On Christian Industry

OK, think back to first grade. It's November and you're playing an Indian in a short play commemmorating Thanksgiving. Opposite you, most likely, are boys with buckles on their hats and girls with bonnets. These are hardy Christians. They've escaped persecution in their own land and have made the voyage prepared to work hard and go to church. These are the Puritans. Oh, we know all about them. Tough, hardy stock willing to work 20 hours a day to provide for their families and honor their god. That's cool. They're working to honor a biblical commandment to be industrious (this commandment, by the way, doesn't actually exist in the Bible, but let's not split hairs).

Now let's fast forward 400 years. Christians are working just as hard. They remain industrious. This industry, however, might surprise you. Did you know you can buy hundreds of Christian fiction and non-fiction titles at your local Christian bookstore? (Full disclosure: I actually worked in a Christian bookstore for two years when I was a young teenager.) Also at this bookstore you'll find exactly the Bible you're looking for. There are literally thousands of options. First, there are the translations (the actual text, of course, is the definition of public domain - to actually make some money, publishers have copyrighted their own translations).
You've got your KJV, your NIV, your RSV, your ASV, your Darby, your LB, your NEB, your NEV - oh, you get the idea. Next you have your bindings: soft or hard? Leather or cardboard? With or without a cover? Does your cover have a notepad? A pen and highlighter holder? Maybe it's a Precious Moments Bible (their figurines have been a Christian bookstore staple since the mid 1980s). Once again, you get the idea.

OK, we've got books to read. How about some music? Brother-in-Christ, you're in luck. We happen to have literally hundreds of thousands of titles for you. There's the "inspirational" market. These are recordings of songs you might sing at your local evangelical church. As a matter of fact, many of these recordings are tied to multi-media packages sold to churches to aid in weekly praise and worship. For only $125 your church group gets the rights, the music, the lyric sheets, and the PowerPoint slides for all twenty songs on this recording. Yep, you heard me right. If you attend a modern, evangelical church that has dropped hymns in favor of praise choruses, they're dropping a dime every time they sing "Our God is an Awesome God" (to SONY, incidentally - yep, SONY makes a killing every Sunday!). There's the "adult/contemporary" market. This healthy market (think hundreds of millions annually) serves the soccer moms, the dads who can't quite get away with being hip, and the church secretaries who would be advised to keep their hair up. Then, there's the "youth/rock/alternative/hip-hop/rap" market. We've now moved into the realm of billions of dollars a year. This is an industry that rivals many secular industries. Recordings, concerts, T-shirts, move tie-ins, radio rotation, you name it, they're selling it. And don't be mislead. These aren't acts that are playing the local Hyatt (or in this case, the local Our Mother of Grace). They're playing stadiums - really! Some have even crossed over (Amy Grant, Jars of Clay).

OK, what about movies? Well, although there has been a Christian movie industry for over thirty years, now, it wasn't really until the last couple of years that it had a stride to hit. Some heavy hitters have been the Left Behind series (starring a still-24-years-old-looking Kirk Cameron), The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe (this one was thinly veiled; although distributed by Disney, it was produced by Walden Media, a shill for the Christian industry for the last decade), and, of course, the behemoth that was The Passion of the Christ. Bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars, the Christian movie industry is becoming a heavy hitter.

There's more. Toys ("Armor of God" pajamas - complete with plastic, two-edged sword), TV (Pax network), clothing, furniture, etc. So, what's my beef here? What's the problem with all this? It's disingenuous; it's a market; it's no more holy than porn or plastic surgery. Many people aren't aware (including MANY Christians) that their money is not going to some worthy cause. It's actually going to SONY, Paramount, Vivendi, Columbia, and Disney (the Family Channel? Oy!). That $20 you spent for little Jimmy to have a cross-shaped nightlight? It just went to KaBee Toys. When your church sponsored mass-viewings of The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe? Yeah ... Disney (you remember Disney, don't you? Your Southern Baptist brethren have been boycotting them for twenty years over decency issues).

