Cycling 101: How the jersey system works in the Tour de France

The Tour de France (TdF) is the premier road bicycle race in the world. Held each July, it covers about 2,250 miles throughout France over a period of about 22 days, including two rest days. That means the riders average about 112 miles per riding day. Some days are slow and mountainous while others are flat and fast. It is arguably the most physically strenuous sporting event in the world.

Here's how it works: Each day, the whole group of approximately 200 riders starts together. Most of the riders will remain together in a bunch, called a "peleton", in order to conserve energy by drafting. But, a few each day will break away in a attempt to gain time over the peleton.

A rider's time for each day accumulates for an overall time. At the finish line in the Champs-Elysees in Paris, the rider with the lowest time wins the TdF. At the end of each day's stage, awards are given in several categories. The four most important awards are represented by colored jerseys.


Yellow Jersey: The yellow jersey (or maillot jaune in French) is given to the overall leader. If a rider takes the lead on day 5, for instance, he gets to wear the yellow jersey on day 6, because he is the "general classification" (GC) leader. The yellow jersey generally changes hands quite a bit. The guy wearing it in Paris is the winner. Lance Armstrong has won the yellow jersey a record 7 times, earning him the nickname "Mellow Johnny," because that is how many Americans mispronounce maillot jaune.

Green Jersey: The green jersey is awarded to the sprint points leader at the end of each day. If a rider wins a sprint in a designated area (usually 1,000 meters long), he is awarded x number of points. Points leaders almost never win the overall yellow, because they have expended all their energy trying to win sprints. Arguably the fastest man on two wheels is Mark Cavendish, the winner of last year's green jersey.

 


Red Polka Dot (or "King of the Mountain) Jersey: This jersey is awarded to the best mountain climber. The TdF is famous for its insane stages in the Alps and the Pyrenees . This rider wins many points for climbing but none for fashion.

White Jersey: The white jersey is awarded to the best young rider (under 26 years of age) who has the lowest GC time. My favorite rider, Andy Schleck (LUX), has won this jersey 3 consecutive times ('08, '09, '10). He has also placed second overall in the TdF three times. He's a leading contender in 2012.




It is possible to win more than one jersey, in which case the rider takes the more important one and passes the other onto the second recipient.

Now that you understand the basics, we can chat about it in July.

Zelda, Halo, Final Fantasy, and Christian thought (interesting books)

It is a little known and embarrassing fact that I'm a recovering video game nerd. And, I didn't play the cool, manly games like Halo or Madden Football--I'm a fan of role play games (RPGs), particularly the Final Fantasy franchise. Fatherhood, however, has effectively killed my gaming days, as video games did not make it through the triage of parental priorities.

image from Amazon

While I do not have time to play long RPG epics anymore, I do still appreciate them for the fascinating narratives and realities they create. As a high school teacher of theology, ethics, and worldview/philosophy, what fascinates me about RPGs is the virtual world and associated worldviews that the authors create. There are theological and philosophical questions that are basic to the human experience, and I love to see how the game creators address those questions. As a Christian, I specifically examine the creators' approach to decision making, morals, good vs. evil, the existence of God, sacrifice, salvation, and truth. The best RPGs address all these issues, and they must if they really want to connect with human players.

image from Pop Theology

There is a recent and growing trend of academically integrating video games with the study of ethics, philosophy, and theology. Perhaps the reason for this is that the first generation raised on video games is now grown. Those little kids who played endless hours of video games in the 80s (at the expense of health, hygiene, sunlight, and relationships with the opposite sex) are now PhD'd philosophers and theologians. Things are only nerdy until the nerd runs the show (think, Bill Gates).

image from Blackwell Publishers

Three such works that I plan to read soon are Zelda and Theology by Johnny Walls, Halos and Avatars: Playing Video Games With God by Craig Detweiler, and Final Fantasy and Philosophy: The Ultimate Walkthrough by William Irwin. The first two relate specifically to Christian theology and worldview. The third is more broadly about philosophy from all traditions. It is part of Blackwell Publishers larger "Philosophy and Pop Culture Series," which includes other titles that I'd like to read as well, such as The Office and Philosophy: Scenes from the Unexamined Life. My son may have taken video gaming from me, but he'll have to pry my books from my cold dead fingers.

The purpose of such works is not to interpret the intended meaning of the video games' creators. Such a task would require an interview with the creators themselves. Although, Halos and Avatars does contain an interview with the creator of the games Myst and Riven. The main purpose of such works is to use common pop culture images to illustrate certain theological and philosophical concepts. These may or may not be the author's intent.

