouth, "Jesus has again reached out with his gospel to restore the church." Listen, folks! That is not a "Lord" worthy of the worship that belongs to the Son of God Omipotent. That is resurrection Impotent. Gospel resurrection and ascension means that God has once-and-for-all installed his king upon his throne forever to bring about a new creation which is, was and shall continue through His church until He returns to finish what He began. Resurrection equals once-for-all restoration. Can we lose a "gospel" that has always been with us? Can a House standing on a Rock remove the Rock upon which it stands? We cannot rid the victorious presence of Christ from His universal church on earth any more than we can cast him from his authority of heaven AND earth and crucify Him again. Do you think He needs to die for his church a second time?
The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! (Matthew 6:22-23)
“What is wrong with these people!?” Thus says Sy “the photo guy” Parrish speeding off through a stop sign to execute the next stage of his plan to purge evil from the family he had obsessively dreamed to belong to. Sy’s sincere question is humorous because most viewers have been wondering the same thing about him. That’s the crazy and curious irony of the movie. Sy, a one-hour photo developer for the Yorkin family, had been nurturing a secret obsession for years to be included in their family pictures. To be captured as ‘Uncle Sy’ in their pictures would, in a sense, mean to belong forever to a picture perfect family. But when Sy discovers the adulterous, secret love life of Will Yorkin, the family’s husband and father, he realizes his picture perfect family is trying to survive by its own fantasy, neglecting to face the deep violence being committed to their own family. So, the movie asks the viewers, “Which is the greater evil: Sy’s clinically obsessive stalking behavior leading to violence against Will Yorkin or Will Yorkin’s neglect of his family?” The end of the movie reveals the producer’s sympathies lie with Sy Parish: the last scene fades into a family photo showing Sy with Will Yorkin’s arm around him with his wife and son. Thus, though Sy is left alone at the end in a police interrogation room, he has earned an eternal place in the family, since through Sy’s violent action, (we imagine) the wife regained her husband and her son his father. Sy’s actions, rooted in the sexual pornographic abuse he suffered as a child, showed he cared for the family more than it cared for itself, oddly enough.
We might be disturbed to think that someone might seem to know so much about our lives without our permission; someone who has been carefully piecing our lives together as through snapshots. Our families have natural boundaries, the sacred “privacy of our own home” that should not be crossed by strangers. Strangers who desire to cross those lines, may like Sy, be living in a socially unstable fantasy. But a family that thinks it can be true to itself by maintaining its family image alone is likewise imagining things, and is no less unstable. God knows and cares for our families more than we care to allow. He is no respecter of personal privacy, though he does often patiently permit us to indulge ourselves as if we could do such things in private. Like Sy, God violently broke into our hotel room, and exposed our adulterous affair against him, forcing us to face the shameful nature of our actions. What we imagined was a harmless secret fling, he exposed as a public pornographic profession. All these things God has showed us through the naked exposure of his son on the cross, in order that the creation might be cleansed from our violence and his glory to shine forth as His family reflects his image.
Sadly, Sy falls short of that image and family. We can sympathize with his past experience with child abuse; we can admire his penetrating prophetic recognition of family neglect as one of the worst forms of human violence; we should resonate with his desire to belong to a picture perfect family that is true to its own picture. Belonging to God’s “family picture” does go against the expectations of society and established authorities. Paul, for instance, preached the gospel to the whole world from prison (Acts 28:31). But as far as we can tell Sy never recognizes any wrongdoing on his part; rather, he blameshifts, lies, and denies his transgressions. Sy is portrayed above all human authorities, but not under God’s authority; a god in his own right. But justice in a world without God through His Son in the Spirit is nothing more than matter of competing fantasies; images we can never live up to; images that will never tell truth about us.
In Inside Out, Dr. Larry Crabb anecdotes his trip to the pizza restaurant to support one of the main points of his book: “our desires though energizing a complex variety of sinful directions are related not only to our fallenness but also, and more profoundly, our humanness.” So, when Dr. Crabb looks inside himself to discover the basis of his intense anger against his wife for offering obvious directions to his favorite pizza restaurant, he discovers the basic God-created desire to be treated with respect. Adam was created to accomplish important tasks in God’s world; Adam was “built to matter” and so were all men in him. Dr. Crabb’s wife “stepped on his toes” and truly hurt him, because she did not respect his ability to accomplish a simple task. That hurt reminds him of how thirsty he is for what Adam lost in the fall: a perfect life that fully recognizes its important purpose in a perfect creation, so that in the gospel we will find hope for that restored life in the future coming of Christ.
Dr. Crabb’s interpretation is helpful in that it connects the motive of human sin to God’s story of creation and the purpose of our existence. Sin is not simply moral vices, social evils, the doing of things that God told us not to do, or not doing what He told us to do. Sin is taking what was meant for good (desires, creation, relationships) and using them for means to achieve goals apart from God’s expressed will. Thus, under the distortion of sin lies some expression of God’s truth and His intentions for humanity from the beginning. God’s general revelation is so pervasive that acts of reprobation are concerted efforts to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”.