I have no problem with Christians and their churches succeeding and thriving. That's wonderful, well, at least it's fair and unobjectionable. But, just because there's a cross on the record label's logo doesn't mean that your money is supporting local Christian charities. At least in the secular world, there's no misunderstanding. We know who is getting our money and we're fine with that. Christians' money is going to the same place, they just don't know it. Christians are, by and large, buying a bill of Good Books.

On Fantasy and Sci Fi

Yep. I'm one of those weird people. I like to read about Orcs with maces,unwitting Princes-to-be with swords, and wizards with wands. I enjoy characters with names such as Elene, Aslan, and Aydrian from places such as Calormen, Carona, and Tar Valon. I'm a fantasy geek. I enjoy Sci Fi, too, but fantasy is my real love. I read multiple-volume stories such as The Chronicles of Narnia (7 books) and The Wheel of Time (12!). I watch movies such as Dragon Sword and The Princess Bride. I watch TV shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Stargate SG1. I play computer games such as Half Life 2 and Age of Mythology.

It all started in 3rd grade. A teacher read C. S. Lewis' The Magician's Nephew, the 6th book of The Chronicles of Narnia (which tells the story of Narnia's creation which is why many people read it first). Every second day or so she would read another chapter. I got totally caught up. Diggory and Polly were in the middle of a world where animals talked, iron grew from trees, and apples had healing qualities. It was amazing. My parents quickly bought me the whole series and I devoured it. To this day, I re-read each one every couple of years. Since then I've enjoyed lots of major epics like Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time, R. A. Salvatore's The Demonwars Saga, and, of course, Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and Rowling's Harry Potter.

So, what is it? Why am I so drawn to these stories that seem so far removed from reality? Well, the answer is partly in that question. I spend all day every day in reality. Sometimes I enjoy escaping. Fantasy writers tend to draw whole other worlds and civilizations. The good ones people these worlds with cultures, races, politics, and histories. These places can become quite alluring. Most fantasy is multi-volume due to its innate epic nature. This works because a good fantasy world is one to which I always want to return. Since I was a kid - and even now - I want to magically go to Narnia or Hogwarts. I want to see places like Cair Paravel or the Lone Islands.

But there's more than just escape. Good fantasy is like a mirror held up to our own world. With deep politics, religion, war, and cultures, fantasy can mimic modern problems and situations. If you think about it, St-Mere-Abelle is no more exotic sounding and seeming than Timbuktu or Siberia. The Red Dwarfs are just as intriguing as Geisha. The idea that Rand has been destined since he was born to save the human race is easily as fascinating as the Passion.

So fantasy writers have an opportunity to draw comparisons to the real world. Some, like Lewis, actually use allegory. By now, most people are aware that Aslan's lordship and sacrifice is analogous with Jesus' death and resurrection. Most writers aren't quite so heavy-handed. Nonetheless, parallels can be drawn between most of these stories and the world in which we live.

I have found that many fantasy fans are also history buffs. There seems to be some sort of affinity among us with anthropology and sociology. I've learned more about world history and conflict from fantasy books than I ever did from a history class!

Whatever it is, all I really know is that worlds are created that I want to revisit many times. I know that a book is really good when I want to read it again. And I do - I've re-read many, many of my favorites.

So, here is my humble list of favorites:

BOOKS:
The Chronicles of Narnia, C. S. Lewis
The Harry Potter series, J. K. Rowling (book 7 can't come fast enough!)
The Wheel of Time, Robert Jordan (I started reading these in 1994 and I'm waiting for the final book, Book 12, to come out)
The Demonwars Saga, R. A. Salvatore
The Godhead Trilogy, James Morrow
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, J. R. R. Tolkien

MOVIES:
Willow
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Star Wars (the original trilogy, of course)
Time Bandits
Back to the Future trilogy
Alien and Aliens
Hook
The Matrix

TV:
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Angel
Stargate SG1
Stargate Atlantis
Battlestar Gallactica (the new one, not the original or the one from the 80s)
Smallville

COMPUTER GAMES:
Civilization (2, 3, and 4)
Age of Empires
Age of Mythology
Half Life (1 and 2)
Jedi Knight

On Hollywood Crushes

Last night, having nothing short to watch on my DVR and knowing that I would still be up for a while, I headed down to our twelve HBO channels to see if anything might be interesting. I found "The Great Outdoors", an 80's comedy with John Candy and Dan Aykroyd. I had forgotten that this movie features an actress most people don't know, Lucy Deakins.

