Archive for category Classics
Guy on a Buffalo
Posted by Erik in Classics, Media, Movies and TV, Social Media, television, Videos on November 12, 2011
Recently, I happened upon one of the greatest series of YouTube videos and I just had to share. They are drawn from a 1978 film called “Buffalo Rider” but the bluegrass band Possum Posse has mashed up clips to original tunes. The result is “Guy with a Buffalo” and it is worth fifteen minutes of your time.
7 Deadly Thoughts
Posted by Erik in Classics, Seven Deadly Thoughts on August 1, 2011
I was chatting with someone this week, and they mentioned that this teaching series turned them around from the brink of suicide. I figured any series that God used to do that is worth reiterating.
You can read the online study guide posts here or download the entire booklet as a PDF.
Christian Poker Chips
Posted by Erik in Classics, Doesn't Fit in a Category, Videos on May 20, 2011
One of my all-time favorite videos dealing with the absurd things sold in the gullible niche that is Christian market.
The Growth of a Marriage
Posted by Erik in Classics, Doesn't Fit in a Category, Personal on August 17, 2010
This post originally appeared in January, 2008. But my wife was out of town this weekend, so I went over some of my previous posts and decided it was worth reposting.
My wife, Nichole, and I have been married for nine years – almost, but we’ve been together for eleven years. Allow me a digression as I go over how all this has happened.
Nichole’s sister Sandra married my roommate Ralph in the summer of 1996. It was one of those, “Hey, I like you. – Me too! – Wanna get married and become missionaries? – Sure!” kind of whirlwind romances. Nichole was the baby of the family and came to our college that fall because Sandra was going to go to school with Ralph.
Let me tell you about my wife from before she was my wife. Nichole is one of those spiritually intense people who read her Bible every day, tried her best to honor her parents and share the gospel and had committed to the belief that men were distractions from the gospel. She had committed to be a single woman serving in the ministry of her local church. She was beautiful, humble, and godly.
Now a little about the pre-Nichole me. Being about the most spiritually insightful individual since the Cookie Monster, I spent the first two years of my college career pursuing the wrong girls and managing to get myself in heaps of trouble along the way (from which my father usually had to bail me out). I was intelligent, funny, and arrogant. Actually arrogant isn’t the best word for it. Narcissistic might be a better word. I was the coolest person I knew.
Sounds like a match made in heaven, doesn’t it?
God, in his sovereignty, elected to bring these two incredibly different people together. We met in September, 1996, got engaged the following spring and were married in February of 1999. Along the way, I graduated from college; she worked as an elementary teacher and contracted mono (not from kissing someone!); I got a job and moved to New Hampshire; my ’89 Ford Escort literally blew up; and we stumbled into the sanctuary of Baptist Temple in Holbrook, Massachusetts, ready for it all to be over so we could run away to San Diego for our honeymoon. (Which by the way, I’m pretty sure San Diego was the original location of the Garden of Eden…you have no idea how much I prayed that God would call me to pastor in Southern California!)
Along the way, we had long telephone conversations about why she did not want to get married. I remember distinctly asking her, “If you have no intentions of marrying me, why are you wasting my time dating me?” (Just call me “Mr. Sensitive Insight.”) We also had these sublimely painful moments when she would confront me about my ego issues, my anger issues, my authority issues, my lust issues. Oh, it was the most blissful of relationships!
But these conversations were incredibly important, and they were the meat of our dating relationship. Both of us did our best not to put up a front, to be honest and blunt even when it was painful. We have tried to carry this through into our marriage as well – which was and is infinitely more difficult because when you’re dating, you go home to separate beds!
Over the years, we have seen our share of struggles and difficulties. Nichole and I have had some rough times – especially as we’ve discovered our Christ-given freedoms and I, being the model of self-control, usually go to excess in them and then have to seek forgiveness. We have had communication problems galore (ironic for a guy who talks and writes for a living); we have struggles to adjust to changes in our lifestyles and personalities. Nichole has seen me through depression, through doubt, through my parents’ separation and challenges in the church. She has been faithful to me and our marriage, an unwavering tower of strength, even in her weakness.
So, why am I telling this to the two of you who read this blog? Because Satan wants to sift us, break us apart into useless powder. Jesus told Simon Peter:
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” [Luke 22:31-32, ESV]
At moments of crisis, times when we need judgment, those moments when we rise or fall, Satan wants to destroy the ones who are most important to advancing Jesus’ Kingdom. At the Crucifixion, it was Simon Peter. In our churches, it is our marriages – our husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. Satan wants to destroy us at the very core of what we are, the primary relationships that drive the Kingdom forward. Satan wants us. Husbands, SATAN WANTS YOU. Wives, SATAN WANTS YOU. He wants to destroy you because if he can, he destroys the family.