Crabb’s illustration and subsequent analysis, however, falls short of the glory of God in that 1) it completely separates what is sinful in his response from the truth it distorts and 2) it separates truth about humanity from what that truth is intended to tell us about God and his glory. A self-referential analysis (what I desire), ultimately does not give God his due respect, and tries to fit God into meeting our own desires, rather than the reverse. Dr. Crabb expresses elsewhere that his intention is not to make God out to be a candy dispenser for humanity. Nor does the gospel in truth teach us to simply “accept ourselves as we are”. But diagnosing sin as the symptom of an injured humanity that causes thirst for the respect and personal significance that Adam was created for, seems to abrogate personal responsibility from irreducibly idolatrous and God dishonoring responses.
The anger in Dr. Crabb’s heart was a sin not only against his wife but against God who had made him to be her loving husband. His thirst for self-respect was a self-oriented desire, and not a God glorifying, God respecting one. It may be true that his wife could have exercised more wisdom in respecting her husband’s responsibility to get them to their favorite pizza restaurant. But instead of being concerned to feed her husband the self-respect he idolatrously thirsts for, acting like she trusts him when for whatever reason she does not, she should be trusting God who governs all things for her good, and respecting Him who gave her husband to be her head “submitting to him as unto the Lord.”
Adam was built “to matter” from the beginning, but our sinful lusts are not simply arising out of what he lost for us, but also the manner in which he lost it. Adam thirsted to obtain more personal significance for himself prior to his eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. And while his desire for ‘more’ could have been submitted to God for good (in prayer, asking for such wisdom like Solomon did), that desire became a consuming lust to replace God’s authority with his own. Adam’s desires were intended for God’s desires and His glory. The natural desire to be invested further with a future glorification remained God honoring, only insofar as it was appropriate to his God ordained responsibility to bear God’s image and likeness for the rest of creation to see God represented in him. But because good desires can become so radically twisted by sin to self-glorifying ends, Jesus says,
If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30)
One does not need to take too deep an inside look to figure the ‘natural’ desire being used by sin. Sin will most likely tell you what ‘good’ and ‘valuable’ thirsts it is seeking to fulfill, to exploit to their God-given fullest potential. Sin recognizes the value of the right eye and the right hand. Once sin has corrupted these desires, they cannot be directly recovered by recognizing their original God-intended value and purpose, and thus reinterpreted or stripped from sin into legitimate longings. Good desires infected by sin are no longer good. They must be dismembered before they take control over the whole body. Thus, we are taught to kill our ‘best’ of intentions, before God will make them new again. We must give up satisfying all sin infected thirsts, before we will truly thirst for Christ and kingdom righteousness.
How would we expect Dr. Crabb’s conversation with his wife to go based upon his analysis? “Honey, please forgive me for being overly angry with your driving suggestions. But please understand that my anger comes from my God given desire to be respected as a human built to matter, and so when you don’t respect me to carry out simple tasks, you hurt me. I’d rather that you trust me even when I behave foolishly, but when you don’t, that’s okay, because I’m okay with feeling hurt. Through such painful experiences, God makes me more mature and dependent on Him, more desirous of heaven and the future Christ will bring us without sin and suffering.” This sounds more like an excuse than a true apology and seems to send the mixed signal of whether or not he holds his wife responsible, and whether he wants her to change. It seems more self-centered than God glorifying.
Alternatively, accepting full responsibility for the idolatrous nature of one’s desires would result in different confession: “Honey, please forgive me for being angry with you. My pride was hurt by your driving tips, because they imply that you do not worship me as God who has everything under control. I selfishly desired you to trust me rather than Him to get us where we are going. I wanted to express my anger in words, but held my tongue out of the fear of man. I wanted to turn right when you told me to turn left, but I turned left more out of my love for pizza than my love for you. Let’s pray before we start on our journeys to orient ourselves to worshiping and honoring God as Lord who plans the best paths for us.” By glorifying God, rather than seeking to justify his own need for respect, his wife in turn will, by God’s grace, grow in wisdom and respect for her husband, as he reflects and reminds her of always living under God’s wisdom, love, and trustworthiness, even on the road. If her direction observations came from motives of insecurity on the road, of wanting to appear to be helpful in front of others, or of wanting to take disrespectful control over her husband’s actions, God will reveal that to her heart and lead her to confess any sin on her part in the matter.