I hope that such works encourage video gamers to be informed and critical consumers. Christians ought to critically examine all media and forms of entertainment that the world has to offer, and reading such works may help us to do that.

All of this makes me wonder, what will the the next generation integrate with the theology and philosophy? Social networking? Texting? Jersey Shore (please don't)?

----------------------------------

Note: My post is not an endorsement of any of these books, because I have not read them.

The imago dei as the basis for art, intellectualism, and love

As I often do, I sat in a book store recently and previewed some new releases. One such title, which I have only skimmed, was Nancy Pearcey's Saving Leonardo. Although her work seems to be a surface-level reiteration of the late Francis Schaeffer's work, I do plan to buy it and give it a thorough evaluation.

image from www.pearceyreport.com

I read one line in her section on the fine arts that has stuck in my mind like a grain of sand in a an oyster. It has continually come back to mind, adding one layer of thoughts upon another, becoming something of a pearl for me. Essentially, Pearcey states that our ideas and art tend to be better than our worldviews. Her point, I think, is that even atheists produce incredible works of art, because they too are created by God.


In my pondering, it reminded me that we (Christians) can appreciate the ideas, art, and people from other worldviews, because everyone is inescapably created in the image of God (imago dei), even if they don't believe in Him. The imago dei is the key that unlocks this way of thinking. It is the doctrine of imago dei that ought to open up Christian horizons for the appreciation of the arts, intellectualism, and the love of one's neighbor.


The arts

Good art can be appreciated, no matter the artist, because it was formed by a person who was created inescapably in the image of an artistic and expressive God. One's beliefs about his own nature do not change the essence of his nature. Atheists are created in the image of God, too. Therefore, the question is not whether any given person is artistic, but whether they have a rational basis for understanding their intrinsic artfulness.

This is why I can appreciate music, stories, paintings, and other forms of artistic expression even if they are not "Christian". (See my post on "Pumped Up Kicks") In fact, you do not have to be a Christian to be an artist. It is not a Christian thing; it is a human thing. It is a characteristic that we do not share with the animals, a quality that separates beasts from humans.

I absolutely believe that the Christian worldview is superior when explaining the source of human aesthetic sensibilities, but good theology makes a skilled artist not. Believing such things may actually lead to the betrayal of our God-reflecting artfulness, because it forces us to define "good" art as "Christian" art. We trade artistic masterpieces for Christian kitsch. Of course a Christian may be master of the arts, but there is no doctrinal guarantee of such.


Intellect

As goes with art, so it goes with intellect. The God of the Scriptures is intelligent ad infinitum. It is not simply that God is omniscient, but that he is imaginative, creative, willful, self-aware, and thoughtful. As his unique creation, all human beings share this quality to some degree.

There are, no doubt, lots of bad ideas out there. Hitler's Mein Kampf comes to mind. There are dark Greek tragedies that are entirely ignorant of the hope of Christian eschatology. Poe seems to have missed out on the the abundant life that Christ offers. But, there is an intuitive sense of truth that permeates our being and can't be entirely ignored. So, how does this affect the Christian community? We must not isolate ourselves from the non-Christian intellectual world as if it has nothing to offer us. We need to learn to listen, to read, and to engage in the ideas outside of our own community, because those ideas usually contain some hint of truth. Just as humans are inescapably artistic, they also are inescapably intellectual.

Perhaps the truth can be buried under layers of bad philosophy, but, like art, a kernel of truth-centeredness remains within all people created imago dei. Evangelicals must not make the culturally fatal mistake of their fundamentalist forebears and stop interacting with the non-Christian intelligentsia. In his de doctrina Christiana, Augustine wrote, "pagan learning is not entirely made up of false teaching and superstitions ... It contains also some excellent teachings, well suited to be used by truth, and excellent moral values." 


The challenge this presents is raising up our children and our students with the ability to winnow the wheat from the chaff. That is the essence of intellectualism. It is not about the quantity of knowledge; it is about one's ability to sift through it and find truth. Could Christian students read Mein Kampf, Marx's Communist Manifesto, or Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra and evaluate it as a work of writing? Would they then be able to pick out the the inevitable bits of truth that made it past the naturalistic filters of their authors' minds? More importantly, could our pastors and other Christian leaders and teachers do this?

Thankfully, the tide of Christian intellectualism is rising again, having receded since the early 20th century,  when orthodox Christianity was firmly established in the once-hallowed halls of Princeton University. Christians today need to undergird their hearts and minds with Scripture, prayer, and the Church community and then enter the marketplace of ideas on a search-and-rescue mission for lost souls. This task is often described as a "culture war," a phrase unworthy of the Gospel, because it creates an us-against-them mentality. It is not a war against the other, but a rescue of our own.