But Jesus is praying for you, that your faith (meaning your faithfulness!) does not fail. He knows we will stumble (I am an expert at stumbling) but he is praying we will turn again (repent) and be strength for others.
Those moments when you feel like you don’t love your spouse – when you think “What if…?” – when you find yourself drifting from your loyalty. Recognize what it is. It is SATAN trying to sift you, trying to destroy your marriage because he HATES the church, he HATES men who lead and love like Christ, he HATES wives who submit to their husbands like Christ submitted to the will of the Father.
You are targets. Your marriages, my marriage – Satan himself is out to get you and don’t you think for a minute he can’t do it if you let him.
The History of the Necktie
Posted by Erik in Classics, Cross Posts, Things We Shouldn't Discuss on January 18, 2010
The following is a repost of a post from my old, now defunct, blog – Adventures in Missing the Point.
Introduction
The necktie originally served a purpose, although today its only purpose is to bring its wearer to near asphyxiation. As with all things that are useless, we can thank the French.
When Romans Were Men and the French Were Decent Fighters
The Roman legionaires wore what was known as a focale - a simple kerchief wrapped about the neck for wiping your face and protecting your neck in the cold.
Centuries later, in 1661, Louis XIV noticed Croatian mercenaries wearing similar handkerchiefs around their necks, and seeing the instant fashion value he rushed home and appointed one of his courtiers as “tie maker for the king.” This person’s sole responsibility was to help the king arrange and knot his elaborate neckties. And people wonder why the French don’t win wars anymore.
The Modern Torture Apparatus
For centuries since, men have been tortured by having to wear useless slips of fabric around their necks at the office, in school and in church. Since the French did it, it must be cool. In many ways, the French of the 17th and 18th century were like the “Gangsta rappers” of today. Everyone tried to look like them but just winds up being laughed at. I mean, would you take George Washington seriously if he was standing in front of you in tights?
During the following two centuries, the tie was worn in various styles. Men desparately tried to get rid of them, but instead, their wives made them wear frilly ties with lace fringe. There is just nothing more masculine then lace, am I right?
It was the 1800′s when the Victorian fashion of the starched collar became popular. Now, not only did men get to enjoy the sublime comfort of a knotted piece of material around the neck; they also got to wear a collar with the consistency of sandpaper that encircled their neck, chafing off skin and eliminating any capacity for the lateral movement of the head.
In 1925 the American tie maker Jesse Langdorsf patented a long tie, less crumpled and more stable, sewn from three pieces of fabric and cut to a taper. The modern tie was born, and immediately people began tying it incorrectly.
Knots Landing
Speaking of tying the knot incorrectly, allow me some literary indulgences. Oscar Wilde in his “The Importance of Being Earnest” said:
“A well-tied tie is the first serious step in life.”
As evidenced by his boring and often pointless plays, Mr. Wilde really needed a life. Thinking like this is the reason that no one knows who he is anymore.
At last count, there are four accepted methods of tying a necktie.
1. The Windsor Knot – aka the RIGHT way.
2. The Half-Windsor Knot – aka the SLOPPY way.
3. The Four-in-Hand Knot – aka the SKINNY TIE method.
4. The Pratt Knot – aka the USELESS BRITISH system
Once again, a literary allusion, this time from Molire’s immortal The Wife School.
“A sacred knot will unite us until tomorrow.”
I’m pretty sure that has NOTHING to do with tying ties, but it makes me sound splendiferously scholarly. However, let me comment that if you don’t use a Windsor knot, or at least a Pratt knot, your knot is not sacred at all. Stick with polo shirts because you look ridiculous. Hey, I hate the things, but if I have to wear them then I’m gonna look good in them.
Concluding Thoughts
In 1820, an anonymous Frenchman said:
“With the tie I take perfect care: it is the true ritual of elegance. I labor persistently for hours so that it appears tied haphazardly.”
Hence the reason he remained anonymous – as all Frenchmen should.
In short, the necktie is a particularly useless thing. Even its original purpose (which was probably something cool like staunching blood flow from neck wounds) is gone. Now, its only purpose is to clash with our shirt or our shoes, and with the modern pastel combos, even that purpose is fading.