The wisdom and insight of The Berenstain Bears Get the Gimmies is attractive because it is a secular re-interpretation of God’s story for the problem of greedy behavior in children and its parental solution. In a world that has forgotten God’s parental authority over all parents, parents will tend to fear, above all, the social embarrassment caused by the greedy and rebellious actions of their children. In a world that has forgotten the gospel of Jesus Christ, parents will tend to judge their children’s misbehavior, without first considering how their own responses and actions contribute to shameful public behavior. They will naturally first attempt to employ quick pragmatic solutions to alleviate the embarrassment of children who rebel against their God given authority (cf. Papa Bear’s wisdom). When that doesn’t work, parents will tend to respond in an unloving authoritarian fashion, out of anger or fear, banning children from the environment in which greed becomes the occasion for temptation, or grounding them from enjoying anything fun. Parents, at best, might finally try to not give in to the their children’s wishes, to be more preparatory and proactive (cf. Mama Bear’s wisdom), giving pithy lectures to their children of why it’s not right to be greedy, expecting it all to just “make sense” and alter their future behavior. The book rightly critiques these approaches as falling short of wisdom that can actually work for children.
But the book’s critique makes the same basic false assumptions about human life as the positions it criticizes, and so ultimately only offers another pragmatic solution to solving the problem of public embarrassment: a magical mix of all the different pragmatic solutions that parents will by nature tend to try (cf. grandparents wisdom). The solution may have solved the problem of feeling embarrassed in public, but it never actually solved the problem of greedy behavior in the children. It simply redirected and transformed greedy behavior to a more sophisticated socialized form. In the end, the children are learning to try to get what they want through contractual agreements, even if they must compromise a little. Even worse, the children learn to take pride in their new form of behavior that they look down upon other families who do not exhibit their wisdom. This boasting in the achievement of their family contract, and their own adherence to it, basically hoards pleasure in their special family insight, above any desire to share their wisdom with other families who do not have their wisdom. Thus, their family contract actually gives rise to greedy behavior of a higher more sophisticated form, but now they have become blind victims to it.
As Christians, we are painfully aware from our own story how such forms of socially accepted, sophisticated greed are the most seductive and deceiving form of greed, and the most intolerable and shameful form in the eyes of God. The Messiah, after all, was crucified by such religious hypocrisy, and the nation of Israel rejected the gospel due to their “own [greedy] righteousness”. Thus, Satan sought ultimately to destroy God’s image, not through overt ugliness of Gentile ‘sinners’, but through the sophisticated boasting of a blind, hypocritical form of ‘godliness’. The book exchanges the worship of things for the worship of family.
As the book suggests, parents need to learn that they are responsible for disciplining their children, so that they do not give into the temptations of the world and get what they want through greedy behavior. But the problem is both far deeper and far greater. Parents need to accept that children’s misbehavior is a form of heart rebellion, not just against parental authority, but God. The book seems to suggest that the [greedy] heart of children is something that belongs to their nature, which no one can change. The best parents can do is promising to give them what they want before they see it, and play on their fear for not getting anything they want, in hopes to avoid a family scene in public. Children need to learn that their parents also live under God’s authority. Parents who confess the sin of their anger against their children’s misbehavior, will model before their children’s eyes how they should also live under their parent’s God given authority.
The solution of the family contract in the end shares a distorted resemblance of God’s covenantal resolution for human sin in the story of redemption. A family contract after-all is a form of covenant. The children are promised to receive something they want, before they see it, but they will lose that promised blessing if they fuss to receive something other than what they agreed to. Thus, submission to the terms of the family contract by the parents and children helps to secure a shame-free experience before the eyes of world. Unfortunately, this family covenant has no power to change sinful nature, and as a result becomes a vehicle for greed in the form of family boasting, which results in shame before God. In the economy of salvation, God has made a new covenant for the redemption of God’s family and to bring an end to cosmic conflict, putting an end to all forms of greed and reason for family boasting and complaining (“none is righteous” and “let him who boasts, boast in the Lord”). In Christ, God promises to provide for his family, not the things we see in this world, but a glorious family inheritance beyond what we would ever choose, hope, or imagine for ourselves.
The Berenstain Bears Get the Gimmies makes several observations about the problem of greedy “gimmie” behavior in children. The first observation is that children are only partially to blame for their greedy behavior. Their greedy behavior has an environmental factor: exposure to a market full of things appealing to children gives rise for the occasion of greed. That’s not all, however. Greedy behavior is primarily the result of a parental factor: parents tend to give their children too much of whatever they want from these things, whenever children throw a fit about not having them. Thus, the behavior of children under these circumstances depends largely upon the behavior of their parents. Parents who try to alleviate a social scene by giving kids what they fuss for are effectively training their children to be greedy and to fuss in order to get what they want! The parental quick-fix actually recycles and perpetuates the very social embarrassment they are hoping to alleviate themselves of in the public eye! Ultimately it is not the greedy behavior of the children that is the main problem, but the resulting public shame that behavior brings to the family.