Loving your "neighbor"

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." (1 Corinthians 13:1, ESV) Intellect minus love equals nothing. However, many have given into the false dichotomy of intellectualism on the one hand and of loving ministry on the other. "You can't have both," they say. This need not be. Ultimately, our drive to appreciate the arts and the intellect is based on a desire to magnify the One whose being they reflect, even if that reflection has been clouded by human sinfulness. Secondarily, Christians must be driven by love of neighbor to engage this world and enter boldly and confidently into the marketplace of ideas. The Apostle Paul spoke with great authority and confidence at the Areopagus, fearing neither the philosophers' taunts nor their unknown gods. (Acts 17:16-32) His knowledge of their poets gave him intellectual leverage. (v. 28) Paul of Tarsus, formerly a Pharisee, was an intellectual par excellence who loved God and neighbor above all. He did this in obedience to Christ.

Jesus said to love your neighbor. "But Jesus, you haven't met my neighbors!" might be the refrain. But consider Jesus' neighbors; they crucified him. The residents of his own hometown of Nazareth threatened to push him off of a cliff. (Luke 4:29) Even his closest disciples abandoned him when he was unjustly arrested and tried. (Matt. 26:56) He literally had no one.

Even the most despicable people are intrinsically good (created imago dei) and, therefore, worthy of care and love. The hardened and vile atheists are inherently deserving of your love. The same goes for the grouchy old racist who sits in the fourth pew at your church. Saved or not, regardless of the layers of hatred that surround him, he's created in the image of God.

The doctrine of the imago dei is not only the cure for anti-intellectualism, but also for self-righteousness.

Our distorted image

The imago dei is not the only doctrine at play here, however. God, in his word, has also explained to us that which we already intuitively know about ourselves--we are sinful. (Romans 3:9-20) Though created in the image of our Father, our resemblance of him has been disfigured. It is like a burn victim whose physical appearance has been partially deformed, robbing her of the physical resemblance to her biological parents. We too have been burned, and it is the job of the Church to seek out our fellow burn victims and draw them closer to the Great Physician who has infinite ability to fix our disfigured appearances and restore the imago dei to its previous glory.

Argggg: Christian Pirates and Digital Property

[Edited on January 25, 2014]

Digital piracy

Digital piracy has received considerable attention since the turn of the millennium, when peer-to-peer file sharing was made popular by Napster. Napster's popularity went through the roof almost overnight. It seemed that everyone was doing it, including Christians. On the surface it was ethically acceptable, like someone was simply inviting you into their home and generously giving you their stuff (in this case, media files). That is why it was called "sharing." From childhood, good little boys and girls are taught that sharing is a nice thing. You would have to be a real jerk to say that sharing is bad.

The problem lies in calling it "sharing." It is not sharing at all-it is stealing. Calling it "sharing" is like calling one of those road-side pornography shops an "adult book store." Satan knows that "sharing" and "adult" are much more appetizing than "stealing" and "perverse," but God calls us to "hate what is evil and cling to what is good." (Romans 12:9) Likewise, Isaiah warned Judea, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness..." (Isaiah 5:20) Christians must stop calling it "sharing" and call it what it is-stealing.

Why file "sharing" is really file stealing.

Quite simply, it is not sharing one's own property. It is stealing and giving away someone else's property. Let's say a person buys a leather jacket. You own the jacket and you can do with it what you please. You can wear it, store it, burn it, or line your hamster's cage with it. You can even turn around and sell it for twice what you paid (unless of course it has lined your hamster's cage). You are certainly free to give your jacket to your friend. That is sharing, and it is perfectly acceptable, possibly even commendable.

Media files are different; they are not physical objects. Here is how my very insightful friend Mike B. explained it to me:

Many people have a "cognitive disconnect" between physical objects and digital objects. They are not the same thing. If you buy a CD, you probably think to yourself, "this is mine" and feel that you can do with your CD whatever you please. Here's the problem: the physical disc is yours, but the music on it is not. The disc is simply a delivery device. You can use that disc to play music, to protect your table from cold drinks, or to produce a spectacular light show in your microwave. The music, on the other hand, belongs to someone else, and, by purchasing the CD, you have purchased a license to listen to the music imprinted thereon whenever you want.

Giving away a copy of the music is essentially giving away another license agreement, which someone else owns. The only legal and ethical way to share music is to actually give or sell your license to listen to your friend and not keep a copy for yourself. That way, you're not duplicating a license.