I know her from this movie as well as "The Boy Who Could Fly". I immediately remembered how much of a crush I had on her. So, I thought it might be fun to remember some more. No judging, now, I'm being candid. Crushes are, by definition, silly. And anyone who knows me knows that I can crush pretty hard.

First the heavies. These are the ones for whom I'm entitled a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card from Amanda:

Natalie Portman. I mean, come on! What else do I have to say?

Not sure when I first saw her. Before she became really famous, though. Beautiful, cute, smart, talented.

Alyson Hannigan. You know, Band Camp Girl. And, more importantly, Willow! What's not to love? Also beautiful, cute, smart, and talented.

And then there's Amy Acker. I only know her from "Angel", but, man alive! Beautiful, cute, smart, talented (see any pattern, yet? Is it any wonder I got Amanda?) .

There are many others. (What can I say? I've always loved the ladies!) Some from many years ago and some quite current. These are the girls that can get me to sit through a poor movie - multiple times!

Diane Franklin - Best known as Joan of Arc in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", but also the French exchange student in "Better Off Dead" with John Cusack. (I'm having trouble uploading any more pictures, for some reason.)

Jennifer Love Hewitt - Yeah, yeah, I know! Not sure when I first saw her. The crush was cemented with a late-90's teen flick called "Can't Hardly Wait".

Alyssa Milano - Major crush during the "Who's the Boss?" years. I actually had her poster on my wall. Not so much anymore, though.

Winona Ryder - Yep. Probably the baddest (as in not crispy clean) of my crushes. Way cool.

Kerri Green - "Lucas" and "The Goonies". Really simple and cute. SIDEBAR: When I was at Gibbs for a semester as a freshman, the girls in band used to call me Lucas because I was so short and insignificant. Yep, that's my life in a nutshell. And you wonder why I love directing so much!

Mary Stuart Masterson - This is one of those that goes in and out. I love her and will watch her again and again in "Heaven Help Us" with Andrew McCarthy but really have no use for her in "Some Kind of Wonderful" with Eric Stoltz.

Meg Ryan - I know she's America's sweetheart and all, but before all that, in "Joe Versus the Volcano", "Innerspace", "Top Gun", "When Harry Met Sally" - absolutely adorable.

So, there you go. As soon as I publish I'll think of five more (oh yeah, there's a whole bunch). Yours?

On Community and Nationality

When I was in school we'd have pep rallies to get everyone into the spirit before a big game. The mascot came out, our colors were strewn all over the gym, cheerleaders kicked their feet and cartwheeled (my favorite part, of course). But I never really understood it. I didn't get why everyone was so excited - or why we should be. At the time, I thought my lack of understanding was due to my aversion to sports. I didn't care if our soccer team won or lost, so what was there to get excited about? Oh, I'd have fun. I'd play all the ridiculous games during homecoming week. (You know, homecoming is still a concept I don't understand - who the hell is coming home?) Nonethless, I never cared much for our colors, our song, our teams, etc.

As I've gotten older, I find that I'm still ambivolent when it comes to these communities. Whether it's high school or college, or state or nation, I just don't think of myself or others in that way. Here in Florida I know plenty of Gators and plenty of Seminoles. Thery're all really nice people - they even get along. But when the two teams play each other I find myself swimming in a mire of orange & blue and garnet & gold (garnet? wtf?).

