Distracted

I am trying to write a paper for Cinema, which is a late. I am just so distracted. I have written three pages, but I still have four to five to go. I have to analyze fifteen seconds of film. The paper isn't that hard. There is so much that can be said about fifteen seconds of film, but I just can't get myself to constantly write.

Sometime this week the new Counting Crows CD is coming. I am excited. The CD came out today, but since I preordered it with free shipping, I have to wait another day or two. I was listening to some of the songs on YouTube. I can't wait. It's been six years since they have released their last CD. Ahhh, I am going to be lost in music for awhile. Anyway, I am distracted, if you can't tell.

Christian Eriksson

Vegetables

When it comes to spiritual disciplines, I am about as disciplined as a criminal. The other day, Heather lent me her copy of Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life by Donald Whitney. You can purchase a copy here and I would highly recommend it. I am only about a third of the way through, but chapter after chapter, I have been challenged and left without excuse. J.I. Packer, a renowned scholar and author of the forward, suggest reading the book three times. After I finish Heather's copy, I will probably purchase a copy. The ten disciplines he analyzes are bible intake, prayer, worship, evangelism, serving, stewardship, fasting, silence and solitude, journaling, and learning. As stated before, I haven't finished the book, but these disciplines are intriguing and necessary (although I am not sure how Whitney will argue journaling is biblical).

Whitney doesn't leave room for excuses. He answers many objections to exercising our disciplines. For a personal example, I do not spend much time praying. My pathetic excuse is "My life is a prayer." I try to argue that God's sovereignty allows him to know what is going on in my life; therefore, I do not need to relay the message to him because he already knows. In a false sense, I was trying to convince myself that I already was living in constant communication with God. Honestly though, I haven't been living in communication with God. Using a technological analogy, I have put God on hold. The seemingly emptiness of my words is a part of my fear when talking to God; however, Whitney illuminated a very interesting idea. In order to live a fruitful prayer life, we must meditate on God's Word before praying. He sites the examples of George Muller, a Christian who received radical answers for his prayers. The other excuse I, and many other Christians, site as reason for not being deeply rooted in our spiritual disciplines is time. We are without excuse. In all reality, we have allowed time to control our lives instead of God. Time and individualism are the two poisons of the last two hundred years. We have to be at work by 8, so we get up at 7. We come home at 4 and we are too tired to do anything else. Dinner needs to be made, the car needs fixing, we need a nap, the kids need to go somewhere. We have preoccupied ourselves with ourselves. By the end of the day we have left no room for God, His Words, or prayer. Instead of conforming and transforming our lives to God's creeds, we demand God to meet our schedule. We are frustrated when prayers aren't answered, we expect worship to be on our terms, and we seek counsel when our therapist is on vacation. One of the major problems in the modern church is the blaspheming of Christ's ministry. We demand the iJesus. If we can't meet Jesus through technology, then He isn't worth meeting. This is a frustration I have to deal with, too. Whitney sites many of the Puritan top dogs. There are many people who cringe at the word; however, these people did not allow their situation to control their spiritual life. They used their spiritual life to control their situation. I want to rely on less of myself and more on God. So, how do I take my own words and implicate them with reality. First, I need to spend a part of each day reading, meditating, and praying through Scripture. It's food for the soul and must be seen as food for the soul. Second, I need to spend less time trying to gratify myself. The internet needs to be less of me. My film watching needs to be regulated. I need to find more time for God and less time for myself. Find a copy of Whitney's book, give it a solid read, and let me know what you think.

Yesterday I had a pretty interesting thought. I could not stop thinking about what "bearing fruit" means. In one smaller aspect, I think it is spiritual growth. On a larger scale, I think it is working with Christ for Christ to do His will. Spiritual growth is inward, but the works should be external. I do not want to sound critical of the modern day church, but we are constantly ordered to purify the church and right its wrongs (but only through the grace of Christ). There are many churches that promote internal spiritual growth. It is as if we are being trained to say, "It's okay what you believe, I won't infringe," or "I have a personal relationship with Christ that I don't want to impose on anyone else." With this mindset, we are no longer bearing fruit, but we are bearing vegetables. Think of the analogy this way, most fruits grow on trees. The trees are easy to see (and smell) and a person can recognize their fruits immediately. The fruit is out in the open. A vegetable on the other hand, grows close to the ground or it grows underground. Cucumbers are hidden by their foliage, potatoes are hidden in the dirt, and some vegetables blend in with their surroundings. Working with this analogy and what Christ has commanded of us, are we vegetables or fruits? In many ways, I am a vegetable. I am scared of people knowing that I am a Christian, so I tried to hide behind the walls of society. Sometimes I do not want to infringe on the beliefs of others, so I hide myself in the dirt and wait for the harvest. Fruits are different. They're spirituality is external. I am not talking about "Christians" who run around slam the Gospel in people's faces or engage in a spirituality that sees who can shout the loudest. I am talking about true, genuine Christians. They are so in tuned with God's reality and Will that they just can't help but shine brighter than others. They have no qualms about preaching the news. They do hinder themselves from spreading the message of the Gospel. You acknowledge their love for God by their love for others. So, my big question is "Are you a vegetable or a fruit?" Maybe we should rename the Veggie Tales series? Haha, probably not.