When you "share" your media files (usually music) on peer-to-peer networks (like Limewire) or give away a CD that you have already ripped, you still have the file afterward and you have sacrificed nothing. Real sharing always involves personal sacrifice. You have merely duplicated the license agreement. You may take personal gratification for sharing, but you've done it at the expense of someone else. Someone (in reality, many people) worked hard to produce that file, and they are being denied the fruits of their own labor. (Luke 10:7; 1 Timothy 5:18) Rather than spending money to buy the file (again, a license agreement) for himself, your friend can just get the same product from you for free.

If you copy Jack Johnson's "Banana Pancakes" (a song I love) and give it to Sally, you have essentially stolen .99 cents worth of license agreement from Jack Johnson, as well as his producers, distributors, and whoever else might be involved in the production of that track. Ninety-nine cents may not sound like much, but many people have hundreds or thousands of pirated files on their computers. If you have thousands of pirated books, films, and music tracks, you might as well have stolen a car.

Would you walk into a record store and steal thousands of dollars in merchandise if you could get a way with it? Most people wouldn't think of doing such a thing, but that is exactly what you are doing when you copy a file and "share" it.

Continuing to steal media files reveals a lack of care for God by explicitly breaking His moral law (Exodus 20:15) and for your "neighbor" by stealing his livelihood. By Jesus' estimation, these were the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:29-31), and those who illegally download or share media files are breaking both.

The hypocrisy of Christian pirates

Given that theft is very clearly forbidden by God in the Scriptures (Exodus 20:15), why would Christians engage in such activity or defend it as a moral gray area? Has God not been clear enough? It's in the Ten Commandments, the only words in Scripture that God actually wrote all by himself (without human agency) into stone. (Exodus 24:12) Would it be more clear if he texted it to you? There is clearly no moral ambiguity here.

In a 2004 study commissioned by the Gospel Music Association, and conducted by the Barna Group, 81% of non-Christian teens had engaged in music piracy within the previous 6 months. Christian teens came in at 77%. Only 6% of non-born-again teens expressed that sharing ripped CDs with friends or illegally downloading unauthorized music is morally wrong. The born-again teens were only marginally better at 10%. (The rest of the study can be seen here.)

The most morally egregious of Christian piracy is when Christians purchase pirated copies of digital products from foreign marketplaces while on a mission trip. These types of pirated products are most readily available in lesser developed nations, the sorts of places where we tend to send missionaries. Many times I have been offered pirated copies of music, movies, and programs that friends have picked up on their short-term mission trips. I never accept them. This drips with hypocrisy and leaves a scarlet stain on the pure name of Christ. When we send missionaries into the darkness of the mission field, they are absolutely commanded to be salt and light. Piling more sin upon the system of the people that you're trying to set free from sin through Jesus Christ is the height of hypocrisy. (Romans 6:6,11-12)

Christians must be bold enough to be sacrificial of their own sense of entitlement and speak prophetically to a morally confused society, for the good of that society. It is not about self-righteousness. Rather, it is about being lovingly obedient to our Lord and obediently loving to our neighbors. We also contribute to the well being of society, because we encourage innovation and hard work when we pay for the services and products of others, which we enjoy. Also, the cost of piracy is passed along to those who play by the rules and do not steal their media. Theft drives up the prices of goods in any industry.

For a take on what drives people to piracy, see my friend Alex's blog post.

Practical tips and exhortations to Christians:

• Don't possess any media files that someone didn't pay for directly.
• If you give your friend your old CDs or a thumb drive of files, you should delete any files you kept for yourself.
• Look for free stuff. If any artist wants to produce music or movies and give it away, it is his right to do so. As promotion, many artists do give away their stuff. They may even give it away with free copyright, meaning that you can give it away to your friends. Take advantage of such generosity.
• If you want to introduce your friends to new music, they can listen to it legally on YouTube or Spotify, or you can purchase an iTunes or Amazon card for them. Legal means are readily available, and actually spending money on someone is genuine sharing.
• If you have any media files that you know are pirated, quit making justifications and just destroy them. Repentance is good for the soul, if not for the wallet. (2 Corinthians 7:8-10)
• Don't buy digital products from obviously shady street vendors that are selling at dramatically cut prices. It's either fake or pirated.
• If you want older classics on the cheap, go to a store that sells used CDs. Rip them onto your computer and then destroy the CDs. Do not give them away or resell them.
• Lastly, this goes for all pirates (so listen up, Jack Sparrow), if you can't afford to pay for what you want, whether it be Spanish gold or "Bohemian Rhapsody", you don't get it. You are not entitled to take what is not yours.