The book presents two basic competing parental philosophies (thesis/antithesis) through the plot’s character development of Mama Bear and Papa Bear. First, Mama Bear in the story represents the voice of law and social order, restraint and education, who desires her children to grow up and act like mature adults. Papa Bear, functions as an antithesis, a mediator for the children (“you’re only young once” and “cubs will be cubs”). When all else fails, like a good pragmatist, he even tries out his wife’s education philosophy. Neither the father’s philosophy of childhood nature, nor his wife’s philosophy of maturity bring resolution to the family conflict. In the end, only the wisdom of the grandparents provides the synthesis that actually saves the family from shameful greedy behavior. The synthesis addresses the environmental factor: it suggests that the children decide upon one thing they want to get ahead of time in order to remove the decision making from the hostile environment. The synthesis also combines the two parental philosophies: it restrains them from getting too much, but still allows them to get something they want. If they break this family contract and fuss, they return empty handed. In this manner, peace, harmony, and love are restored to the family so that they might occupy space together in the public eye without disgrace or embarrassment.
But that’s not the end of the story. The family gains something it didn’t have at the beginning of the story: family pride. No longer are they victims of their environment or under shame in the public eye, but can together despise that shameful “gimmie” behavior when they see it occurring in other families, and can leave as a family triumphant.
My impression is that in Book One, the narrator has a very prominent and distinct personality shown through his account of the history of the Karamazov family. The character of the narrator is a human observer to the events surrounding the family, firmly situated from the perspective of one who has lived in the same town, though I don't remember if he ever discloses being personally related to anyone. He admits having limited knowledge of the story that he describes, at least a historical fact. For instance, "Why Ivan Fyodorovitch had come amongst us I remember asking myself at the the time with a certain uneasiness" (I, chapter 3). The impression is that the narrator maintains a dominantly human personality. He does most of the talking and describing of things, bringing in direct quotations to support his opinions of a character in focus. The only dialogue I can remember is in fourth chapter where Fyodor asks Alyosha about whether hell has a ceiling.
In contrast, Book Two, seems to consist almost entirely in dialogue and direct speech, making the events seem more inceptive/progressive (alive) and less aoristic/historical (artifact). As a result, the personality of the narrator seems relatively withdrawn, allowing him to take more of an omnipresent and omniscient role, describing even the hidden thoughts, intentions, and feelings of characters as the events unfold, especially in the case of Miusov. "Now, I know myself, I am annoyed, I shall lose my temper and begin to quarrel--and lower myself and my ideas," he reflected. (II, Chapter 1) And again, "As he uttered the last word of his tirade, Miusov completely recovered his self-complacency, and all traces of his former irritation disappeared. He fully and sincerely loved humanity again (II, Chapter 8)."
I wonder if this inverse role between the personality of narrator and the personality of the characters known through dialogue is a common narrative phenomenon in fiction literature. Is it simply something that naturally arises from the nature of the genre, a reflex that writers must put extra effort to control if they want to consisently maintain the personality of the narrators voice? In any case, I think Dostoevsky's interplay between narrator's voice and the full and immediate voice given to those being narrative only heightens the intriguing psychological complexity and suspense of the drama. [I also can't help wonder if there is something in this relationship that is being utilized as a rhetorical strategy by the Divine author of Scripture in his employment of human authors. (Not to mention the present station of Christ in heaven applying the living perfections resulting from his personal presence on earth.)]
Reading Book One and Two as a rhetorical unit in light of this shift, almost gives the impression that the eyes and ears of the narrator are located within the domain of the monastery itself, since that is the setting of Book Two, where the action first comes "alive". The narrator's place of permanent residency, his "home", as far as we can tell at this point in the story, is the monastery. And so the historical perspective of Book One is told from the perspective of one who firstly identifies with this local monastlc order. I wonder if Dostoevsky will develop the character of the narrator through the rest of the book?
You've heard about it. You've had good intentions to finish it in the past. Perhaps you'd like to read it over again.
I've seen the movie The Body a number of times now in the context of discussion groups. How important is it to the Christian faith that Jesus was actually raised from the dead and that his tomb was actually empty? How should faith investigate evidence to the contrary? Secular Science says "Truth, even at the expense of faith." The Politics of Religion prophecies Christianity will survive despite (or worse, by suppressing) evidence to the contrary.
As the plot unfolds, the death of the god Jesus becomes more and more a reality to skeptic (Sharon) and faithful (Gutierrez) alike. Together, the dual competing 'truth' seekers suffer between the hands of dual competing political-recognition seekers: Israeli and Palestinean authorities seek political recognition from the Roman Catholic church. Thus, the Catholic church takes on a form of Antichrist, who gains power as the truth and power of Jesus' resurrection becomes more and more doubtful. Satan strikes with a double-edged sword: one edge seeks to destroy the hope of Christ by the pursuit of truth with a secular heart, the other seeks to preserve "Christ" by participating in a game of ransom with the body for political security.