Anyway, I encourage interaction. I encourage change. I encourage you to read Whitney's book. Above all, keep each other accountable.

With much love,
Christian Eriksson

The Future is a Whore!

The Future is a whore. You make plans with her, and you expect those plans to be carried out. However, she's unfaithful and you are left sitting on the doorsteps of the Present wondering where Future is. Feeling rejected, you seek comfort in the arms of the Present. Before you know it, she's pregnant. And because you are not suited to be a father, you try to run away. And the Present reluctantly calls her child the Past. The cycle continues. Each new child resembles you more than the others. Those that survive change their name to Memories, and those that die are Forgotten.

I have received a job offer in the last couple of days. It has nothing to do with my major, but I am not convinced that I want to do anything with my major. At least not yet. If things go as they seem to be headed, I will be working for a contractor painting and putting up drywall. If I do the job well, I can make about 9-11 dollars an hour. I will be working in Pittsburgh, which I am really excited about. I will be able to pursue my cinema desires. Also, I will be attending an RP church. I will be living with friends.

Granted, the first few months will be tough financially. But if I work hard, I can survive. Anyway, I have to continue praying about the situation. I know a lot of people are probably questioning this decision. First, I don't know where God is calling me. So, I don't want to be going to school and paying more, especially if I am not totally convinced ot the program. Secondly, Paul worked as a tent maker while serving the Lord. There is nothing wrong with doing manual labor for a couple of years. Finally, I do not plan on doing contract work for the rest of my life - just till I figure out what my calling is.

With love,
Christian Eriksson

Pleasure

With a busy semester, I hardly find the time to finish a book that is unrelated to my schoolwork. However, I just finished It's a Playboy World (1969). Dr. Bill Banowsky wrote the book as a critical response to playboyism. "What it amounts to is that moral revolution has degenerated into the cult of pleasure and the code word for the new cult is 'playboy,'" writes Banowsky about playboyism (15). Even though the book is nearly 40 years old, it remains extremely relevant to our contemporary society.

The book is not a direct response to the Playboy magazine; rather, it engages the whole philosophy of the playboy. My original intent for buying the book was to be funny. The book seemed like a ridiculous Christian response to an ancient idea. However, from the first page, I was captivated. Dr. Banowsky illuminates so many false lies that still permeate our society. He philosophically criticizes the pleasure seeking way of life. But it is more than a response, it's a call for action. This book has challenged me to reevaluate what I believe. It has also provided answers to questions I have been asking or others have asked me. Unlike some Christian criticisms of our culture, Banowsky does his best to provide alternate solutions to popular thinking. Instead of bashing Hefner, he attempts to show the flaws of his thinking and point out more healthy solutions to Hefner's philosophy. It's a shame that his book is no longer in print (at least I don't think it is).

As stated before, Banowsky, through his analytical and concise thinking, clearly states many ideas that I have had but have been unable to state clearly. For example, the other day I got into a debate about whether Christians should have images of Christ. It never really bothered me that the image of Christ was inside churches; however, that mindset has changed. In the last year or so, I have really been thinking about idolatry and false conceptions we have of Christ. I strongly oppose churches have images of Christ. I do not think that the image itself is sin, but our response to the image can be deceivingly sinful. Many Christians may respond, "We are not worshiping the image, so how can it be sinful?" It's an important question; however, the second commandment prohibits the creation of idols or images. But does the passage only refer to worshiping idols? Can't we create an image of Christ without worshiping it? My response is "Can we really separate the two?" No image of Christ can fully depict the holiness and humanity of Jesus. The fact that we can identify a picture of Christ means that we have a presupposition as to what Christ looks like. Even though we don't worship the image itself, we have created an image in our head that we worship without even thinking about it. As I was trying to argue my position, my friend kept saying, "We are a visual people. We need to see a picture." My other friend argued, "If your child ask who Christ is you want to show them a picture." I could show a picture of Santa Claus and that does not prove or disprove his validity. Secondly, didn't Christ say, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). Anyway, I just ended up frustrating myself because I couldn't clearly articulate what I wanted to say. Then this morning I finished Banowsky's book. He wrote something very relevant to the discussion I was having with my friends.

If we are to survive, as a society with any real excellence, what we must have is a new moral revolution and the person to lead it is Jesus. Our greatest difficulty is that modern man confuses Jesus with visions of stained-glass windows and high pulpits. Our necessary task is to help our contemporaries go beyond the the popular caricature and to examine the claims of One who is honest enough to tell it as it is and whose ability to unify a man's life is not lessened by the intervening years.
"Gentle Jesus, meek and mild," is an absurd way to describe a Man who was listed by the authorities as a public danger. He exploded in violent anger at the sight of exploitation or smug hypocrisy, and deliberately walked to His own death despite the urgent pleas of His closest friends. Nothing is more at odds with reality than the average artists' conception of Jesus hanging on the wall of the average church library. His admirers have done almost as much to distort His reputation as His critics. 115

Amen. If you find a copy of It's a Playboy World by Bill Banowsky, then I suggest buying it.