The Flying Spaghetti Straw Man

Recently on the campus of the University of Central Arkansas (UCA), a former student of mine was handed a pamphlet by a fellow student, espousing the virtues of the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (CFSM). Its members call themselves "Pastafarians" and dress like pirates.

Background

The fliers are distributed by a real student group (The Secular Student Alliance), but the CFSM is not a real church. It is a parody religion that was invented by a secular humanist (atheist) in order to make a particular point. In 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education was debating whether to add Intelligent Design (ID) to their curriculum, teaching it alongside Darwinian evolution. In response, Bobby Henderson wrote an open letter to the local newspaper promoting a third view—that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster—that should be taught alongside evolution and ID. His point was to discredit the only other “religious” view—Intelligent Design. (Arguably atheism is a religious, theological position as well.) The atheist community has adopted the FSM argument and made it its own. Also, it seems that the FSM has become the mascot of atheism more broadly, rather than just a token of the evolution/ID culture war.

A Christian response

In the spirit of reason and love, I think the best course of action for Christians, such as my former student, is not to return in kind with equally caricatured parodies of atheism. As the late Francis Schaeffer writes in The God Who Is There, such a response reveals a desire to simply win an argument rather than a desire to love the people whose ideas you oppose. The right course of action ought to be to try to determine what exactly their objection (or argument) is and give a reasoned response to that argument. (see 1 Peter 3:15-17) So, what is their argument exactly?

Their argument

I take FSM as a de jure argument against the belief that God created the universe. This requires a bit of explanation. A de jure argument is one that states that it is irrational to believe proposition x. In contrast, a de facto argument states that argument x is simply false.

A de facto argument looks something like the following: It is false to believe that the dark side of the moon is covered with spiraling high-rise buildings. We've seen the dark side of the moon, and there are exactly zero high-rise buildings there. Therefore, the claim is false.

An example of a de jure argument is as follows: It is irrational to believe that there is a very sophisticated race of giant pink bunnies that live at the center of Mars. While this is a logical possibility, it is highly irrational to believe such a thing. People who espouse such views would be thought insane. The FSM argument, as far as I can tell, makes no claims that Christianity is false, but that it is irrational. Here are the premises:

• Belief that the FSM is the creator of the world as we know it (A) is obviously irrational.
• (A) and the belief that the Christian God is the creator of the world (B) are the same.
• Therefore, (B) is obviously irrational.

Given the two premises, I agree that their conclusion is valid. However, the second premise [that (A) = (B)] is simply false; therefore, the conclusion must be false. We must examine the second premise.

My argument

The FSM argument is a straw man. Secular atheists have set up an argument that is allegedly equal to Christianity and attacked it. However, the belief in FSM and the belief in the Christian God are not even remotely comparable. The FSM argument is much weaker and, therefore, much more easily defeated. I agree with the secular humanists that belief in the FSM does not pass the threshold of rationality (what Plantinga calls “warrant”). Unlike the secular humanists; however, I believe that Christian belief does pass the threshold of rationality. It is warranted and, therefore, rational.

Christian belief is not limited to the proposition that some unknown and fantastical being created the cosmos. Even if we reduce orthodox Christianity to the lowest common doctrinal denominator (that which is held by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox traditions), Christianity is far more complex than the simple proposition that some being called “God” exists and created the world. To borrow C.S. Lewis' title, “mere Christianity” is a complex network of interlocking beliefs. The complexity of the structure corresponds to the complexity of this reality, of which it tries to make sense. An oversimplified belief structure, like FSM, is incapable of making sense of this complex reality we find ourselves inhabiting. This whole complex network of beliefs is called by philosophers a “noetic structure,” but more commonly it is called a “worldview.”

A worldview is a set of lenses (assumptions) through which we see the world, and everyone has a worldview—even atheists. Some worldviews adequately make sense of the world around us, and others do not. While the origin of biological life is certainly an important part of any worldview, it is not limited to this question. I can see why someone would have a hard time accepting the fact that life (or the whole universe) was created by an invisible God who has no sensible form. (I don't find the cosmological argument for the existence of God to be adequate alone.) However, Christians don't become Christians because of that belief alone. Most, I think, become and remain Christian because of the cumulative explanatory power of the whole Christian worldview. Christianity simply makes sense of the world around them. Even if you find a naturalistic form of Darwinian evolution superior as an explanation for the existence of the biodiversity we have today, pure naturalism absolutely fails to answer so many other important worldview questions, such as:

• What is evil?
• What is good?
• What is friendship?
• How can something come from nothing?
• Why have the vast majority of humans in history been theistic?
• How can you explain the remarkable cross-cultural consistency of the human moral code?
• Why do we have a conscience?
• Why do people adopt and love non-biological children?
• Why do we feel compelled to make art?
• How did organic life begin?
• Why do firemen run into burning buildings to save strangers?
• Why do some things strike us beautiful?
• Why are people inherently drawn to happy endings and good superheros?
• What is justice?
• How can we know right from wrong?
• Why do we even have categories for "right" and "wrong"?
• Why does rape strike the human heart as inherently wrong?
• Why do we demand justice when we're abused?