Father Lavelle gives into the force of the former. Torn between his identity in the church as a priest, and his identity as a scientist to allow for the possibility that Christ was not raised, he finally yields to scientific evidence, loses all hope in Jesus, and takes his own life, Judas-like. Father Gutierrez, in comparison, resembles Peter, whose child-like faith seems strong up to the end, when his spirit, plagued by the evidence, turns to religious apathy and guilt, and his relationship with Sharon becomes questionably intimate.
In the end, Father Gutierrez receives "good news": The truthfulness of Jesus resurrection itself receives resurrection. This first proclamation of gospel, however, is unsatisfying. The dialog is brief, mysterious, and begs for further explanation and confirmation. The viewer is left with the strong need for concrete and conclusive evidence.
One major character is left unfilled by the movie's paid actors. In the end, viewers will realize that the movie has casted them for the role of Thomas: We are the ones shown the indisputable evidence that we really longed for. Yet such evidence does not come without an ironic final rebuke from Jesus himself: "Blessed are those who believe and yet have not seen."
In watching Madagascar last night, I couldn't help but see myself in the role of Alex. Here is a lion, like Adam, who represents the "king of the beasts", but has become domesticated by birth under the reign of civilization foreign to his nature; nonetheless, this is "home" to him.
His restless zebra friend Marty has the prophetic vision to see past their artificial institutionalized life. Marty reminds me of my mother, trying to get me to do things I know I should do, but my initial reaction is always to rebel, to be self-justifying.
Alex finally comes "alive" later in the movie when led to sprint behind his zebra friend in the meadows of Madagascar. Alex begins to "remember" who he is on the most basic level - a predator. That naturally makes his best friend Marty, a prime steak candidate.
As a man, I have constantly felt the pressure of the adventure of masculinity. I've begun to "come out of my shell" over the past few years, but no sooner do I cast off a domesticated spirit, that I put on a judgmental one. I become a "boss" of sorts, judging those closest to me who are quiet and shy, even females, for "weaknesses" that I've seen in myself.
Oh, that I would always put on Christ! One pastor sums up the problem and its solution this way:
I think the natural power of the male is over. He can rebell against it all he wants, but it is struggling in quick sand. The more struggle there is, the faster he sinks. The patriarcal head of household thing is completely artificial and is NOT a return to something spiritual, but something natural, and it is a nature that is dying.
The only way forward for masculinity is to die to this. Jesus was the first man to give up his natural masculine powers. The Kenotic poem of Philippians is the essential telling of this story. It has now caught up with the world. It is only in dying to what is natural that masculine authority and headship can be raised again and come back in a new "final" form that is shorn of nature.
Now, I know everyone will want details on what this means. All I know is that every man I have ever seen who tried to revive nature ends up being an ass. [Or in the case of Madagascar, a predatorial "king of the beasts".] I have seen cases of the most macho masculine and by nature controlling men, with what are undoubtedly very high male hormone levels, just rendered helpless by the current culture. They thrive no better than an Apache warrior in modern Arizona. And in fact, the reality is exactly the same as for the warrior. He can only die, and be raised as a Christian, which looks very different and does not exist by humiliating and degrading women and children.
I think everything in the natural world exists by rivalry. In the natural world, the man is the man is the man by overpowering rivalry over against the female and the children. In God's world, this is undone. In reality, it may well be that large elements of all of this death have only come to pass as late as the 20th century.
1) Profile the common character traits shared between Peter Parker and Lucius Hunt, and the women they love.
2) What is the theology of Spider Man 2 and the Village, respectively? Their eschatology?
3) What function does "secret keeping" play in each movie's concept of authority and responsibility? How is "lying" treated?
4) Compare Lucius's "color" with Peter's "gift". How do these relate to their own salvation in the end?
5) How do Noah and Doctor Octavius help us to differentiate what it means to be human (without becoming a monster)?
6) What separates the protagonists from the world in which they live? What do they have in common? Who depends upon whom?
7) How do both movies explore leadership, courage, and "doing what needs to be done"? How is sacrifice related to human freedom?
Towards the end of high school (1993-94), I began experimenting with music composition on my home computer. By the end of 1995, I had compiled an album of four songs ("Arcade Music" as some of my fans call them), followed by two guitar-vocal "covers". My Christian conversion in Spring 1996 forever altered my entire life and caused me to re-evaluate even how I use my imagination. Since then I haven't composed music, though in recent years I have used photography, poetry, writing, and video-editing as creative outlets to the glory of God. I still delight in these songs as my own, however amateur and immature.
Scattered Thoughts seemed an appropriate title for my works given the collage of genres, styles, and influences they represent. The computer music is mainly a blend of new age, metal, and alternative sounds (with a decent dose of Rush). I titled myself "Fractal Opera"--no doubt due to my love of math and music and my conviction that beauty arises from chaos. What follows is a chronology about these compositions written after Neon Moon was completed for my sister's seventeenth birthday in Jan '95.