Christian Eriksson

When Oh Lord!

I have no idea really how I want to say what I want to say. I have an idea floating around in my mind; however, I do not feel that it is really appropriate to expound on it.

I just want to know how far I have to run?
How far do I have to climb?
How must I do?

Yeah, I am a jerk. I don't deserve to be back in your life. But what do you want from me so that you will accept my humble apology and my attempt to make things right?

Christian Eriksson

Watermarks on Stainless Steel

"Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble." - Matthew 6:34

The Hustler and Chinatown

I was extremely bored today. I read several pages from Live from New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live, but I will get to that another day. I went to the library for an hour, or so, and started working on a film project. I hope to do a lot of writing while I am home for vacation. Then I decided to watch two movies back-to-back. And may I say, two great movies.

The first film I watched was The Hustler. I am not sure how much people know about cinema or what people do know, but The Hustler is probably not well known among my generation. Sure, there will be people who have heard of it, but they're the kind of people who smoke this stuff - if you know what I mean. Anyway, The Hustler is a must see. It's ranked 200 and something on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They top 1000 films list. And it is ranked 209 on IMDB's top 250. Frankly, I believe the film should rank a little higher, but who am I?

The Hustler was produced and directed by Robert Rossen, whose work includes the original All the King's Men. Paul Newman plays Fast Eddie Felson, a pool hustler whose only ambition is to beat Minnesota Fats. Fats is brilliantly played by a cool Jackie Gleason. Every shot Gleason is in, you can't help but think, "Damn, he's too smooth, too cool. No wander he's the best." Fats is the best pool player in the United States and he hasn't been beaten in 15 years. Fast Eddie's first attempt to beat Fats leads to a 30 hour pool game; however, Eddie loses his cool a day into it, but Fats remains calm and cool. After recklessly losing his money, Eddie ditches his "manager," and heads for the bus station. That's where he meets the beautiful but complicated Sarah Packard. Sarah's complexity derives from her obsessive drinking problem and her disability, she's somewhat "lame." Neither Eddie nor Sarah reveal much about their past, but nonetheless, they spend most of the present together. Eventually, George C. Scott's character, Bert Gordon, takes Eddie under his wings but for a deadly price.

The film's dark. It's shot in black and white. The reason may be because the characters lack a heroic side. Each character is plagued by a horrible ambition to out do the other. The film was shot in 1961 and the language is tame, but the ideas coming across through the acting and the dialogue are anything but tame. Eddie's always hustling. As much as Eddie is hustling, Bert is hustling at least twice that. Sarah is an unlikely lady. She drinks excessively, she speaks her mind too quickly, and she lacks a sense of loyalty. Then again, maybe she feels betrayed by Eddie.

By the end of the movie, the audience may be cheering on Eddie, but his journey to the top is overshadowed by his own guilt and his own epiphany. Life isn't about winning to beat the winner. It's about winning what you might lose. In the end, I would consider Eddie a winner, but ultimately he lost more than he bargained.

The second film I watched was Chinatown. My friend, Luke, had been raving about the movie for the last several months. I've heard of it before, but I never had the opportunity to watch it. I am glad I did. Because the movie is a film noir, I am not going to give anything away. The movie was directed by Roman Polanski in 1974. Jack Nicholson plays J.J. Grittes, a private detective who has been hired by Faye Dunaway's character, Evelyn Mulwray, to find the truth about her husband's death. The film's writer, Robert Towne, presents many unexpected twists and turns which lead the audience shaking their head in disbelief by the outcome. But his writing isn't about the twist, that's what Shyamalan's for; it is about the characters and how they interact with each other. It's about a past we don't want to remember and a future we don't want to endure. "The future," cries John Huston's character, Mr. Noah Cross. A dim future it is.

Certain aspects, and specifically the end, of the film reminded me of Scorsese's Mean Streets; however, Chinatown has a cleaner script and a straighter plot. I am not talking about story line similarities, rather, I am talking about the feel. The way the characters come across; the way the audience relates to the characters. In that way, both films felt similar. Plus, there is an eeriness to both endings.

Polanski's directing felt very "ahead of the times." As I was watching the movie, I completely forgot that it was directed mid-seventies. Many classic films seem, well, classic. You turn the DVD player on and your first reaction is "Oh, yeah, definitely filmed in the 50s." Chinatown did not have that feeling. I enjoyed the movie, but the ending was hard to take. I am not surprised that it is in the top 50 of many movie lists.

P.S. Faye Dunaway was absolutely beautiful in the movie.

Night,
Christian Eriksson