There are countless other questions that only Christianity is able to answer satisfactorily. (I welcome comments of other questions you may have.)

If atheists (or the supposed pirate Pastafarians) want to be taken seriously by Christians, they need to begin by answering these very serious human questions. To ignore these questions is to ignore what makes us human. Silly pamphlets and a single explanation of where we came from are not sufficient to win us over. Why should the question of origins receive supreme priority? Show us you actually care about our humanness and answer all the questions above. We've answered them. Now, it's your turn.

Conclusion

I do take the secular de jure argument seriously and have tried to offer a cogent and respectful argument in response. To those who are atheists, I hope this is received in the same spirit of love in which it was intended. I want human-to-human conversation, rather than shouting and hate. If any "Christians" have responded with hate, let it be condemned here. I suspect that Christians and atheists alike tend to respond with vitriol when they don't know how to make an argument in response. It may be that they are afraid their whole worldview might be torn down. That can be terrifying, and fear produces anger. That is why the loving thing to do, on both sides, is to stay calm and present each side accurately and fairly. I welcome all comments that are fair, reasoned, and seeking after common truth. 

----------------------

Special thanks to my senior Bible classes for helping me to think through this issue. You are exceptional people, and I'm blessed to know you and serve you as your teacher. Thanks to: Kirsten, Kirk, William D., Jake, Cory, Kimmy, Luke, Allison, Breanna, Camille, Jamie, Jenny, Lance, Drue, Jacob, Harrison, Ethan, Bradley, Austin, Maci, Rebekah, Calli, Tyler, Robbi, Shandi, and Sarah Jo.

Cycling 101: My favorite bike builds

My blog is mostly about theology, philosophy, ethics, and other abstract things. But, I also have a secondary motive--to trick you into learning about the world of road cycling. Amidst my posts about the ultimately important things in life, I will occasionally throw in a brief post (Cycling 101) to teach you something about cycling. Then, from June 30 to July 22, we can watch the 2012 Tour de France together.

For me, riding and building road bicycles is one of those things that God threw into my life as a little extra. I'm a gear head, and I love tools and mechanical things. If I must be philosophical and theological, I'd say our human impulse to create is a result of having been created in the image of God who created magnificently beautiful things for the apparent joy of being gratuitously creative (mountain ranges, sunsets, coral reefs, rain forests, desertscapes, starry nights, aurora borealis, and the list goes on and on). God is no pragmatist; he just loves beautiful things.

Below are a few of my favorite bike builds:

My first road bike: rare 1980s Dedel, rebuilt from junk parts.
It will always be first in my heart.

1980s Cannondale racing frame, period parts
All-American (probably made in Japanese factories)

1990s Bianchi single speed (SS) conversion
All Italian (probably made in Japanese factories)

1970s Gitane Tour de France rebuild (French)
French bikes are a real pain to refurbish with their
proprietary parts.

1990s Raleigh Technium, rebuilt
new saddle, pedals, tape, seat

1960s Raleigh Grand Prix, rebuilt, original paint,
new shifters, derailleurs, saddle, and wheels

1960s Raleigh Sprite, rebuild, original paint
more for cruising and city commuting

My best build to date: 1970s Peugeot frame (I think).
painted, new wheels, SS flip-flop conversion, total rebuild

1980s Schwinn Le Tour II. built it with my little brother Cody
cool bike, great memories

Blessings,

Charlie

Anthropology and the Avoidance of Polemical Politics

Political and legislative decisions derive from deep values. To argue about political policy decisions (e.g. welfare, immigration, war, business regulations, and campaign finance) is often fruitless, because it doesn't address underlying values. I propose that the values that divide the left and the right are anthropological--that is, related to the assumptions made about human beings.

image by Hal Dodson

Anthropology asks questions about the essence and nature of humankind. What is a human? Where did humans come from? What constitutes a human? The question at hand here is: What is the nature of humanity? Is the human nature basically good or basically evil? I think how one answers this question has enormous influence upon whether a person leans liberal or conservative. [There are many other contributing factors, I'm sure, but discussing at least one underlying value is more fruitful than bickering about a million policy decisions.]