This holds over to America as well. I'm an American. And I'm glad I am. Really. But I think I'd be just as glad to be British or French or German. I won't go so far as to say I'd be just as glad to be Vietnamese or Indian because I honestly know so little about their cultures or struggles. All that said, I find myself just as ambivolent on July 4th. It's not that I don't care - I do. But I've never been one to wave a flag or recite a pledge (any more than I recited a creed when I was a Christian). Does this make me a bad American?

My father flew four tours in Vietnam as a helicoptor pilot - hell, it's what ultimately killed him. I should be feverish in my outward devotion to my nation, shouldn't I? But I'm not.

I think this is why I tend to be so against war. To personally support a war, one has to truly care about the outcome. I care, but not about that. I'm always that silly guy that feels sorry for the losers. I feel as much pain toward our suffering soldiers as I do toward theirs. It's all sad in my view.

I understand that we had to fight to win our nationhood. I know that we've had to fight to keep it. I get it. I know we must defend ourselves - that's one of the main reasons we pay taxes. Fine. But I don't feel a surge of patriotic pride when I see pictures of our soldiers on the ground in some faraway place.

My ultimate point is this: aren't we all just people? Does it really matter that I was born inside one set of borders and someone else within another? Are we really the greatest nation on the planet? What does that even mean?

I understand that there are people living under dictatorships and zealous regimes. And I'm sorry that they are. But that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about the apparent human need to belong to a community (ok, fine) and then zealously support that community (um, not so sure).

My friend, Jay, made a point in a comment to the post titled "On Faith". He said that he and Vicki had dicussed the fact that community theater feels a lot like a church community. I think that's really interesting. And I think I agree. So, I'm not just a member of the American community, but a member of the community theater community as well. Cool. But if it ever comes to oath-saying and flag-waving I'll probably bow out. I just don't see why the hell it matters which team I'm on. Who really cares other than the others on the same team?

On The War on Terror

War. Spears, arrows, pikes, horses, shields, muskets, artillery, tanks, machine guns, rockets, fighters, bombers, etc. You get it. War has taken the shape of massive armies lined up in massive files facing each other across fields. It's been huge sorties dug in to endless trenches hurling grenades. It's been dogfights in the skies as fighters desperately try to down scores of bombers headed for a single target. It's been small elite forces attacking under cover of night to assassinate a key politician. It's even been small arms fighting in torn up urban areas.

But there's another kind of war. The War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Illiteracy, and now the War on Terror. In this case, we've always been aware that the term "war" is really a misnomer. Obviously, there will be no smart bombs hurled at the homeless. We won't be sending the 7th Battalion capture the contestants of a spelling bee. We won't be sending ranks of tanks to the shipping lanes of the Gulf. We all get that. We understand that you can't really engage in a war on an ideal. It's impossible.

Our president, however, seems to have missed this day in class. His rhetoric is becoming dangerous because he's essentially mixing metaphors. He's using the real items of war to justify the state of a "war" on an ideal.

Think about it. Are we really ever destined to win the war on poverty? Of course not. The term developed as a figurative call to arms. It's function is to allow us to see a complicated situation in the simplest and most black-and-white manner. If we begin to see ourselves as the good guys and poverty as the bad guys, we can imagine taking up our weapons and marching to victory over the ideal of poverty. Get it? It's imagery.

Now, in the concrete world (as opposed to the abstract) war is something entirely different. There is (arguably) a beginning and an end. There's a way to keep a tally of deaths and injuries, targets eliminated, etc. The Geneva Convention concerns itself with the world-wide rules of concrete war. And here's where the Bush administration isn't playing fair. They're using the trappings of a concrete war as a justification for a figurative one.

Follow me. As the War on Terror (which began, first, as an attack on Afghanistan, continued through the invasion of Iraq, and now includes struggles in both those places as well as innumerable, seemingly unconnected events all over the globe) continues, Bush is using the concrete rules of engagement to justify treatment of prisoners, ownership of non-national infrastructure, and dealings with the press. But it's not a real war! He has said himself that he imagines the War on Terror will never actually end. In this he meant that it's a war on an ideal - a perpetual struggle to eliminate acts of terror (it should be noted that he and his cronies jumped all over John Kerry when he expressed exactly the same sentiment 2 years earlier). So Bush is having his cake and eating it too - and he's succeeding. A majority of Americans are content with the idea that we're at war ... and content that it may last forever!