"Dream of Desires"(Summer 1993)--my first composition! Perhaps my rawest piece of music. Its fast paced, but still remains dramatic. This was tracked in a MOD format which only allowed 4 8-bit sampled instruments to play at a time. Although it is probably the closest thing to video game music I have, I still think it was an accomplishment considering didnt I know any music theory at the time, and I did it all by ear.
"Falling and Flying" (Spring 1994) was going to be an attempt to re-create my first composition "Dream of Desires" with more tracks and higher quality samples, but I wanted to enter it into a composition contest which emphasized originality, so I had to make it a whole new song. It was, however, never judged in a music composition contest because the contest crashed.
Like its predecessor, "Falling and Flying" is a thematic piece. It starts off with an eerie mood. I tried to capture part of the falling theme with a dissonance effect. After the fall, I tried to catch the listener with some sort of order[1.03]. This order soon turns to chaos[1.31] which is just as quickly smothered with the relief of some kind of hope[1.44]. The song then jumps into a resolution [2.50] with the re-emergence of chaos. In the end, neither chaos or hope compromises; both fade off together, forever.
"Prince of Cumberland" (Summer 1994) is more fun than thematic. It was constructed after "Falling and Flying", but the simple main melody and bass counterpart was imagined many years earlier on a synthesizer in Indiana, while I visited my grandparents. Later, during in high school band, I played the little ditty for a few of my friends; they were humored, so I made up some silly lyrics to it and tracked the tune on my computer. "Prince of Cumberland" ranked 20th out of 42 compositions in an online tracker music competition called "Music Composition II (MCII)".
"Mothers Park"(Fall 1994) started some time in November around my mothers birthday. Underestimating the time to put it together, my mothers birthday soon passed and she was presentless until Christmas Day. Then I presented this song to her.
Knowing my mothers taste for cheerful, relaxing music, I attempted to capture brighter images in "Mothers Park" than I had in previous songs. It seems I was partly successful, for when I asked my mother to close her eyes and tell me what she sees during the song, she told me that the first half of the song she pictured herself walking through a park. So the song became her park.
After creating half of Mothers Park, I decided to give into my temptation to experiment with an argument theme [4.50+] which occurs after the typewriter break[2.50-4.20]. I wanted to have two sides, with different moods and images, fighting to voice their own opinion. The sinister mood is exact and pounds with each drum beat, while the lighter mood is more abstract and elevates. The arguments remain the same, but they become shorter, and interrupt one another until at last the arguments merge into a compromise at the very end.
Technically, I see "Mothers Park" as being superior to my other compositions. The instrumentations fit the music and were higher quality (all 16-bit samples). I experimented a little with some of the cadences which also turned out well. In hindsight, there are a few things I would like to change (like too many cymbals at the very end). But I chose to follow Aldous Huxley's own advice in the Preface to his Brave New World: it is best to leave the art as it is, learn from its flaws and move on.
"Neon Moon" (Jan 1995) is my own version of a song by Brooks and Dunn that is my sisters all time favorite country song. She had always bugged me to learn the guitar solo, so for her seventeenth birthday I planned on learning the solo for her. Soon, however, I was confident that I could do the whole song for her. And since she had always questioned my singing ability--which still may be in question--I tried to redeem myself with my own "Neon Moon."
This project became pretty complex. First I had to play the original song a billion times to figure out the lyrics, the instrument chords, melodies, and cadences. I tracked all the background music with my computer, selecting the most appropriate instruments I could find. Next, I decided to make the performance sound live, so I ripped a sample of a crowd from one of my live Rush CDs and looped it continuously. So, now I had an audience and the accompaniment. Next, I called upon my physical abilities to strum the guitar, play an original intro (as a decoy), the guitar fills, the solos, and the vocals. Well, I wasn't so talented as to do all that at once. I did, however, figure out a way to create an amateur mixing device consisting of two cassette decks and my soundcard. So, all I had to do was strum the entire song; then record the intro, fills, and solo, over the strums; and lastly, add my own voice so that it would stand out the most on the tape--you think I should have mixed the voice in first? :-)
After several hours and several sides of tapes, it was completed. Not polished, but after singing that song a bigillion times into a pair of headphones that I was using as a microphone, I knew the one you hear was the last one. I still cringe at some of the vocal track, but it was worth seeing the tears in my sisters eyes and my step-father's disbelief that I was the one singing. :-)
"Rivendell" (Winter 1995)--my final recorded song. My version(s) of an early Rush song based on the enchanted elfin realm in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. This time without the computer. It was a gift for a girl, who was one of my best friends, whom I also had a secret crush on in college and whom I consider instrumental in my "coming to the Truth" as she later put it. I gave her the distribution rights for the music for a whole year (and then I could give it to whomever I want). She later told me that she had cried while listening to it at night in bed.