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement on the fact that the current state of human affairs is not good. We have murderers, rapists, thieves, terrorists, drug dealers, crooked Wall Street executives, shady politicians, sex slaves, prostitution, domestic abuse, unwanted babies, etc... The questions is, how did people get to be this way and how do we fix it? Both sides of the political spectrum do want to fix it.

A person who believes that human beings are basically sinful would mostly likely come to the conclusion that people are messed up simply because they have willfully responded to the lustful call of their own wicked hearts. Therefore, we must all take blame and responsibility for our own problems. Expecting the government to "bail you out" (as it would be characterized) is the height of presumptuous entitlement. Of course, "government" means everyone else's tax dollars. Also, not all people give in to the call of the wicked hearts to the same degree. Some have a higher degree of self-control. Ultimately, all people have to transcend their own lusts and make moral decisions. The conservative assumes both that human nature is inherently sinful and that every human being has a transcendent free will, which may overcome the inevitable impulses of the heart. Expecting those who have done a better job of governing their lusts to support those who have not comes across as simply unfair and unjust.

On the other hand, the person who believes that human beings are basically good explains the messed up state of human affairs differently. They assume that you were born either good or, at the very least, neutral with regard to an impulse to sin. Humans self-destruct in sin, not because they are ontologically flawed (as the conservative believes), but because they have been corrupted by the world around them. The liberal believes that, if you redeem the corrupt society, you will subsequently redeem the individual by allowing his inherently good nature to flourish. On the farthest left end of the spectrum, this explains the optimism with regard to communism.

So, how does this affect one's political leanings? 

The right sees the problem as lying at the individual level. People need to take responsibility for themselves. They don't need "handouts"; they may need to feel the pain of their own decisions for a while so they can admit there is a problem and fix it. They also need to feel the satisfaction of a paycheck that is earned by one's own sweat. This ultimately makes them a better person. This sort of response to the ills of human society does not require a large government. That is not to say that conservatives have no compassion or grace. It is just that compassion (say, in the form of charity) ought to be an act of the free will, rather than by force of the government. If a person needs assistance due to her own self-destructive behavior, it is simply wrong to force others to help her. 

The left sees the problem as lying in the corrupting influence of a broken social system. Under the assumption that humans are born either good or neutral, this is the only way to explain the obvious sorry state of human affairs. Fixing this requires a large centralized government that has the resources and authority to provide social safety nets and to fix flawed social structures (e.g. Wall Street or loose campaign finance regulations). Fix societal structures and institutions and you'll fix people. Because people are essentially good, they will rise to the occasion. The belief that humans are basically good does not mean that liberals lack any or all moral values; many honestly believe that individuals will act morally if they live in a perfected social system.

The reality is that most people lie somewhere between these two poles. I, of course, have not done any scientific polling, but I would not at all be surprised to see that one's placement on the scale (from left to right) is directly proportional to that person's belief in the basic sinfulness of humans. [As stated before, however, there could be higher priority values that trump one's view on human nature. For example, you may believe that humans are inherently good, but still have some higher commitment to the principle of small government, in which case, you would be the exception to the rule. I'm not suggesting this is a hard-and-fast rule but, rather, a general trend.]

I've grown tired of seeing politicians and pundits bicker over countless social and political issues. I want to see a philosophical/theological debate over the nature of human beings. This is more likely to produce some real light and, given the abstract and philosophical nature of it, is less likely to become overheated and polemical. But, then again, that doesn't sell ads on cable news.

Blessings,

Charlie

Note: I have not taken a position publicly and will not. I did not write this to address which political positions you should choose. I wrote it to try to introduce some rationality and peace to what has become a polemical conversation in America.

"Pumped Up Kicks" and the Depiction of Darkness

Recently, I was in the car with a friend who, while driving, started singing along to "Pumped Up Kicks" by the indie pop band Foster the People. It is a catchy little tune--catchy, but not exactly happy. It has some melancholy undertones, like a depressed person who fakes a smile when she says, "Hello." It drips with 'emo' despondency.

Reebok Pumps

I'd heard the song before, and I pointed out that the catchy little ditty that my friend was singing is about a kid who fantasizes about walking into a school and shooting it up. The mad shooter is telling his victims that they better "outrun" his gun and "run faster than [his] bullet." ("Pumped up kicks" appears to be a reference to the popular Reebok Pumps from the 1980s and 90s.) For someone who was in high school at the time of the 1999 Columbine tragedy, that was too much. My friend immediately changed the station and refuses to listen again. 