Bush has successfully blurred the line between literal and figurative war. And those who are suffering are the thousands of prisoners being held without reason until it ends (you see, according to Bush it may never end!), the civilians suffering without infrastructure in Iraq (which is dealing with its own civil war), and Americans living with media which are playing softball so as not to subvert the war effort.

On Armageddon

Have you seen it yet? It's all over the 24-hour news channels and morning news shows. Folks, hold on to your hats, we may be staring down the barrell of Armageddon.

Armageddon is a hill top where a couple major battles have been fought and, according to Revelation 16:16, the final battle between Christ and the Anti-Christ will be fought. Marks of the Beast, Tribulations, and Raptures are on their way. For those who don't know:

Revelation is the last book of the official Christian Bible. Its author, John, had been exciled to a remote island. It's pretty well accepted that at some point during this time on the island John had a vivid fever dream. This dream, as written down in the Book of Revelation, is a masterpiece of prophecy, codes, number theory, and frightening imagery. Seven scrolls, Seven cups, the mark of the beast (which may not be "666" at all), four horsemen, 7 years of tribulation, 1000 year reign of Christ in New Jerusalem, dogs and cats sleeping together (sorry, that last is Bill Murray from Ghostbusters).

Anyway, I have absolutely no problem with the Book of Revelation. I do have a problem, however, with literalists with no sense of context or perspective.

Stick with me, here. The Jews had known only Roman occupation for a couple hundred years. Like their time in Egypt and the wilderness before, they were homeless and down-trodden. Among the many Messiahs that showed up to shine some light was Jesus. Jesus spent his time healing the sick and turning water into wine. As word spread that he had some miracle cred, lots of Jews began to believe that he might be a genuine Saviour (as in, get us the hell away from these Romans!). Suddenly, Jesus upped the ante. Instead of a kingdom for Jews he started talking about the kingdom of God and heaven. And as if that weren't enough, he started inviting Gentiles (non-Jews) along for the ride. After his death, thousands of Jews and Gentiles were left with only the memory of the man while the world around them still sucked ass (so to speak). Followers were being torured, thrown to lions, crucified, and burned alive. They weren't worrying about their mortgages or what school to send Timmy to. They were fearful for their lives. As the decades rolled on, Paul tried to keep the congregations of believers in all the major cities hopeful. He sent letters to Christians in Corinth, Athens, Thessalonica, etc. It was during this time that John had his fever dream. By using imagery that all these people knew very well from the prophets they'd read all their lives (like Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel), John conjured scenes of hell on earth before depicting heaven on earth. In other words, this apocalypse was not real. It was a study of extreme frustration and extreme hope meant to rally the believers. If someone had told John that 2000 years later literalists would actually be looking up for a glimpse of horsemen or protecting Israel's statehood at any cost just so his prophecy could be fulfilled, he'd have probably fainted (actually, it probably would have been enough to suggest that Israel actually had its own state).

There is no Anti-Christ or Beast. There is no mark. There are no scrolls and no cups. Those earthquakes John talked about? They've been going on steadily for the last couple of milennia. The "wars and rumors of wars"? Well, a common name for World War I at the time was actually Armageddon.

Go ahead, prepare for the end times. But have a little perspective. Heck, it was Jesus himself who said, "no man knows the day or the hour." Jesus' point was not to have a bunch of sheep bleating frightfully while literally waiting to be swept off of their feet (if you don't know anything about the Rapture, go look it up). He was trying to provide hope to a suffering people. He was trying to promote kindness, generosity, and humanity (yes, he really was the ultimate humanist).

And if I hear Falwell or Buchanan vie for Israel's rights one more time I'm gonna scream. Over 1,000 Lebaneze civillians are dead! The Second Coming is simply not a good enough reason to let this continue.