The tie is a dying accessory and rather than declaring it an endangered species, I think we should give it a pleasant funeral, share some wacky anecdotes and memories then dump it in a shallow grave and start the party.
What’s a little sarcasm amongst friends?
I have taken to reading a paragraph or two of Plato’s Symposium every morning – in Greek. The Greek is different from New Testament koine and it is so well written.
If you are unfamiliar with Symposium, Plato uses the setting of a drinking party to present contrasting views of Eros or “love.” Eros has an interesting, multi-layered, sometimes very disturbingly sexual meaning in Greek. It was a complex idea which the Greeks often personified as a deity. The dialogue in Symposium takes place among Socrates and about a dozen other men as they take turns explaining the cause of Eros.
One of the things that catch my eye when I read it is the sarcasm that runs through the whole work. Socrates has got to be one of the most sarcastic people ever featured in a philosophical work. As Plato writes him, Socrates has a retort for everything and the longer the drinking party goes, the better he gets. And the other guys at the party are just as quick witted. They speak to each other in these fast exchanges that are extremely male but also quite profound.
Let me give you an example of the exchange. One of the companions, Aristophanes, has just finished a discourse on human nature. He has explained quite elaborately how man was created with two heads, four arms and four legs and the gods split them in half and now they run around embracing anything they can find. (It is his explanation for, among other things, adultery and homosexuality.)
I have translated it dynamically to convey more of a sense of what they’re saying rather than try to refine it into some kind of classical English.
ARISTOPHANES: There, Eryximaches, is my Word [logos] about Eros, which is distinct from yours. I’ve asked you not to make fun of it because we want to hear what the others have to say – since only Agathon and Socrates are left.
ERYXIMACHES: I will obey you because I enjoyed your Word [logos]. If I didn’t know Socrates’ and Agathon’s experience in erotica, I would fear they would be left speechless after hearing everything we’ve heard; but you can see that my confidence in them is unshaken."
SOCRATES: Your own knowledge is impressive, Eryximachus. But if you sat where I sit, or rather where I’ll be after Agathon’s turn, you would be more afraid and be up against a hard place as I am.
AGATHON: You’re trying to bewitch me, Socrates, so that I’ll be flustered by the high expectations everyone has for my speech [erountos].
SOCRATES: Me? Agathon, how could I possibly forget the way you carried yourself on stage with your troupe? How you looked out at the vast crowd to show you meant business with your production and how it did not bother you at all? Why would you be flustered on account of a few guys [anthropon] like us?
AGATHON: Now, Socrates, I hope you don’t think I am so arrogant that I have forgotten that anyone with intelligence is more afraid of speaking to a few brilliant, quick men than to a crowd of fools.
SOCRATES: Oh no, Agathon, that would be wrong of me to think you would be so foolish. I have no doubt that among such men whom you consider clever, you would think more of them than the crowd. But perhaps to you, we are no better than the crowd for we were there, among the crowd at your play. Perhaps you would only be intimidated among a group of truly brilliant men who would not go to the show?
AGATHON: True.
SOCRATES: So, before the crowd [and by implication, us], you would not be ashamed of doing something you would consider shameful [before brilliant men]?
PHAEDRUS: My dear Agathon, if you keep answering Socrates, he will distract you because all he ever wants to do is argue. I enjoy listening to Socrates’ arguments, but he’s getting us off topic and you both have speeches to make. Give your speeches, give the god [Eros] his due and then have your argument.
I don’t know whether I have done the text justice in my translation/paraphrase, but I think I’ve captured the sense of it. Here is a group of guys I would enjoy hanging out with. They are quick-witted, completely comfortable in each other’s presence, and they are willing to just go at it. I love Eryximaches slam on Socrates and Agathon: “If I didn’t know Socrates’ and Agathon’s experience in erotica…” The subtle implication of what he is saying is that perhaps Socrates and Agathon have a little more homosexual experience than the rest of the group. But then, Socrates comes back with: “Your own knowledge is quite impressive.”
This is just a group of guys in the locker room, trading jabs.
And this is why I love the classics. When you read them as if they are classics – to be esteemed and revered – they lose their wonderful earthiness. Are these guys, including the great playwright Agathon and the philosopher Socrates, any different than any of the guys I know today, some 2,400 years later? Not really. It is good to know we’re all human, and that being human hasn’t changed that much over the millennia.
Because being human hasn’t changed much, the God we need has not had to change. We’re still the same fallen race, and he is still the same loving Father. We’re no worse or better than our predecessors; and Jesus is still sufficient for our restoration.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Classics category.