My guitar skills were at their peak for "Rivendell"--two years after receiving my guitar for Christmas. I challenged myself to do a song where I would play and sing at the same time, without mixing magic. I did, however, overlay my voice on top of my guitar so I could read the poetry and sing the chorus in the hidden track version [5:52; 6:21-1113] . The lyrics are worth leaving with you.
"Rivendell" by Rush from Caress of Steel
Sunlight dances through the leaves,
Soft winds stir the sighing trees,
Lying in the warm grass,
Feel the sun upon your face.
Elfin songs and endless nights,
Sweet wine and soft relaxing lights,
Time will never touch you,
Here in this enchanted place
Ive traveled now for many miles,
It feels so good to see the smiles of
Friends who never left your mind
When you were far away.
From the golden light of coming dawn,
Till the twilight when the sun is gone,
We treasure every season,
And every passing day.
[chorus]
Feel theres something calling you,
Youre wanting to return,
To where Misty Mountains rise
And friendly fires burn.
A place you can escape the world
Where the Dark Lord cannot go.
Peace of mind and sanctuary,
By loud waters flow.
We feel the coming of a new day
Dark gives way to light a new way,
Stop here for a while, until the world,
The world calls you away.
Yet you know Ive had the feeling,
Standing with my senses reeling
This is the place to grow old till
I reach my final day,
[chorus]
Let's dive into the movie's philosophy of life and death. One way of describing the entire movie of Big Fish is in terms of facing death as a means to life. Do you think Edward Bloom's knowledge of his own death was the big fish bowl he needed to obtain fullness of life? Could the big fish in the river also be symbolic of life surviving through death?
There are some strong gospel parallels to a philosophy that lives in light of the ultimate future. Edward Bloom's friends were affraid of seeing their own death (and so by trying to save their own lives they lose it). Young Edward, however, chooses to face his own death. In the end, he obtains "eternal life", and on the way he has the courage to wrestle through any adversity and the ambition to obtain whatever his heart desires. In a similar way, knowledge of our baptism into Christ's death and resurrection provides for us the assurance that "nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus". Christ sums up for us all of human history: the sufferings and the glories to follow.
His son Will raises the question about his father's ego. After all, he is at the center of all his own stories. His son feels like a mere minor character; in his own words, "a footnote". That is a big problem begging to be resolved the whole movie. Was it ever really resolved?
We do see in the stories that Ed uses his courage and ambition to be a blessing to those who need it. For instance, he provides friendship and jobs for freeks, financial direction to a poet, and he returns to Spector in order to save it, at his own expense. But what about his son?
The stories are intended as Ed's gift of himself. The sharing about his life is his sharing his life. His surprise ending is allowing his son to tell the final chapter that is faithful to the rest of the story. Again, we can relate this to the gospel. The gospel is primarily about one person: Christ, the climax of Israel's story. Christ's kingdom signs and parables are primarily about himself and the salvation/eternal life he brings through his death and resurrection. Christians are those who live in the final chapter of His story. In a sense, the main story is already finished, but He has still given us the responsibility (and grace for) [re-en]acting the final part of the last chapter, bearing His image and likeness so that we might be faithful witnesses to Him, walking in the light of the rest of His story. And when that story is faithfully told, it will still be all about him. But in as much as we are his and are in him, he is all about us.
Do you think that Big Fish attempts to resolve the relationship between the father and the son in a parallel manner?
"Birdhouse in Your Soul" is my favorite tune by They Might Be Giants. It's not my only favorite, but it's at least a favorite. To be honest, I'm not sure if I really like it at all, but what it is, has been, and always will be...
My name is Blue Canary (I'll tell you how to spell that later). This pet project has been a bee in my bonnet for quite some time. Please bear with me as I exposit my song for you. It is quite puzzling lyrically speaking, but like a good nursery rhyme, you can enjoy it without understanding it. It can comfort you when you lie down at night and when you wake up in the morning. In fact, perhaps you'll sleep better if I didn't try to shed some lite on this well kept secret. But I insist you listen, even if it takes some time.
First things first. My lyrics are in the form of DIRECT-REVELATION from ME to YOU. Who am I? Good question. That might depend upon who you think YOU are. In anycase, I want you to trust me; that's the only way I can truly be your friend; that's the only way you can understand me.
My song begins as a RIDDLE:
[Verse 1]
1) a\ I'm your only friend
2) b/ I'm not your only friend
3) a\ But I'm a little glowing friend (c)
4) b/ But really I'm not actually your friend
5) ab= But I am (c)
The first thing you should know about me is how I (in each line) relate to being (i.e. 'am') your FRIEND (in the first 4 consecutive lines). Each line qualifies the preceeding line, beginning with a statement of friendship (a-thesis) followed by how I'm not such a friend (b-antithesis). This creates a paradoxical tension that begs to be resolved by the next statement (c-synthesis). But such a resolution may have its own problems begging to be resolved, ad infinitum. Furthermore, the particular tension or synthesis created with each passing line serves as a kind of index for the issues which will be elaborated in the rest of my song.