On Children

I can't deny it: I was once a child! Yes, my parents like millions of other couples decided to take on the onus of bearing and raising a child. I get it. I know that if they hadn't, I wouldn't be.

Now ...

There are many reasons to decide to have a child - some good, some not so good.

- There's the added tax benefit (not so good - the savings is offset by the costs of diapers, chocolate milk, car keys, and college).
- There's the joy they can bring (good - joy is always good).
- There's saving a marriage (not so good - what an incredible burden for that poor kid).
- There's leaving a legacy (in my opinion, not so good - I just don't get it).
- There's giving a child a sibling (good - two MUST be easier than one).
- There's finding out what he/she would look like (not so good - who cares?).
- There's fulfilling God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply (not so good - mission accomplished, folks; Christianiy is one of the top two in sheer numbers).
- There's natural law (not so good - just 'cause we can...).

There are others, I'm sure. For me, not one of these reasons interests me. I'm 33 and I still just don't care.

There are many reasons not to have a child - some good, some not so good.

- There's the cost (not so good - most parents find a way to make the finances work).
- There's the messiness and smell (good - and, yes, this is a legitimate, honest-to-god reason).
- There's the responsibility (good - way too many people don't consider the responsibility they're undertaking).
- There's the loss of personal time and freedom (not so good - every parent I've ever spoken to has said that they don't mind giving up some selfishness).
- There's the consideration of population (good - we really do seem to be over-populated).

There are others, I'm sure.

So, why don't I want to have a child?

I've pretty much known all of my life that I don't want to be a father. When I was younger, it was easier for my family to figure that my mind would change. As I've gotten older, though, I think they've begun to see that my mind isn't changing. I think they're concerned that I may be being stubborn - that I'm not open to the possibility. In a way, they're right. I constantly re-decide not to have children.

As I talk to others, read, or watch movies and TV, I've noticed that many people, at some point, have a bit of a "eureka moment". You know, Saul's walking down the road and sees a bright light in the sky and God tells him to change his name. It's that moment when they realize that they want to take another (NOT necessarily the next) step on the road of the human condition. That's great - more power to 'em ... but I still don't want kids.

The reasons are many and varied and, like those listed above, some are good and some are not so good. The biggest reason I don't want kids is because I want to continue to be selfish. I want to wake up late in the mornings. I want to spend my extra money on a DVD or a computer game. I want to be able to take a two month job in another state. I want to be able to leave my city and move to another for no really good reason. Also, and this is a big one, too, I don't want the responsibility. The thought of constantly looking out for the safety and well-being of a child is incredibly overwhelming. Sure, I'd be able to. Amanda and I would certainly rise to the challenge. Nonetheless, I choose not to open myself up to those worries and responsibilities. A related reason is money. I make the choice to work in theater and music. These are not industries that provide big wages. At some point, I'd have to give up my livelihood for the good of my family. Also related, I'd have to turn down many out of town jobs and multi-houred projects.

Then there are the social issues. Largest among these is my belief that there are lots of people who have kids who probably shouldn't. There's the obvious teen girls. These poor things get roped into a lifetime of responsibility while hanging their hope chest of dreams on some warty and horny 16-year-old boy. There are couples who don't love each other and have kids to try to make things better. This I can't even imagine. Who in their right mind would think that adding such a large responsibility and such pressure would actually make things better? World population needs are only met by massively industrial agriculture and intense social injustices.

There's more - so much more - that I have to say, but I'm having trouble putting it all together cogently. To pare it down to the basics: I don't want a kid. I never have. Others do and that's great. My mother has said once or twice that when I'm old I may regret this decision - and she's probably right - I've never been good at looking beyond my nose, as she'd say.

So, that's what I have for you. Take it for whatever it may be worth.

On Faith

Faith is a peculiar and difficult thing. Modern faith operates next to/opposed to modern science and thought. Both seem to be able to swim the crests and dips on the tossed sea of human experience.