Not wanting to listen for that reason is entirely understandable, but it does raise an ethical question. Being so dark and visceral, are we obligated to not listen to it? Is it immoral to expose ourselves to such dark imagery? If yes, we should change the station. If no, how do we approach it?

To answer, I don't believe that Christians are morally obligated to stop listening to the song simply because of its violent content. If we make that argument, we should not watch the Passion of the Christ, read Judges, or attend Civil War reenactments. The depiction of violence alone can't be the deal breaker. Perhaps it is the manner of presentation. The Passion of the Christ is descriptive but unequivocally redemptive. Jesus rises from the dead and brings the elect to salvation. It describes a brutal and horrific murder of Jesus, but it does not glorify violence per se or appeal to some sick fascination with it.

In 1957, Justice Brennan, considering whether "obscene" material was protected by the First Amendment, defined obscenity as a material of which "the dominant theme...taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest...utterly without redeeming social importance..." While defining "obscenity" with legal precision is like nailing Jell-O to the wall, this is helpful, I think, for this consideration. Can we determine if the song is "obscene"? First, does "Pumped Up Kicks" serve a prurient interest? I think not. It shouldn't incite any emotionally balanced and reasonable person to violence. It describes thoughts of violence but does not prescribe it. Does it have any "redeeming social importance?" The author of the lyrics, Mark Foster, thinks so, claiming that he did not write the song to glorify violence, but rather to expose a dark reality to the light of day and to facilitate conversation (or blog posts?). Talking about the reality of isolated and potentially violent teens can be a redemptive process if done in the right spirit. I don't know the man, so I take his word for it.

So, what else could make the song so objectionable? Foster told Rolling Stone Magazine, "I was trying to get inside the head of an isolated, psychotic kid." Viewed as a work of art, this is perfectly legitimate. Plenty of classic artistic works have depicted horrific violence. He's describing the very real homicidal tendencies that potentially lie buried in the human condition. What makes it different than the Passion of the Christ or To Kill a Mockingbird is that the song itself offers no redemption or resolution. It's just pure homicidal fantasy that is packaged in cheery electronic pop. Even if it doesn't glorify violence, does its lack of explicit redemptive content make it morally objectionable to listen to? Must it say that the boy eventually calmed down and cried out to Jesus for salvation in order for a Christian to listen to it? Surely not, unless Edgar Allan Poe's The Cask of Amontillado is off limits for the same reason.

I think that, if you take it critically as a piece of art, it is acceptable to listen to it. When we view art, we examine it and ourselves. We ask ourselves how this art interacts with our values. Our guard is up, because our mind and heart are engaged. It is simply telling a story from the dark side of the human experience. "Pumped Up Kicks" reminds me of the depth of the human sin problem, which can and does lead to gruesome headlines, such as at Columbine High School in 1999. My heart is repulsed by the evil of the song, as it should be. Being reminded of the darkness of and profundity of human sin can serve a redemptive purpose.

If, however, we just mindlessly and uncritically listen it to it, we give it an opportunity to warp our minds and do violence to an unguarded spirit. I personally can't bring myself to sing the words, because it is written from the first person perspective of the (potential) murderer. I don't see how any thinking Christian could sing this song with enthusiasm. For that matter, I didn't watch the Passion of the Christ with much enjoyment either.

There are plenty of reasons not to listen to this song. You may find the imagery too repulsive to stomach, or you may just find it to be a bad song, but don't unthinkingly write it off as immoral and off limits. We are citizens of another Kingdom, but, for now, we reside in this world. It is full of darkness and light, sin and goodness. As long as we call each what it is, we're being faithful to God's goodness. The sort of violence imagined in "Pumped Up Kicks" is evil.

Isaiah 5:20 -- "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."

-------------------------------------------------------------

For another haunting but less cheery-sounding song, check out Sufjan Steven's "John Wayne Gacy, Jr.," a depiction of the famous Chicago serial killer who confessed, in 1978, to killing 33 young boys, most of whom were buried under the crawl space of his home. Most eerily, he was a professional clown who frequently entertained children. Steven's portrait of this real-life homicidal maniac is a bit more redemptive, as it calls the listener to "look beneath the floor board" of one's own heart to see what dark sin they might be hiding.

Blessings,

Charlie

P.S. Much thanks to my dear friend from Chicago, Mary Zaki, for helping me to think through this. Her sharp mind, tender spirit, and unusual appreciation for pop and indie music were very enlightening.