(Line Pair 1-2)
I define our social relationship in Lines 1 & 2 as a FRIENDSHIP considered first EXCLUSIVELY (a-thesis) and then INCLUSIVELY (b-antithesis). Line pair 1-2 forms a contrasting parallelism with the lexical pattern of "I'm [+/-] your only FRIEND". This is a contradiction on the surface, but rhetorically it gives occassion for phonetic emphasis upon the word "only" in "I'm not your only friend." Thus, in one sense our friendship is defined exclusively and in another sense it is inclusive. Socialogically this tension makes most sense if you consider my assertion in Line 1 as a jealous, possessive claim: "I'm the only one who deserves to be called your friend." Line 2 qualifies: "but you only consider me as one other friend." This implies a COMPETITION for the status of exclusive friendship. The condition of our relationship is really kind of depressing, but I'll do my best to persuade you to make a relatively more exclusive place for me in your life.
(Line 3) What kind of friend am I that warrants such exclusive attention? Confused by the abstract dialogue in Lines 1 & 2? Let me offer a concrete solution (c-sythesis). My VISUAL FORM will help you understand where I am coming from and reaffirm my friendly character (a-thesis). My form is so central to my self-disclosure, I've made it the centerpiece of my riddle: 1-2-(3)-4-5. The adjectives give you a visual clue: "I'm a little glowing FRIEND." Expecting something bigger and brighter? something with more glitter and glamour? You might find my image childish compared to your other friends, but I hope you're not too shocked. It is important for you to know that I am physically safe, even CHILD-SAFE. The form of my SIZE and LUMINOSITY is the really safest thing for you in your environment.
(Line 4) Safety first, but why should safety be so important for you? "But really, I'm not actually your FRIEND." To tell you the truth, in a fundamental sense, I'm actually not safe or friendly at all (b-antithesis). I speak in terms of "really" and "actually" because if our relationship is to be real it must be based upon the TRUTH about me, however uncomfortable that may be to you at first. The truth is that you will not properly respect and appreciate how SAFE I am, unless you also know how DANGEROUS I am. I am quite possessive; trust me, my safety precautions are for your good.
(Line 5 ) To sum everything up: "I am" (c-synthesis). Okay, well to be honest, Line 5 is actually an ambiguous junction serving both to complete the thought of lines 1-4, while at the same time introducing the chorus (I am...Blue Canary). However, its first function is to abruptly and unexpectedly finish the paragraph of thought. Notice the shift from the "I'm" contraction (in Lines 1-4) to its more emphatic form "I am". Secondly, notice that by dropping "FRIEND" it breaks the syntax structure of lines 1-4 ("I'm + (modifiers) + FRIEND"). Shifting from the conjunction form while dropping "friend" serves to affirm both the thesis (I am) and antithesis (not your friend), respectfully, by deliberately refusing to continue that dialogue syntactically.
The 8 beat musical pause before the chorus also supports a closure in thought as does the movement in melody. Both the chord of line 5 and tone "am" in line 5 returns to the tonic of line 1 after falling through lines 2-4.
Prospectively, the shorteness of line 5 is intended to be especially jarring given that each line from 1-4 grows in length. This shortness, plus the intonation-inflection from "I" to "am" expects the resolution of the chorus. It leaves you "hanging".
While this final "I am..." serves as a good introduction for my name "Blue Canary" in the chorus, it also serves as my NAME. Thus extending the thought of line 4: "I'm not actually your friend, but I am (who I am)." If you remember the Bible, "I AM" is the primary covenant name of God. (While you're at it, keep your Bible handy.) At a crucial point of self-disclosure in Exodus, God reveals his name to Moses to be a four-letter word YHWH, "I AM (who I AM)" or "I will be (who I will be)". Signifying both God's holy self-subsistence or aseity(ie. his nature is foreign to this creation and he depends only on himself) and his faithfulness to his covenant promises to his people (i.e. that he will remain with them for their welfare, security, and future). So, if my SIMPLE name leaves you hanging, it is because it carries INFINITE and ETERNAL significance. My name says it all.
Thus, my riddle can be seen as an allegory echoing the paradox of God's own self-revelation:
1) a\ God alone deserves to be called your friend (Lord & Savior)
2) b/ However, you consider him as one among other friends (idolatry)
3) a\ But His visual form is safe indeed (incarnation)
4) b/ But God is dangerous (holiness)
5) ab= He is one. there is none like Him (holy and faithful)
(To be continued...in the chorus)