Faith for me has a couple of sides. The first side is the one I grew up with. I was born into a pretty typical American Christian household, with a mother and father who closely followed the evangelical Christian faith. (It's important to note that the evangelical versions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are essentially a modern, 20th century invention.) As I grew up and became aware of myself and the world around me, I quickly surpassed my parents in my zeal for my faith. This wasn't simply a teen choosing to be a Christian because his parents had. This was true faith - unshakeable and unfaltering. I threw myself into my local church activities and into the study of the bible. I developed meaningful friendships of which Christianity was the central theme. I played, wrote, and, on a couple of occasions, even sermonized. I held positions of leadership in more than one local church.

How, then, did I come to be such a faithless, skeptical person? Two reasons: homosexuality and my father's death.

One of the major tenets of my particular brand of Christianity was the infallible nature of God's word (the bible). Put simply, the bible is the inspired word of God and is therefore as infallible as He is. Sure, it was written and compiled by men, but it was God who made it happen. The extreme result of this belief is an uncomfortably literal translation of the bible. Obviously, one of the many modern issues on which the bible was pretty clear was homosexuality. Certainly, the law (the first bunch of books in the Old Testament) was clear. So, too, was the New Testament. Jesus and Paul both referred to the sinfulness of homosexuality. This wasn't a problem as I was growing up because I understood that a homosexual isn't born with those tendencies but, for lack of a better term, chooses them. As I got closer to more friends in theater, however, things became difficult. A few key conversations with some trusted gay friends began to convince me that homosexuals have no choice in their lifestyle - except to embrace who they naturally are or spend a lifetime denying a very important part of themselves. I had a problem. This simply did not gel with the bible. The first nail in the coffin had been struck.

Around this time my dad collapsed from a burst anuerism in his head. He spent the next four months in a coma and the next three years as a veritable vegetable until cancer in his stomach (from exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam) finally took its toll. For most people of faith, a time like this highlights the need for that faith. A person's faith often carries them through such stark difficulties. For whatever reason, it didn't for me. Perhaps it was because at the time I was already questioning my faith. Or, perhaps, I simply needed something other than vague uplifting platitudes to help me understand the full nature of my loss. Whatever the reason, my faith had suffered its second major, and in this case, fatal blow.

I say all that to say this. I believe I have a unique perspective on the subject of faith. I'm certainly not the first person to have two distinct periods of life with and without faith. Nonetheless, I have many non-religious friends who've never had faith at all. And many friends who've never gone without.

Only a person who has experienced faith can understand it. Those who haven't simply can't. Faith cannot be explained. It cannot be copied. It cannot be approximated. Faith, in my opinion, is a daily choice to live and believe a certain way with no rational, scientific reason whatsoever. In our modern world where science and reason are king, faith can seem quaint, simple, even laughable. I'm ashamed to admit that for a while I felt that those with faith were experiencing life on crutches. They had chosen to hold on to some phantom of an ideal instead of facing the world and each day with the spectacles of science and reason.

I have since grown to learn that many people of faith aren't weak or lacking in reason. The faithful can ceratinly behave like a bunch of sheep, but so, too, can those without faith. Faith is a choice. Like love, one can easily slip in and out of it. To hold on to faith in the face of adversity is a strong choice. It's a choice made every day.

I make a choice every day, as well. I choose to look at the historical record to understand the world around me. I choose to inspect humanity's great triumphs and mistakes to inform my worldview. Is this a better choice? A stronger one? Perhaps. But most people of faith don't engage the world in a vacuum. They're aware of the church's shortcomings and inconsistencies. Nevertheless, they make a choice to continue down the road of their choosing - and for that I applaud them. Problems arise, of course, when church leaders are followed blindly and without a healthy dose of skepticism. Those of us who operate without faith are no strangers to skepticism. We adopt a skeptical view of everything we encounter. For me, it's a safe and illuminating way to live. But who am I to say that someone else's methods aren't as keen?

My next article is going to deal with the modern American evangelical church and it's political maneuverings. I thought it was important before I posted to make it clear that I'll be referring to the "Church" and not those individuals of faith who make up the church's body.

As always, please tell me what you think.